Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Hmm; while I'd welcome Jeb Bush to the cause, I'm not particularly sure I want to stand side-by-side with Putin, Cruz and Trump.
Jeb Bush did not back Leave as such, he just said he would do a trade deal with a UK outside the EU. Bush Snr was very pro EU and wanted to see a reunited Germany take the lead
There's been acres of coverage on Sky re deaths from cattle tramping. Walkers demanding farmers do more
How? These people are using footpaths often with dogs cross fields full of cattle and young. Being ignorant of the behaviour of beasts weighing hundreds of pounds strikes me as stupid.
On the BBC today, a spokesman for the WWF spoke at length about the benefits (to the tiger) of their plan to increase the tiger numbers. Not one word about the risks. That's because to the middle class people who support this group aren't affected by the downside. Classic BBC.
From Wiki .."
"Tiger attacks are an extreme form of human–wildlife conflict which occur for various reasons and have claimed more human lives than attacks by any of the other big cats. The most comprehensive study of deaths due to tiger attacks estimates that at least 373,000 people died due to tiger attacks between 1800 and 2009, the majority of these attacks occurring in South and Southeast Asia.[1] In Southeast Asia, attacks gradually declined after peaking in the nineteenth century, but attacks in South Asia have remained high, particularly in the Sundarbans."
I understand that the little brown babies won't eat themselves but why not introduce tigers to Islington? Or would that be too close to home?
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
Yes, that'd be my reading (as I think I implied in an earlier post). Building up the resources and committing the necessary personnel to a successful invasion of Britain - which itself would have been highly risky - would have delayed the Soviet invasion until at least 1943. And as the Soviet invasion was always the whole point of the war from Hitler's point of view, safer to risk a second front in 1941 with Britain posing no serious threat than to delay matters so long.
Re the fleet, I think it'd have been necessary to commit such resources simply as a delaying device. Certainly, the Kreigsmarine could have tried to deploy U-boat screens for the RN big ships sailing from the northern bases but if you have Bismarck in your fleet then what's it for if not taking on its opposite numbers in a point where you won't have air cover? But such a mission would have been close to suicide.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Hmm; while I'd welcome Jeb Bush to the cause, I'm not particularly sure I want to stand side-by-side with Putin, Cruz and Trump.
Jeb Bush did not back Leave as such, he just said he would do a trade deal with a UK outside the EU. Bush Snr was very pro EU and wanted to see a reunited Germany take the lead
Of he'd do a trade deal. The US would hand the UK the same trade deal it handed Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea: the TPP. If we were lucky (which we probably would be), we could piggy back onto TIPP, which is better than TPP in a couple of ways.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Hmm; while I'd welcome Jeb Bush to the cause, I'm not particularly sure I want to stand side-by-side with Putin, Cruz and Trump.
Speaking with some of my US acquaintances and in-laws recently, the penny is starting to drop among some of them as to how the EU has changed.
The traditional US argument of the 'UK as our man on the inside' no longer works very well. When the EU was 9 or 12 and the veto still existed, it had some force. With the EU now 28, no vetoes and the Eurozone proceeding to a federal future regardless of what the UK says, the argument is increasingly weak if not irrelevant.
One my less clued-up in-laws was genuinely perplexed at first by my attitudes to the EU - 'but you guys run this show, right? They listen to you'.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
I look forward to an appeal to the ECJ on this plus an army of comedians challenging Merkel to do it again.
Really doesn't look good where a German leader abandons one of her citizens because of fear of what another leader might do.
The power of the great and good over the little people. Kind of sums up the EU doesn't it.
Merkel's having some kind of breakdown. Or she's suffering from a degenerative disease.
We never see Herr Merkel . He's not Peter Bone or Michael Gove is he by any chance? It might explain her actions over the past 12 months.
I think Mrs Merkel is just evidence that "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."
Judging by Twitter this has kicked off a total firestorm in Germany. Absolute hatred and contempt being spat at Merkel, by Germans.
