Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s not having a very good day, but will it impact the ele

SystemSystem Posts: 12,169
edited August 2020 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s not having a very good day, but will it impact the election result? I’m not so sure

Judge: Manhattan DA can get Trump’s tax records from Mazars. There may be an appeal, which means a little delay, but it’s all over except the shouting. Trump’s taxes will be in the hands of prosecutors either shortly before or after the election. https://t.co/kj5kC89jUm

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • First ?
  • Matthew Goodwin really is like Sion Simon on steroids.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/898867137414025216
  • I still,expect Biden to win and serve one term. Trump will not serve any jail time either. I suspect he will pardon himself for any crimes committed or,find a way to.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 1,335


    1. Biden is not Clinton
    2, The anti trump vote is currently highly motivated, beyond 2016
    3. A larger slice of the republican & republican leaning independents are not as motivated this time

    It is the Democrats to lose and I am not sure Trump can do anything (legally anyway). Its the Democrats shooting themselves that would change it


  • Matthew Goodwin really is like Sion Simon on steroids.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/898867137414025216

    Is Sion Simon still in politics ?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,704

    Matthew Goodwin really is like Sion Simon on steroids.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/898867137414025216

    Is Sion Simon still in politics ?
    Sion Simon is politics.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    I still,expect Biden to win and serve one term. Trump will not serve any jail time either. I suspect he will pardon himself for any crimes committed or,find a way to.

    If he can pardon himself it is on a Federal level. The State of New York, could, if they choose, throw his sorry arse into a state penitentiary.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Damned thread changes... FPT:

    Ignoring yet more political ructions and proceeding to good news (and I dare say this has been discussed already, but like I said it's good news so I make no apology for being repetitious,) the number of new Covid cases detected by test in the UK appears to have levelled off, and the number of patients left in hospital continues to decline.

    The hospital numbers are down by another 9% in a week, at which rate the total should be down below 800 by next Thursday. The indications from the England-only data, which are more up-to-date than the whole of UK figures, suggest that this outcome is highly probable.

    With much of continental Europe in panic flap mode, we must continue to try to understand what's going right here, because it's probably some combination of factors and it most likely has nothing to do with the actions of our blundering Government (or, at any rate, if it does then the positive effect will have been arrived at by chance.)

    I'm not picking up through the media any distress signals emanating from Scandinavia, either. Did these countries open the nightclubs, and do they have lots of people working from home?
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    Britain Elects
    @britainelects
    ·
    2h
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 44% (+1)
    LAB: 37% (+1)
    LDEM: 7% (-2)
    GRN: 4% (+1)

    via @RedfieldWilton
    , 19 Aug
    Chgs. w/ 12 Aug

    I've posted this again as it has attracted so little comment unlike other polling companies which regularly get promoted as thread headers. Funny that.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,390
    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    felix said:

    Britain Elects
    @britainelects
    ·
    2h
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 44% (+1)
    LAB: 37% (+1)
    LDEM: 7% (-2)
    GRN: 4% (+1)

    via @RedfieldWilton
    , 19 Aug
    Chgs. w/ 12 Aug

    I've posted this again as it has attracted so little comment unlike other polling companies which regularly get promoted as thread headers. Funny that.

    Excuse me! I commented on Johnson's relentless march towards 50%!

    Although it could just be MoE.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719

    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    Those smelly-socks don't like it up 'em, Captain Francois...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020
    Yokes said:



    1. Biden is not Clinton
    2, The anti trump vote is currently highly motivated, beyond 2016
    3. A larger slice of the republican & republican leaning independents are not as motivated this time

    It is the Democrats to lose and I am not sure Trump can do anything (legally anyway). Its the Democrats shooting themselves that would change it


    I still think it will be close, am not sure Biden having establishment Republicans from Cindy McCain to Meg Whitman to John Kasich and Colin Powell as well the Clintons and Obamas ie most of the US political establishment behind him at his convention will boost him much, indeed it will remind Trump 2016 voters precisely why they voted for him especially as Trump will not be having establishment Republicans like the Bushes and Romney speaking at his convention next week
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381

    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    Tea drinking within a thousand miles of Putin seems to be rather a dangerous activity too. As noted again today, something to be avoided.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,381
    Foxy said:

    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    Those smelly-socks don't like it up 'em, Captain Francois...
    Hopefully "Pike" will have some time on his hands too, shortly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020
    Alistair said:
    If Trump holds the South and makes further gains in the Midwest he will likely be re elected
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,390

    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    It's not paranoia, the Russian state, led by Putin, has murdered people on British soil, and as Salisbury has shown, ended up with a lot of collateral damage.

