''Just a little reminder Britain fought Germany for three years before the USA became involved. Cameron should have said it in Siberia, where 20 million died, killed by ermm..Russians.''
We have Japan to thank for the US getting into the war. Before Pearl Harbor, the mood of America was staunchly anti-fighting. Indeed, if Roosevelt hadn;t matched his opponents anti war rhetoric he might well have lost in the election leading up to it.
Pearl Harbour convinced the Americans there was no staying out. It wasn't an option. If they didn't find war, war would find them.
No we have Hilter to thank, the idiot declared war on the US for no reason post Pearl Harbour. If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific. While this would have helped the UK which was fighting on two fronts it wouldn't have defeated Germany. It's 50:50 whether Germany or the Soviet Union would have won the European ground war.
I know Sea Lion was the proposed operation to invade Britain, which required the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain (which, of course, they did not). Was Barbarossa the Nazi invasion of Russia?
Britain was facing an ageing population crisis. And Labour solved it, the percentage of over 65's stayed at 16% between 2001 and 2011.
Absolutely correct apart from the fact that between before 1945 there had been no majority Labour government in office to influence birth rates.
You'll find the discussion is about percentages not absolutes. Are you joining the PB Stats Geniuses Mortality team, we all lost five days trying to explain that one to the primary school intellects
Since when have you been the arbiter of the scope of discussions? .... except of course where the need for expert knowledge of Cheshire farming is concerned !!
TGOHF -Remakes only work if you can improve the original . In this respect it is not possible to improve Where Eagles dare imho and so a remake would be a criminal action
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Indeed so.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
Not seen the new Star Trek film but I cannot believe it's better than Wrath of Khan. Likewise, the original Star Wars trilogy is miles better than the prequel.
Anyone else embarrassed by Cameron's Hugh Grant like speech? The issue is whether anyone bothers to listen to us anymore. I don't know the answer, but for Cameron to go on about all the things we did in the dim and distant past is just silly. It doesn't answer the question. Maybe as a conservative he'd rather rather live in the past but for most of us it's the present and the future we care about.
I don't know, maybe this is what voters want. A bit of silly jingoistic tub thumping pulling on the heartstrings. Personally I'd prefer a serious politician who understands what our role in the world is and how we can be effective. Has anyone considered how this will be interpreted in the rest of the world? It'll just reinforce what a joke we are, living off our past successes blithely ignoring how we'll soon be dominated by the emerging powers. I think it's unfair, most British people are far more attuned to the present than we get credit for but idiots like Cameron hardly help.
TGOHF -Remakes only work if you can improve the original . In this respect it is not possible to improve Where Eagles dare imho and so a remake would be a criminal action
That hasn't stopped Hollywood before - I can see them casting Colin Farrell in the Clint role and Hugh Jackman as Burton.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Roosevelt was having a rough time giving help to the UK, post Pearl Harbour the US public and General Staff wanted all out war with Japan. While it is possible that the USA may have gone to war with Germany later it wouldn't have been in 1942 if Hitler hadn't made it easy for them, I think it's a moot point whether Hitler might have won the E Front ground war by the time they entered.
It is my understanding that Germany had to delay Operation Barbarossa and lose the advantage more non winter months for invasion thanks to the British frustrating the Italians in Greece, thus Germany had to step in and divert men. Don't know if the Soviets needed to thank the British or the Italians for that one.
TGOHF -Remakes only work if you can improve the original . In this respect it is not possible to improve Where Eagles dare imho and so a remake would be a criminal action
That hasn't stopped Hollywood before - I can see them casting Colin Farrell in the Clint role and Hugh Jackman as Burton.
If only, I'm sure Hollywood would insist on at least one role be played by Julia Roberts...!
TGOHF -Remakes only work if you can improve the original . In this respect it is not possible to improve Where Eagles dare imho and so a remake would be a criminal action
That hasn't stopped Hollywood before - I can see them casting Colin Farrell in the Clint role and Hugh Jackman as Burton.
If only, I'm sure Hollywood would insist on at least one role be played by Julia Roberts...!
I have no objection to her playing "Heidi" the beer wench.
It is my understanding that Germany had to delay Operation Barbarossa and lose the advantage more non winter months for invasion thanks to the British frustrating the Italians in Greece, thus Germany had to step in and divert men. Don't know if the Soviets needed to thank the British or the Italians for that one.