Just as I thought AfD were losing momentum something like this happens.
I seriously wonder if Merkel's career could end right here.
It should. We can now add freedom of speech to he price of her brainfart last year, on top of all the rest.
She has an election to fight next year (or the CDU has). You have to wonder whether the CSU might decide to up sticks from its long-term relationship with the CDU - it's not the same party after all.
Turnout at 62% is an interesting prediction. Makes sense, but if it is that low each campaign and GOTV operation will matter.
I heard a phone-in last night and though they tried to alternate between the two sides it was clear that all the passion and anger was with the Leavers.
Not surprising that those wanting change should show most passion but what really struck me was how random it was. You felt they needed to sit down and take a deep breath and collect their thoughts.
It's odd that people should feel so passionate about something so peripheral but it's clear they do. If someone could channel it all into a coherent argument it would be quite a force
It's interesting that a massive presumption of Leave has been that they have the most motivated supporters and that could sway it on turnout. Surely the majority of Leave's support comprises the uneducated, the despairing and the resentful - just the sort of people who can't be bothered to get their backsides off the sofa on the day. I can foresee vast hordes of Remainers striding diligently to the polling booths after a hard day's work, while the Leavers just mope around the house.
The quality of your trolling in the last few days has been truly excellent.
All the "remain" posters are getting quite good at it, @thescreamingeagles and @AlastairMeeks have indeed gone from strength to strength...
@Richard_Nabavi 's posts aren't generally liked by "Leavers" but he does at least try and astudiously avoid trolling the site.
Just remember I will be editing PB from the 30th of May through to the 20th of June.
So most of the final few weeks of the referendum campaign.
I'm going to have a lot of fun.
I hope you also behave yourself.
I'll edit PB in my usual style.
There's no point me churning out propaganda, or ignoring bad news.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
I look forward to an appeal to the ECJ on this plus an army of comedians challenging Merkel to do it again.
Really doesn't look good where a German leader abandons one of her citizens because of fear of what another leader might do.
The power of the great and good over the little people. Kind of sums up the EU doesn't it.
Merkel's having some kind of breakdown. Or she's suffering from a degenerative disease.
We never see Herr Merkel . He's not Peter Bone or Michael Gove is he by any chance? It might explain her actions over the past 12 months.
I think Mrs Merkel is just evidence that "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Not really.
Yesterday's president and Billary back remain, meanwhile Trump, Cruz, Jebb Bush, John Bolton and most republicans back leave. Corporatists and Statists support staying in isn't exactly a shocker.
Hmm; while I'd welcome Jeb Bush to the cause, I'm not particularly sure I want to stand side-by-side with Putin, Cruz and Trump.
Jeb Bush did not back Leave as such, he just said he would do a trade deal with a UK outside the EU. Bush Snr was very pro EU and wanted to see a reunited Germany take the lead
Of he'd do a trade deal. The US would hand the UK the same trade deal it handed Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea: the TPP. If we were lucky (which we probably would be), we could piggy back onto TIPP, which is better than TPP in a couple of ways.
Indeed but that is not the same as clearly backing Leave
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
I look forward to an appeal to the ECJ on this plus an army of comedians challenging Merkel to do it again.
Really doesn't look good where a German leader abandons one of her citizens because of fear of what another leader might do.
The power of the great and good over the little people. Kind of sums up the EU doesn't it.
Merkel's having some kind of breakdown. Or she's suffering from a degenerative disease.
We never see Herr Merkel . He's not Peter Bone or Michael Gove is he by any chance? It might explain her actions over the past 12 months.
I think Mrs Merkel is just evidence that "All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs."
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Given there has never been a single serious suggestion by a single serious Eurosceptic politician that we should become a 51st state, I would suggest you are talking rubbish again. Yet another Eurofanatical strawman.