    The man is a menace.
    I'm not denying that, I'm just rather sceptical that Mr Putin would be too excited about the prospects of invading an independent, defenceless Scotland. I suspect he has bigger fish to fry.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    edited August 2020
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    @HYUFD the virtues of NATO are again completely irrelevance.

    Why must an independent Scotland join NATO in order for you to support mutually support their defence? Why isn’t just a traditional military alliance between rUK and iScotland enough?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    I am not saying that the Trump supporters are good people or anything but is it any surprise that politics is dominated by psychopaths and weirdos when having a role in politics means being hounded through the courts by politically driven DAs? No wonder the lock her up nonsense resonated so much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020

    @HYUFD the virtues of NATO are again completely irrelevance.

    Why must an independent Scotland join NATO in order for you to support mutually support their defence? Why isn’t just a traditional military alliance between rUK and iScotland enough?

    NATO forces are based in NATO nations to deter invasion, if you are not in NATO they will not be based in your nation and you could be invaded before allies even arrived
  • Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    It's not paranoia, the Russian state, led by Putin, has murdered people on British soil, and as Salisbury has shown, ended up with a lot of collateral damage.

    The man is a menace.
    How many drone strikes in Afghanistan can be blamed on Putin?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    @HYUFD the virtues of NATO are again completely irrelevance.

    Why must an independent Scotland join NATO in order for you to support mutually support their defence? Why isn’t just a traditional military alliance between rUK and iScotland enough?

    Scotland doesn't need an alliance, any more than Ireland does. Why does Ireland save itself the expense of bothering to defend its airspace? Because, in the unlikely event that they find themselves receiving unwanted attention from the Russians or under threat from loopy aircraft hijackers about to dump a jet onto Dublin, they can scramble the RAF.

    The Scots can simply declare themselves neutral and sponge off us. It would save them a bloody fortune.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,205
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Different states head in different directions over time. Arizona heading the other way tbh.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Trump got a lower percentage of the vote than Romney in 2012. Yet Clinton only just scraped it compared to Obama.

    Trump has a lot of third party voters available to him to "come home", it is why he is is not out of it and why in general this will be a hard to poll election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020

    @HYUFD the virtues of NATO are again completely irrelevance.

    Why must an independent Scotland join NATO in order for you to support mutually support their defence? Why isn’t just a traditional military alliance between rUK and iScotland enough?

    Scotland doesn't need an alliance, any more than Ireland does. Why does Ireland save itself the expense of bothering to defend its airspace? Because, in the unlikely event that they find themselves receiving unwanted attention from the Russians or under threat from loopy aircraft hijackers about to dump a jet onto Dublin, they can scramble the RAF.

    The Scots can simply declare themselves neutral and sponge off us. It would save them a bloody fortune.
    Unless England elects its own Trump who tells them to fund their own defence and stop sponging off English taxpayers
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222

    I still,expect Biden to win and serve one term. Trump will not serve any jail time either. I suspect he will pardon himself for any crimes committed or,find a way to.

    Fncker can’t pardon himself for state crimes.
  • DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Hillary was so hapless that more Americans voted for her than for Trump?
  • Evening.

    Redfield suggests YouGov is an outlier
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
  • HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    From 2000 the Dem winning margin in minnesota has been

    2.4, 3.5, 10, 7.7, 1.5

    Obama was an outstanding campaigner.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Yes but it was the Spitfires and Hurricanes in southern England who beat the Luftwaffe
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Hillary was so hapless that more Americans voted for her than for Trump?
    Yep. In the wrong places because she didn’t campaign in the right ones. But she still won Minnesota.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    Yokes said:



    1. Biden is not Clinton
    2, The anti trump vote is currently highly motivated, beyond 2016
    3. A larger slice of the republican & republican leaning independents are not as motivated this time

    It is the Democrats to lose and I am not sure Trump can do anything (legally anyway). Its the Democrats shooting themselves that would change it


    I still don't rule that out.