There's a view that if Hitler had waited until Spring 1942 he'd have completely rolled up the Soviet Union in the following 6-8 months. Stalin never believed the Nazi's would attack despite extensive intelligence to the contrary.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Roosevelt was having a rough time giving help to the UK, post Pearl Harbour the US public and General Staff wanted all out war with Japan. While it is possible that the USA may have gone to war with Germany later it wouldn't have been in 1942 if Hitler hadn't made it easy for them, I think it's a moot point whether Hitler might have won the E Front ground war by the time they entered.
Once the Soviet Union failed to collapse in the first few weeks after June 22nd 1941, I don't think the Germans could have ever have won a complete victory. They might have managed a draw that left them in occupation of some parts of Soviet territory.
simonstclare-- Not that I condone a remake but Where Eagles Dare did have some forward progressive thinking in the original with the girls doing a good deal of Nazi wasting as well
Thsi is getting into one of those ' I know more about World War 2' than you threads!
Tim started it with his jibe about Cameron lecturing Russians about Nazis.
Basil: Is there something wrong? Elder Herr: Will you stop talking about the war? Basil: Me! You started it! Elder Herr: We did not start it! Basil: Yes you did — you invaded Poland.
I know Sea Lion was the proposed operation to invade Britain, which required the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain (which, of course, they did not). Was Barbarossa the Nazi invasion of Russia?
Sea Lion required much more than the Luftwaffe winning the Battle of Britain. Basically, they only started implementing the plan at the last minute, and they had not prepared the necessary materials. The Rhine Barges they were planning to cross in were hardly ideal for the task.
AFAICR, the army wanted a massively broad front with 40 divisions on the south coast, whilst the Kriegsmarine only felt they could keep a narrow channel open across the channel and supply a much smaller army. In the end the Kriegsmarine won (as they had to), after which the army were considerably less keen on the invasion.
Hitler never really wanted to invade the UK; if he had he would have prepared (e.g. built proper landing craft) before 1939. If that had happened, we would have been in a very different situation.
Timothy Snyder's book "Bloodlands" about the experience of Eastern Europe at the hands of both the Nazis and the Soviets between the end of WW1 and the end of WW2 is a very good - if harrowing - read.
As far as those countries are concerned, the Russians have nothing to be proud about and much to be ashamed about. Their role in defeating Hitler has allowed them to obscure the very great harm they caused to the peoples of these areas both before, during and after WW2.
One thing I learnt was that surprisingly little actual Russian territory was invaded by the Nazis. The vast majority of the fighting and suffering occurred in Byelorussia and Ukraine and Poland.
Lots of people have made serious errors in judging Great Britain by its size..
I often think Britain's size is an understated factor in its history. Plenty of what drove the empire was simply lack of Lebensraum here for ambitious low born people.
Would the debate on immigration today be so fierce if Britain had, say double the landmass it has?
Talking of Guardian angst, the recent spate of soul-searching, backbiting, in-fighting, wonkish introspection, recriminations, and sheer unbridled looniness, over Femen has been absolutely hilarious. Here's a flavour, but there's plenty more like this:
Anyone else embarrassed by Cameron's Hugh Grant like speech? The issue is whether anyone bothers to listen to us anymore. I don't know the answer, but for Cameron to go on about all the things we did in the dim and distant past is just silly. It doesn't answer the question. Maybe as a conservative he'd rather rather live in the past but for most of us it's the present and the future we care about.
I don't know, maybe this is what voters want. A bit of silly jingoistic tub thumping pulling on the heartstrings. Personally I'd prefer a serious politician who understands what our role in the world is and how we can be effective. Has anyone considered how this will be interpreted in the rest of the world? It'll just reinforce what a joke we are, living off our past successes blithely ignoring how we'll soon be dominated by the emerging powers. I think it's unfair, most British people are far more attuned to the present than we get credit for but idiots like Cameron hardly help.
The point about the Hugh Grant speech was that it was made in the presence of an American president and addressed the whole poodle idea. No-one seriously believes that we are Russia's poodle. You'd have hoped that a British PM would be a bit more secure than to harp back into history, however proud we rightly are of the specific part of it referred to. And as for inventing everything; if he did say that, it's just a bit silly - even if we did!