Not explicitly perhaps, but the direction of travel wasn't difficult to discern. When the US stationed her Cruise missiles here it was done so without a treaty - unheard of in international and military diplomacy - so we can see where Thatcher was inclining. And I speak as someone who was and is seriously in favour of the US nukes.
I am still deeply embarrassed by the Fall of Singapore.
No matter how many times I read that story, it's just one incompetent blunder after another combined with supreme arrogance.
Probably we never could have 'held' there for good, particularly with resources stretched elsewhere and such a limited airforce, but was a terrible disgrace to British arms.
I've often said The Fall of Singapore is the UK's second most shameful episode in British Military History.
We effectively sent troops over there, just so they could surrender and be captured by the Japanese.
That's not true: Churchill expected them to fight. It was the general in command who let the side down.
Perhaps their position was ultimately untenable to the attack that was launched but if so, there's no disgrace in defeat; there is disgrace in an unforced surrender.
I am profoundly irritated by foreigners lecturing me on what I should think is best for me by way of my constitutional arrangements. However a work colleague mentioned Obama to me and seemed to place weight on his view. I committed an entire commute journey to trying to talk her round.
I can think of a few who might have been more anti-British:
“Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country,” Farage said.
Leave must be miffed by Obama's endorsement of Remain. Historically the aim of euro-scepticism was to turn Britain into the 51st state. This was prevailing view in the 1970s and 1980s. I suspect it was an end-of-Empire thing: the hangover was still acute, we saw the US as the great anglophone superpower and wanted to be a cog in that machine as a way of reliving past glories. But now America is in decline anyway and Obama has made it clear he neither wants nor needs us. This leaves Leave a bit out on a limb. Where now is the crucial question.
Given there has never been a single serious suggestion by a single serious Eurosceptic politician that we should become a 51st state, I would suggest you are talking rubbish again. Yet another Eurofanatical strawman.
Not explicitly perhaps, but the direction of travel wasn't difficult to discern. When the US stationed her Cruise missiles here it was done so without a treaty - unheard of in international and military diplomacy - so we can see where Thatcher was inclining. And I speak as someone who was and is seriously in favour of the US nukes.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
Failing to take Malta was a big mistake. Combined with Ultra intelligence, very few German supply conveys got through to North Africa unscathed.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
I can think of a few who might have been more anti-British:
“Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country,” Farage said.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
To be fair, Merkel is only applying a (rather odd) law that already existed in Germany.
She's not even doing that. She's simply and quite reasonably pointing out that the job of applying the law is for the courts, not the government, and so it's not for her to decide. Frankly, it's hard to see how she could have decided otherwise.
@DH - Wargame after war-game and study after study has convinced me the Germans could not have been successful in Sealion even if they'd won the Battle of Britain.
They simply didn't have the shipping or protection to escort a large landing force and, even if heavy losses occurred, the intervention of the Royal Navy amongst the rickety invasion fleet would have been decisive
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
That always strikes me as one of the great what ifs of WW2. For a tenth of the resources committed to Barbarossa the Germans could have been in Baghdad let alone Cairo with as much oil as they could possibly want.
And as Roberts says we would indeed have been stuffed.
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
Yes, that'd be my reading (as I think I implied in an earlier post). Building up the resources and committing the necessary personnel to a successful invasion of Britain - which itself would have been highly risky - would have delayed the Soviet invasion until at least 1943. And as the Soviet invasion was always the whole point of the war from Hitler's point of view, safer to risk a second front in 1941 with Britain posing no serious threat than to delay matters so long.
Re the fleet, I think it'd have been necessary to commit such resources simply as a delaying device. Certainly, the Kreigsmarine could have tried to deploy U-boat screens for the RN big ships sailing from the northern bases but if you have Bismarck in your fleet then what's it for if not taking on its opposite numbers in a point where you won't have air cover? But such a mission would have been close to suicide.
Yes, at the end of the day the Germans didn't have the time or resources to build a capital fleet to seriously challenge the Royal Navy. They focussed on a modern air force and army instead.