    The culture wars are a massive beartrap for them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487
    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Shows the dangers of the extreme edge of the BLM movement.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Different states head in different directions over time. Arizona heading the other way tbh.
    And Texas. But at the moment these closer results are just making Trump’s vote even more efficient.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    They would still have needed to cross the North Sea which would not have been possible without defeating the RAF first
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Yes but it was the Spitfires and Hurricanes in southern England who beat the Luftwaffe
    Which wouldn't have mattered if they had friendly ports in scotland no more than the french airforce did.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Hillary was so hapless that more Americans voted for her than for Trump?
    Yep. In the wrong places because she didn’t campaign in the right ones. But she still won Minnesota.
    She won the Nationwide election, it's just the crappy outdated Electoral Kindergarten system that gifted the White House to Dickhead Donald.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The Home Fleet were based at Scapa Flow.

    Any alternative history of an independent Scotland and Wales would have altered European Geopolitics so much that the Thirties may have proceded very differently. We would not have had an Empire for example.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862
    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,487

    Matthew Goodwin really is like Sion Simon on steroids.

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/898867137414025216

    Is Sion Simon still in politics ?
    Sion Simon is politics.
    Well, he is a latter day Pushkin drilled in the elite academy of Brownian blitzkrieg.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Yes but it was the Spitfires and Hurricanes in southern England who beat the Luftwaffe
    But Scotland was the first target of the Luftwaffe as described above - 16th Oct 1939.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137
    edited August 2020
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain they could have got their troops and tanks on barges across the channel to likely successfully invade without being bombed to pieces by the RAF, while their dive bombers and U boats finished off the Royal Navy
  • Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    You've not heard of the Isle of Man being Norwegian territory for centuries?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,862

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Alistair said:
    The Minnesota poll isn’t good for Biden however. That really should be low hanging fruit.
    Florida and Pennsylvania would be enough for Biden if Minnesota dropped GOP.

    https://www.270towin.com/maps/P7ON8
    The point is that this a state even the hapless Hilary managed to win (just). If Biden is further ahead than her it really shouldn’t be competitive. But it is. Very.
    Hillary was so hapless that more Americans voted for her than for Trump?
    Yep. In the wrong places because she didn’t campaign in the right ones. But she still won Minnesota.
    She won the Nationwide election, it's just the crappy outdated Electoral Kindergarten system that gifted the White House to Dickhead Donald.
    That same Kindergarten system is being used again. And Trump could win again. I wish it were not so.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,222

    Reading the last thread, I can't help but think that there's a germ of an idea for a new series of Dad's Army there. "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Putin"? Quite a lot of paranoia swirling around.

    It's not paranoia, the Russian state, led by Putin, has murdered people on British soil, and as Salisbury has shown, ended up with a lot of collateral damage.

    The man is a menace.
    Menace suggests a degree of restraint. Which doesn’t appear to exist.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/20/a-cup-of-tea-then-screams-of-agony-how-alexei-navalny-was-left-fighting-for-his-life
    ... Over the next few hours, the scenes at Omsk hospital number one were ghoulishly awful. According to Yarmysh, medical staff initially acknowledged that Navalny had probably been poisoned. Soon, however, police turned up, flooding the corridor outside the patient’s room. After that the doctors were less forthcoming. They were seemingly terrified of speaking out.

    Anatoly Kalinichenko, the hospital’s deputy chief physician, told reporters that poisoning was one scenario among many. Meanwhile, Russian state media floated alternative versions of what might have happened. It suggested Navalny had drunk too much the previous night and had taken medication. This was untrue, Yarmysh said – another fiction in the Kremlin’s longstanding anti-Navalny campaign...
  • HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain they could have got their troops and tanks on barges across the channel to likely successfully invade without being bombed to pieces by the RAF, while their dive bombers and U boats finished off the Royal Navy
    The Royal Navy was the real deterrent to the seaborne invasion. Germany lost TEN valuable destroyers in Norway that could have escorted the invasion barges.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Now did we get bogged down in the damned Second World War - again?

    Evening.

    Redfield suggests YouGov is an outlier

    It bears repeating at this point that...

    (a) the polls may give people something to talk/argue/hyperventilate over, but we are in all likelihood still nearly four years away from a General Election and they therefore have no predictive value. Commonly, indeed, they have no predictive value four weeks away from an election; and

    (b) FWIW, all of these surveys basically suggest that all that's changed since last December is that a bunch of Lib Dem voters have gone over to Labour after the leadership change

    The latter point might finally start to change if the Covid recession becomes a prolonged depression, but at this stage it looks as if the Government can get away with any degree of incompetence because the Opposition has a ceiling of support.