Mr. Taffys, not just size, but also island status. Good for defence.
I'm reading Christopher Allmand's The Hundred Years War, and just gotten to a bit about mercenaries. Apparently the English were very dominant in the Italian 15th century mercenary scene. It wasn't just lowborn chaps, though. Lesser nobility and younger sons had prestige but little hope of a proper inheritance, which encouraged them to try and win wealth for themselves.
Stalin never believed the Nazi's would attack despite extensive intelligence to the contrary.
Even when the offensive had started Stalin refused to believe it!
There is something slightly comical about a man like Stalin trusting Hitler of all people.
He didn't trust him. He just underestimated him. He thought that Hitler was looking for economic and territorial concessions from the Soviets, rather than aiming for their destruction.
Cameron should have said nothing. At most a witty put down, maybe about the weather.
Britain definitely suffers from looking back too much.
Obviously 1939-45 is over used as an example, but the 1960s also. Personally, I am fed up of ageing rockers from 50 years ago appearing on national events.
Back on topic, I think all the calls for state funding of parties is missing one important point - we don't actually need political parties. We need people to stand for election to become MPs, councillors, police commissioners etc but we don't seem to have any shortage of those currently. If those people want to form voluntary associations with other like minded people that is a matter for them and them alone. If these groups want to spend lots of money then they need to raise lots of money themselves. If they can't then they don't get to spend it (I can see why that concept might be tricky for some in parliament..). I can't see how we would be worse off if political parties generally went bust and disappeared.
Anyone else embarrassed by Cameron's Hugh Grant like speech? The issue is whether anyone bothers to listen to us anymore. I don't know the answer, but for Cameron to go on about all the things we did in the dim and distant past is just silly. It doesn't answer the question. Maybe as a conservative he'd rather rather live in the past but for most of us it's the present and the future we care about.
I don't know, maybe this is what voters want. A bit of silly jingoistic tub thumping pulling on the heartstrings. Personally I'd prefer a serious politician who understands what our role in the world is and how we can be effective. Has anyone considered how this will be interpreted in the rest of the world? It'll just reinforce what a joke we are, living off our past successes blithely ignoring how we'll soon be dominated by the emerging powers. I think it's unfair, most British people are far more attuned to the present than we get credit for but idiots like Cameron hardly help.
The point about the Hugh Grant speech was that it was made in the presence of an American president and addressed the whole poodle idea. No-one seriously believes that we are Russia's poodle. You'd have hoped that a British PM would be a bit more secure than to harp back into history, however proud we rightly are of the specific part of it referred to. And as for inventing everything; if he did say that, it's just a bit silly - even if we did!
David Cameron is no Mrs Thatcher, he's no Tony Blair, he's not even Hugh Grant.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Indeed so.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
About 5-6 years ago went to a very interesting talk, at the "Bridge on the River Kwai", where the lecturer, an Australian military historian (IIRC), made out a convincing case for Pearl Harbor being a direct result of the USA keeping Britain away from influencing Japan after WWI. We were, apparently very influential with Japanese ruling circles in the early 1900's as well as being a major trading partner, but after WWI the Americans squeezed us out and "didn't understand" the Japanese establishment's mindset.
Comments from the better educated in modern history would be appreciated!
Lots of people have made serious errors in judging Great Britain by its size..
I often think Britain's size is an understated factor in its history. Plenty of what drove the empire was simply lack of Lebensraum here for ambitious low born people.
Would the debate on immigration today be so fierce if Britain had, say double the landmass it has?
Depends if we had with more land mass,would we have more cities and towns for the immigration to be equally spread.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Indeed so.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
About 5-6 years ago went to a very interesting talk, at the "Bridge on the River Kwai", where the lecturer, an Australian military historian (IIRC), made out a convincing case for Pearl Harbor being a direct result of the USA keeping Britain away from influencing Japan after WWI. We were, apparently very influential with Japanese ruling circles in the early 1900's as well as being a major trading partner, but after WWI the Americans squeezed us out and "didn't understand" the Japanese establishment's mindset.
Comments from the better educated in modern history would be appreciated!