It takes at least 2 years to build a destroyer, and 4-5 years to build a battleship and they are very expensive.
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
Failing to take Malta was a big mistake. Combined with Ultra intelligence, very few German supply conveys got through to North Africa unscathed.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
Saying "if he hadn't invaded Russia" is rather like saying "if he hadn't had an obsession with Jews". It was so central to his core beliefs that it's simply not credible to exclude the objective.
Merkel is now, quite justifiably, an international figure of ridicule and contempt. Germany appears to be going through some kind of psychosis; France is flirting with the Far-Right. The rest of Europe will soon be looking towards Britain as the only sane major European power left. Take control Dave! We need your steady hand on the tiller. The EU could become our second Empire.
German leader says you can't poke fun at other world leaders. Well that one is going to play well......
To be fair, Merkel is only applying a (rather odd) law that already existed in Germany.
She's not even doing that. She's simply and quite reasonably pointing out that the job of applying the law is for the courts, not the government, and so it's not for her to decide. Frankly, it's hard to see how she could have decided otherwise.
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
Failing to take Malta was a big mistake. Combined with Ultra intelligence, very few German supply conveys got through to North Africa unscathed.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
Saying "if he hadn't invaded Russia" is rather like saying "if he hadn't had an obsession with Jews". It was so central to his core beliefs that it's simply not credible to exclude the objective.
Yes, of course, but it's a question of timing objectives and priorities. He could have decided to defeat Britain in 1942 and then go for Russia in 1943.
I can think of a few who might have been more anti-British:
“Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country,” Farage said.
Judging by Twitter this has kicked off a total firestorm in Germany. Absolute hatred and contempt being spat at Merkel, by Germans.
Indeed. An utter disgrace.
Now imagine being subject to QMV on home affairs issues, including press freedom, with a group of countries with similar laws and who impose an EU wide law making such satire a crime. Think it might not happen? Why wouldn't it? With greater integration that is the risk.
What it comes down to is air power. The Normandy landings were possible because the Allies had effective air supremacy. For Germany to have mounted a successful invasion in 1941 would have meant keeping the Battle of Britain going throughout the winter of 1940/1 to drive the RAF from the skies. Had they done that - and it's possible - then I think a successful German invasion could have been mounted.
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
Personally, I don't think so. The German Navy was down to 10-11 capital ships after the Battle of Norway against a huge RN surface fleet. Plus they hadn't the transports to carry the heavy kit to overwhelm the British Army.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
Failing to take Malta was a big mistake. Combined with Ultra intelligence, very few German supply conveys got through to North Africa unscathed.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
Saying "if he hadn't invaded Russia" is rather like saying "if he hadn't had an obsession with Jews". It was so central to his core beliefs that it's simply not credible to exclude the objective.
Yes, of course, but it's a question of timing objectives and priorities. He could have decided to defeat Britain in 1942 and then go for Russia in 1943.
Didn’t Hitler hope until quite late to come to some sort of accomodation with UK?
However, it would have put at risk huge amounts of German war material - virtually every capital ship would have been needed in the North Sea, for example, and might well have been lost - and probably delayed the Soviet invasion by at least two years because different hardware investment decisions would have been needed. As the Soviet invasion was always Hitler's endgame, it didn't make much sense to concentrate on Britain so heavily.
And the weather in the Channel is bloody awful. Two to three days of cloud cover and the Luftwaffe would have been almost ineffective.
I don't say they couldn't have done it but only IMHO had they focussed on the defeat of Britain throughout 1941 and 1942 in building up the resources to do it, and not invaded the Soviet Union. Or at least not with quite the same ambitions.
Of course, by 1941, the army had largely recovered from its serious reverse of 1940 and the Home Islands were heavily reinforced.
I saw Andrew Roberts speak at a dinner (he was excellent), and he made the point that the UK was utterly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. If - he postulated - the Nazis had reinforced North Africa and driven down through Egypt to our oil fields, we'd have been completely stuffed.