    We are often told that Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them, but maybe that just doesn't hold true under the current circumstances? Perhaps Starmer has to do better than simply not being Corbyn?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,137

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain they could have got their troops and tanks on barges across the channel to likely successfully invade without being bombed to pieces by the RAF, while their dive bombers and U boats finished off the Royal Navy
    The Royal Navy was the real deterrent to the seaborne invasion. Germany lost TEN valuable destroyers in Norway that could have escorted the invasion barges.
    The Royal Navy and the RAF, Britain needed both to beat off invasion
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran for oil during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Picture D Day in reverse, and much easier. Britain is eminently invadable from France.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
  • justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    Joint invasion with the Russkies, they held the northern bits of Iran long after VJ-Day.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,929
    edited August 2020
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain they could have got their troops and tanks on barges across the channel to likely successfully invade without being bombed to pieces by the RAF, while their dive bombers and U boats finished off the Royal Navy
    This (a Nazi invasion) was extensively wargamed after the war and it was concluded that it could only have lasted about three days. The key is that once the Royal Navy could reach the Channel from Scapa Flow and the Mediterranean, there could be no German reinforcements. Remember that after Dunkirk a large part of the British army was here. U-boats could not really operate in the Channel.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The logistics of Germany invading Britain being completely impossible is what stopped a Nazi invasion.
    Had the Luftwaffe won the Battle of Britain they could have got their troops and tanks on barges across the channel to likely successfully invade without being bombed to pieces by the RAF, while their dive bombers and U boats finished off the Royal Navy
    Germany did not have the naval logistical capacity to move sufficient quantities of men and armaments across the Channel at sufficient speed to mount a credible invasion.

    We'd have fought them on the beaches and then that would have been that.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    The marble count on here does seem to be testing new lows this evening. I shall retire to bed and read a book.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,876
    edited August 2020

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Now did we get bogged down in the damned Second World War - again?
    Your name vill also go in ze book! What is it?
  • Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
    Iceland too was occupied, Greenland as well. Not sure about the Faroeyar.
  • justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
    a) Iran happened in 1941, AFTER Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia.

    b) It was a joint invasion with the Soviets.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    edited August 2020
    As someone who is an expert in Airborne and Air Assault history (see my user name) I'm happy to debate parachute infantry/airborne operations of WWII from about 11 am tomorrow.
  • Carnyx said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
    Iceland too was occupied, Greenland as well. Not sure about the Faroeyar.
    Iceland was occupied by the UK in 1940, and then the US in 1941.

    Greenland by the US in 1942, The Faroes by the UK in 1940.
  • Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    We had two: the first and the sixth. Cunning, huh?
  • As someone who is an expert in Airborne and Air Assault history (see my user name) I'm happy to debate parachute infantry/airborne operations of WWII from about 11 am tomorrow.

    "Angels on our shoulders!"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    The first Luftwaffe air raid of ze war was in the Firth of Forth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_River_Forth
    Now did we get bogged down in the damned Second World War - again?
    Your name vill also go in ze book! What is it?
    Don't tell them Sunil!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    IshmaelZ said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    The marble count on here does seem to be testing new lows this evening. I shall retire to bed and read a book.
    I don't blame you. I'm off to read about Tupolev Bear bombers/maritine reconnaisance aircraft - quite appropriately.
  • As someone who is an expert in Airborne and Air Assault history (see my user name) I'm happy to debate parachute infantry/airborne operations of WWII from about 11 am tomorrow.

    Wasn't one of our number doing an MA in military history?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719

    Carnyx said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
    Iceland too was occupied, Greenland as well. Not sure about the Faroeyar.
    Iceland was occupied by the UK in 1940, and then the US in 1941.

    Greenland by the US in 1942, The Faroes by the UK in 1940.
    Iraq in 1942 too.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,877

    As someone who is an expert in Airborne and Air Assault history (see my user name) I'm happy to debate parachute infantry/airborne operations of WWII from about 11 am tomorrow.

    I thought you were named after the band

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SORRIftsmFE

  • Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    We had two: the first and the sixth. Cunning, huh?
    Very cunning, our and the American numbering of divisions, corps, and armies allowed us to confuse the Germans.

    FUSAG was probably the greatest deception of WWII, if not history, remember even in July 1944 the Germans still thought the Normandy landings were a deception and Patton would lead FUSAG into the real landings at Calais.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
  • As someone who is an expert in Airborne and Air Assault history (see my user name) I'm happy to debate parachute infantry/airborne operations of WWII from about 11 am tomorrow.