I think that's an interesting viewpoint but IMO marginal to the principal cause which was clearly the demise of democracy in 1920's Japan and it's replacement by a expansionist military fascist junta that eventually sought raw materials through further invasions.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Indeed so.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
About 5-6 years ago went to a very interesting talk, at the "Bridge on the River Kwai", where the lecturer, an Australian military historian (IIRC), made out a convincing case for Pearl Harbor being a direct result of the USA keeping Britain away from influencing Japan after WWI. We were, apparently very influential with Japanese ruling circles in the early 1900's as well as being a major trading partner, but after WWI the Americans squeezed us out and "didn't understand" the Japanese establishment's mindset.
Comments from the better educated in modern history would be appreciated!
Not sure I'm better educated in modern history, but I've heard that theory as well, and there is some evidence to back it up.
For instance, the Imperial Japanese Navy won a series of staggering victories over the Russian Navy in 1904/5, during we heavily backed Japan. Many of the Japanese naval officers were trained in Britain, and many of their capital ships were constructed by companies such as Armstrongs or Vickers. You can still visit one, the Vickers-built Mikasa, at Yokosuka.
Japan then they fought on the side of the Triple Entente in WW1. So British-Japanese relationships were very strong.
The rot set in with the Militarism and ultranationalism in the late 1920s. However what Britain could have done to stop that mindset developing is another matter ...
Do we have no Avery today? Perhaps he's gone to join Cousin Seth on the Cleethorpes holiday.
I was hoping for some insightful economics commentary from him now that the bank holiday distortions of 2012 are dropping out of the year on year comparisons.
So here's a few I've done instead:
Industrial production change to July 2013 from July 2012 -1.5% July 2007 -12.7% July 2003 -12.7% Nov 2000 -15.9% (the all time peak) July 1988 -2.1%
Retail sales change to July 2013 from July 2012 +3.2% July 2007 +6.6% July 2003 +21.6% Nov 2000 +40.5% July 1988 +78.4%
Yet we're still told that we need a consumer spending 'recovery'.
Do we have no Avery today? Perhaps he's gone to join Cousin Seth on the Cleethorpes holiday.
I was hoping for some insightful economics commentary from him now that the bank holiday distortions of 2012 are dropping out of the year on year comparisons.
So here's a few I've done instead:
Industrial production change to July 2013 from July 2012 -1.5% July 2007 -12.7% July 2003 -12.7% Nov 2000 -15.9% (the all time peak) July 1988 -2.1%
Retail sales change to July 2013 from July 2012 +3.2% July 2007 +6.6% July 2003 +21.6% Nov 2000 +40.5% July 1988 +78.4%
Yet we're still told that we need a consumer spending 'recovery'.
I'm sure he'll be here soon with the Good News soon.
I dont think the UK looks back more than any other country. For instance we don't have a significant national day. We build very modern buildings in the heart of London , we embrace immigration and do not try and protect a culture as such . We have world tastes in cuisine. The olympics were fun yet free of pomp. We are instinctively against protectionism etc
Do we have no Avery today? Perhaps he's gone to join Cousin Seth on the Cleethorpes holiday.
I was hoping for some insightful economics commentary from him now that the bank holiday distortions of 2012 are dropping out of the year on year comparisons.
So here's a few I've done instead:
Industrial production change to July 2013 from July 2012 -1.5% July 2007 -12.7% July 2003 -12.7% Nov 2000 -15.9% (the all time peak) July 1988 -2.1%
Retail sales change to July 2013 from July 2012 +3.2% July 2007 +6.6% July 2003 +21.6% Nov 2000 +40.5% July 1988 +78.4%
Yet we're still told that we need a consumer spending 'recovery'.
Wasn't 2000 when Brown stopped following Tory spending plans and started the current debt bubble?
Britain's attitude to religion (if there was ever a backward looking concept its religion) id refreshing in that you can ignore it and no consequence will befall you as a reuslt . Britain has one of the most modern attitudes in the world to many social issues .
I dont think the UK looks back more than any other country. For instance we don't have a significant national day. We build very modern buildings in the heart of London , we embrace immigration and do not try and protect a culture as such . We have world tastes in cuisine. The olympics were fun yet free of pomp. We are instinctively against protectionism etc
I’d agree with the essence of what you say, and add, we don’t have to look too far back on our History, we are surrounded by it and see it daily in Democracy, Law, Architecture, the Commonwealth etc, etc
Anyone else on here read The Kindly Ones? Very disturbing, very powerful, very good.