Failing to take Malta was a big mistake. Combined with Ultra intelligence, very few German supply conveys got through to North Africa unscathed.
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
Saying "if he hadn't invaded Russia" is rather like saying "if he hadn't had an obsession with Jews". It was so central to his core beliefs that it's simply not credible to exclude the objective.
Yes, of course, but it's a question of timing objectives and priorities. He could have decided to defeat Britain in 1942 and then go for Russia in 1943.
Didn’t Hitler hope until quite late to come to some sort of accomodation with UK?
He always hoped to. He thought the British Empire was a wonderful thing, and recognised that our strategic enemies were also his strategic enemies.
I remember a round-table discussion in the early nineties on one of the late night TV shows, or maybe it was a special. IIRC it involved Alan Clark, John Charmley, Roberts? and one or two others. The majority opinion was we should have accepted the New Order in 1940/1 and patched up our difference with Adolf...
Comments
How? These people are using footpaths often with dogs cross fields full of cattle and young. Being ignorant of the behaviour of beasts weighing hundreds of pounds strikes me as stupid.
Re the fleet, I think it'd have been necessary to commit such resources simply as a delaying device. Certainly, the Kreigsmarine could have tried to deploy U-boat screens for the RN big ships sailing from the northern bases but if you have Bismarck in your fleet then what's it for if not taking on its opposite numbers in a point where you won't have air cover? But such a mission would have been close to suicide.
The traditional US argument of the 'UK as our man on the inside' no longer works very well. When the EU was 9 or 12 and the veto still existed, it had some force. With the EU now 28, no vetoes and the Eurozone proceeding to a federal future regardless of what the UK says, the argument is increasingly weak if not irrelevant.
One my less clued-up in-laws was genuinely perplexed at first by my attitudes to the EU - 'but you guys run this show, right? They listen to you'.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36040060
She has an election to fight next year (or the CDU has). You have to wonder whether the CSU might decide to up sticks from its long-term relationship with the CDU - it's not the same party after all.
I think they are going to repeal that section though.
Hopefully the courts will throw the case out.
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1035
Merkel has allowed the case on the grounds that it is for the courts to decide on the interpretation of the law, not the government.
I can't see a conviction, mind.
Perhaps their position was ultimately untenable to the attack that was launched but if so, there's no disgrace in defeat; there is disgrace in an unforced surrender.
“Mercifully, this American president, who is the most anti-British American president there has ever been, won’t be in office for much longer, and I hope will be replaced by somebody rather more sensible when it comes to trading relationships with this country,” Farage said.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/15/nigel-farage-barack-obama-is-most-anti-british-us-president-in-history?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
That would have been under NATO.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
The intelligent among us will notice how the narrator says in certain instances the figures are "disputed" (by up to a factor of five).
And he's quite right to do so. All historical events should be subject to the scientific method.
Not to laws or social pressure to conform to just one interpretation that suits a particular group...
If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, a lot might have been different, but he was desperate to win his war quickly and was worried he wouldn't otherwise live to see it.
"the most anti-British American president there has ever been"
I assume what is meant is
"the most anti-British American president during the TV era".
I could name a few during the 18th and 19th century who were rather more anti-British. Even the early 20th century.
And as Roberts says we would indeed have been stuffed.
It takes at least 2 years to build a destroyer, and 4-5 years to build a battleship and they are very expensive.
Hitler's priorities were elsewhere.
Now imagine being subject to QMV on home affairs issues, including press freedom, with a group of countries with similar laws and who impose an EU wide law making such satire a crime. Think it might not happen? Why wouldn't it? With greater integration that is the risk.
I remember a round-table discussion in the early nineties on one of the late night TV shows, or maybe it was a special. IIRC it involved Alan Clark, John Charmley, Roberts? and one or two others. The majority opinion was we should have accepted the New Order in 1940/1 and patched up our difference with Adolf...