    Wasn't one of our number doing an MA in military history?
    SeanF.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    I think England would have invaded Scotland in that scenario. To do otherwise would be to lose.
    But that would itself have been an act of aggression which destroyed much of the moral and legal argument for declaring war against Germany in the first place. As it happens, Germany had some justification for invading Norway in that it had simply beaten the Allies to it by a couple of days!
    We invaded Iran during WWII, in an act of aggression, the moral and legal argument for declaring war on Germany was still there.
    In so doing we became a fellow aggressor - and provided justification for Germany violating the neutrality of Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and much of Scandinavia. When it suited us we shared their contempt for International Law. Blair had plenty of ready precedents to build on in 2003.
    Iceland too was occupied, Greenland as well. Not sure about the Faroeyar.
    Iceland was occupied by the UK in 1940, and then the US in 1941.

    Greenland by the US in 1942, The Faroes by the UK in 1940.
    Iraq in 1942 too.
    Now you mention it, arguably Egypt, depending on how one interprets the UK relationship with King Fuad. And Syria (a Vichy French protectorate IIRC).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you think Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,719

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    In addition, Scotland would have been too far for glider troops.

    Paratroops can only hold out for days before needing relief from ground forces.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    I do not pretend to have that detailed knowledge, but am aware that Germany used its airborme forces with great success in Norway and Holland in Spring 1940 - and in Crete a year later.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    To be fair they are just invading Scotland. Across the North Sea. I take it the JU52's are being ditched after the paratroopers jump out.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    I do not pretend to have that detailed knowledge, but am aware that Germany used its airborme forces with great success in Norway and Holland in Spring 1940 - and in Crete a year later.
    So successful were they in Crete that Hitler forbade any further large scale paratrooper deployments.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    I do not pretend to have that detailed knowledge, but am aware that Germany used its airborme forces with great success in Norway and Holland in Spring 1940 - and in Crete a year later.
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    I do not pretend to have that detailed knowledge, but am aware that Germany used its airborme forces with great success in Norway and Holland in Spring 1940 - and in Crete a year later.
    Extemelu limited and targeted operations in the Netherlands, and Crete was a Pyrrhic vcitory for the sole Fallschirmjaeger Division.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,675
    edited August 2020
    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    I was specifically referring to the vulnerability of Scotland had it then been a separate state - not Great Britain as a whole.
    So ok, how many airborne divisions do you thin Germany had in 1940 and how many airborne divisions do you think were needed to invade Scotland?
    I do not pretend to have that detailed knowledge, but am aware that Germany used its airborme forces with great success in Norway and Holland in Spring 1940 - and in Crete a year later.
    The paratroopers didn't win those *victories* on their own.

    They generally need mechanised infantry and armour to consolidate the holds they have made.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,885
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    Alistair said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    I have often reflected on what might have happened in the late 1930s had Scotland - and possibly Wales - already become independent states. It is far from clear that an independent Scotland would not have sought to follow the example of Eire - and Holland & Belgium et al - by declaring itself neutral. Had that happened, would England on its own have been strong enough to resist the Nazis? I have serious doubts.

    Of course as the Battle of Britain was won in southern England and that was what prevented Nazi invasion
    But Scotland might have been invaded first - from Norway possibly. The Battle of Britain might then have become more academic.
    Scotland invaded from Norway?

    There's what ifs and then there's utter nonsense.

    The German armed forces didn't have the material to cross the English Channel ina remotely realistic manner, now you want them sailing from Norway?
    Paratroopers could have been deployed in much the same way that Norway was invaded in April 1940 and Holland a month later.
    I'm at a loss for words.
    Just how many airborne divisions does Justin think the Germans had and how many airborne divisions does he think would take to have invaded Britain in 1940?
    To be fair they are just invading Scotland. Across the North Sea. I take it the JU52's are being ditched after the paratroopers jump out.
    More likely crashlanded onto the beaches which turn out to be unhelpfully festooned with poles - still visible when I was a child on seaside holidayts on the east coast.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Political Betting. Come for the tipping, stay for the ww2 chat.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    You learn something new every day, that's how you know you're still alive.

    Today I learnt something really quite remarkable: that there are 'US Postal Service Agents' with powers of arrest. It's one of those new discoveries that opens up more questions than it answers.
  • Alistair said:

    Political Betting. Come for the tipping, stay for the ww2 chat.

    I've not even got started on Arthur Donaldson being the head of a Vichy style government in Scotland.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Alistair said:

    Political Betting. Come for the tipping, stay for the ww2 chat.

    Trump's old news. Alternative histories of the Third Reich are where it's hip and happening now. Apparently.
This discussion has been closed.