Yep, I had to re-read it after a month to check whether it was as good as I thought the first time; astonishingly assured and convincing for a young(ish) author. Apropos of nothing, Jonathan Littell is the son of Robert Littell, a writer I also rate highly.
Britain's attitude to religion (if there was ever a backward looking concept its religion) id refreshing in that you can ignore it and no consequence will befall you as a reuslt . Britain has one of the most modern attitudes in the world to many social issues .
Lets hope that continues - particularly for religions which are growing due to immigration - like Popeism and Islam.
tim.. as a part time resident in one of the most time locked cities in the country, and I am not referring to your large Cheshire estate here, you must realise that in Liverpool , time stands still.
If he hadn't the US would have simply gone to war in the Pacific.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
The Japanese belief that they could simultaneously take on the United States, China, and three European states was delusional.
Indeed so.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
About 5-6 years ago went to a very interesting talk, at the "Bridge on the River Kwai", where the lecturer, an Australian military historian (IIRC), made out a convincing case for Pearl Harbor being a direct result of the USA keeping Britain away from influencing Japan after WWI. We were, apparently very influential with Japanese ruling circles in the early 1900's as well as being a major trading partner, but after WWI the Americans squeezed us out and "didn't understand" the Japanese establishment's mindset.
Comments from the better educated in modern history would be appreciated!
Not sure I'm better educated in modern history, but I've heard that theory as well, and there is some evidence to back it up.
For instance, the Imperial Japanese Navy won a series of staggering victories over the Russian Navy in 1904/5, during we heavily backed Japan. Many of the Japanese naval officers were trained in Britain, and many of their capital ships were constructed by companies such as Armstrongs or Vickers. You can still visit one, the Vickers-built Mikasa, at Yokosuka.
Japan then they fought on the side of the Triple Entente in WW1. So British-Japanese relationships were very strong.
The rot set in with the Militarism and ultranationalism in the late 1920s. However what Britain could have done to stop that mindset developing is another matter ...
IIRC the lecturer was of the opinion that the cultural similarities and exchanges with landed gentry in UK would have moderated the nationalism.
However, as I said in my earlier post, it was a few years ago and a) I didn't take notes and b) we went on to one of the military cemeteries.
Talking of Guardian angst, the recent spate of soul-searching, backbiting, in-fighting, wonkish introspection, recriminations, and sheer unbridled looniness, over Femen has been absolutely hilarious. Here's a flavour, but there's plenty more like this:
I know it's an easy target but this must rate as a classic of recent times....the comments are arguably the most satisfying I have read on a CiF piece.
Anyone else on here read The Kindly Ones? Very disturbing, very powerful, very good.
Yep, I had to re-read it after a month to check whether it was as good as I thought the first time; astonishingly assured and convincing for a young(ish) author. Apropos of nothing, Jonathan Littell is the son of Robert Littell, a writer I also rate highly.
He is American, but wrote it in French. Someone else did the translation, which for some reason I find peculiar.
Britain's attitude to religion (if there was ever a backward looking concept its religion) id refreshing in that you can ignore it and no consequence will befall you as a reuslt . Britain has one of the most modern attitudes in the world to many social issues .
Lets hope that continues - particularly for religions which are growing due to immigration - like Popeism and Islam.
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
Talking of Guardian articles, Polly Toynbee is excellent in the Guardian today (yes, you read that right).
Her article, 'whose recovery is it?' cuts to the very quick of what it will take to win in 2015. If it looks like only the rich are profiting again, the coalition is in trouble.
There will be tax cuts for low and middle income workers before 2015. or cuts in fuel duty. Or something ordinary people notice.
Talking of Guardian articles, Polly Toynbee is excellent in the Guardian today (yes, you read that right).
Her article, 'whose recovery is it?' cuts to the very quick of what it will take to win in 2015. If it looks like only the rich are profiting again, the coalition is in trouble.
There will be tax cuts for low and middle income workers before 2015. or cuts in fuel duty. Or something ordinary people notice.
I can't bear to read her - can you give us a quote?
Totally O/T but sometimes one is really proud of cricket. Derbyshire vs Somerset, County Champoinship Div 1, but almost certainly the losers of this match play in Div2 next year.
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Somerset have given away 40 byes - cost em the game.
Talking of Guardian articles, Polly Toynbee is excellent in the Guardian today (yes, you read that right).
Her article, 'whose recovery is it?' cuts to the very quick of what it will take to win in 2015. If it looks like only the rich are profiting again, the coalition is in trouble.
There will be tax cuts for low and middle income workers before 2015. or cuts in fuel duty. Or something ordinary people notice.
There will be exactly those things - the squeezed middle...living standards....these will be the battle cries going into GE2015.
And by that time you can bet that GO will have some tax cuts to, ahem, bribe the electorate. Some feelgood stuff, a tax cut, subsidy, grant whatever it will take.
If people aren't too sick of the govt by then, which accounts for the last two changes (97 & 10) then good old fashioned bribery is likely to work.
Jonathan .. You may be missing the point here. GB is still investing in the future, one tiny example is the much malgned Foreign Aid programme
Borrowing foreign money to increase debt to pay for foreign aid to the very same countries, plus of course Syria, says to me that money is not needed, but ships full of excess food from Burger King and McDonalds would be a winner.
Comments
Have UKIP been behind the Lib Dems much lately?
Miss Plato, some of those are hilarious, some wittingly, others not.
And just for our Glaswegian posters
http://www.buzzfeed.com/laureng52/25-signs-you-grew-up-in-glasgow-e4ts?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=buzzfeed
Looking like Rafa V Novak for the US Open Final
Rafa @ 10/11 looks mighty overpriced IMO.
Disagree.
As does Churchill. When he heard about Pearl Harbour he immediately commented 'so, we win after all'.
After Pearl Harbor there was no way America was not going to fight Hitler.
Mr. Away, indeed. We all know that knowledge of the Second Punic War is more impressive.
If Japan had stuck to the conquest of coastal China they might have avoided a wider conflict but the American squeeze on oil led to further Japanese imperialism.
Not seen the new Star Trek film but I cannot believe it's better than Wrath of Khan. Likewise, the original Star Wars trilogy is miles better than the prequel.
I don't know, maybe this is what voters want. A bit of silly jingoistic tub thumping pulling on the heartstrings. Personally I'd prefer a serious politician who understands what our role in the world is and how we can be effective. Has anyone considered how this will be interpreted in the rest of the world? It'll just reinforce what a joke we are, living off our past successes blithely ignoring how we'll soon be dominated by the emerging powers. I think it's unfair, most British people are far more attuned to the present than we get credit for but idiots like Cameron hardly help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsqZDl99PNk
Northamptonshire Middleton Cheney - Con 1081, UKIP 604, Lab 221,
Lib Dem 141.
Daventry Ravensthorpe - Con 285, UKIP 212, Lab 93, Lib Dem 23.
St. Edmundsbury Bardwell - Con hold (I don't have the figures).
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR19FbEcJkjEY0dSwT5CNiX7c1jRPOdp1qq7db17XCgCSKCGxjg
Tim started it with his jibe about Cameron lecturing Russians about Nazis.
Elder Herr: Will you stop talking about the war?
Basil: Me! You started it!
Elder Herr: We did not start it!
Basil: Yes you did — you invaded Poland.
Even when the offensive had started Stalin refused to believe it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion
Sea Lion required much more than the Luftwaffe winning the Battle of Britain. Basically, they only started implementing the plan at the last minute, and they had not prepared the necessary materials. The Rhine Barges they were planning to cross in were hardly ideal for the task.
AFAICR, the army wanted a massively broad front with 40 divisions on the south coast, whilst the Kriegsmarine only felt they could keep a narrow channel open across the channel and supply a much smaller army. In the end the Kriegsmarine won (as they had to), after which the army were considerably less keen on the invasion.
Hitler never really wanted to invade the UK; if he had he would have prepared (e.g. built proper landing craft) before 1939. If that had happened, we would have been in a very different situation.
That's my reading of it, anyway.
As far as those countries are concerned, the Russians have nothing to be proud about and much to be ashamed about. Their role in defeating Hitler has allowed them to obscure the very great harm they caused to the peoples of these areas both before, during and after WW2.
One thing I learnt was that surprisingly little actual Russian territory was invaded by the Nazis. The vast majority of the fighting and suffering occurred in Byelorussia and Ukraine and Poland.
I often think Britain's size is an understated factor in its history. Plenty of what drove the empire was simply lack of Lebensraum here for ambitious low born people.
Would the debate on immigration today be so fierce if Britain had, say double the landmass it has?
"Putin really is a tosser," wrote Henry Smith, MP for Crawley, on Twitter.
Vote share from all 10 by elections
Con 36.8% (-2.7%)
UKIP 21.6% (+10.9%)
Lab 19.5% (-3%)
LD 10.8% (-4%)
Ind 8.1% (-0.4%)
Green 3.3% (+3%)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/04/femen-man-topless-protests-victor-vyatski
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/victory-svyatski-femen-man
How effective is that?
One has the Coalition up 52/48% on 2PP. The other two have them leading 53/47%.
EDIT I thought PB had stopped Vanilla doing this? Please don't just delete my post
https://twitter.com/KaiserChief82/status/375938169663148032/photo/1
Mr. Taffys, not just size, but also island status. Good for defence.
I'm reading Christopher Allmand's The Hundred Years War, and just gotten to a bit about mercenaries. Apparently the English were very dominant in the Italian 15th century mercenary scene. It wasn't just lowborn chaps, though. Lesser nobility and younger sons had prestige but little hope of a proper inheritance, which encouraged them to try and win wealth for themselves.
Britain definitely suffers from looking back too much.
Obviously 1939-45 is over used as an example, but the 1960s also. Personally, I am fed up of ageing rockers from 50 years ago appearing on national events.
Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Very good point Mr Morris. Britain isn;t just small - its a small island.
Comments from the better educated in modern history would be appreciated!
Agreed. We also suffer from not really having decided what our position in the modern world should be post WW11.
The Syria affair shows this is getting worse, not better.
A human ponzi scheme to match Labour's property ponzi scheme.
For instance, the Imperial Japanese Navy won a series of staggering victories over the Russian Navy in 1904/5, during we heavily backed Japan. Many of the Japanese naval officers were trained in Britain, and many of their capital ships were constructed by companies such as Armstrongs or Vickers. You can still visit one, the Vickers-built Mikasa, at Yokosuka.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
Japan then they fought on the side of the Triple Entente in WW1. So British-Japanese relationships were very strong.
The rot set in with the Militarism and ultranationalism in the late 1920s. However what Britain could have done to stop that mindset developing is another matter ...
I was hoping for some insightful economics commentary from him now that the bank holiday distortions of 2012 are dropping out of the year on year comparisons.
So here's a few I've done instead:
Industrial production change to July 2013 from
July 2012 -1.5%
July 2007 -12.7%
July 2003 -12.7%
Nov 2000 -15.9% (the all time peak)
July 1988 -2.1%
Retail sales change to July 2013 from
July 2012 +3.2%
July 2007 +6.6%
July 2003 +21.6%
Nov 2000 +40.5%
July 1988 +78.4%
Yet we're still told that we need a consumer spending 'recovery'.
RT @GeneralBoles: @alstewitn From what I can tell, #Labour want to bomb Moldova and line-up in a 4-3-3 against #Syria
GB is still investing in the future, one tiny example is the much malgned Foreign Aid programme
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/the-hotel-of-mum-and-dad-soaring-london-rents-force-adult-children-to-live-with-parents-8799452.html
Apropos of nothing, Jonathan Littell is the son of Robert Littell, a writer I also rate highly.
Anna Soubry was ITN’s correspondent at Caithness & Sutherland for the 1983 election. (It was a next day declaration).
However, as I said in my earlier post, it was a few years ago and a) I didn't take notes and b) we went on to one of the military cemeteries.
The Americans on the tour were puzzled.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/nail-bars-slavery-trafficking-vietnam
Debyshire require 6 runs to win, Somerset to take two wickets.
And they've gone off for lunch!
Talking of Guardian articles, Polly Toynbee is excellent in the Guardian today (yes, you read that right).
Her article, 'whose recovery is it?' cuts to the very quick of what it will take to win in 2015. If it looks like only the rich are profiting again, the coalition is in trouble.
There will be tax cuts for low and middle income workers before 2015. or cuts in fuel duty. Or something ordinary people notice.
And by that time you can bet that GO will have some tax cuts to, ahem, bribe the electorate. Some feelgood stuff, a tax cut, subsidy, grant whatever it will take.
If people aren't too sick of the govt by then, which accounts for the last two changes (97 & 10) then good old fashioned bribery is likely to work.