Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MarkV View Post



    English invasions were of
    • France
    • Spain
    • Scotland
    • Wales
    • Ireland

    (and if you believe Blackadder 1 Switzerland)

    England has also been at war with but not invaded the Netherlands, the Papal States and Denmark

    Britain (or if you prefer UK but that's not strictly correct) has at one time or another been at war with almost everybody that existed as an entity pre 1945 including Switzerland. The English empire was essentially a chunk of modern France, a tiny bit of Spain and later some miserable struggling colonies in North America, a small portion of North Africa a tiny island in today's Indonesia and a string of trading posts in sub Saharan Africa and India. The British Empire was somewhat more extensive. .
    Britain was ruled by the English. It was part of a larger empire. The subject nationalities within Britain got to participate in the Imperial project, but the English were the ones who ultimately ran the show. It was their empire. Everyone else participated on their terms.

    That makes the claim by a Little Englander that Germans were only 'civilised' and learned the value of hard work because losing WW2 stopped them invading & occupying people the most absurd piece of hypocrisy. Predictable, but absurd. The English have continued invading people unabated since WW2 and continue to benefit from their conquests. Presumably they are neither civilised nor have an understanding of hard work.
    Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

    Comment


    • 'Continue to benefit from their conquests " ?? Really ? How ? I would have thought that the possession of an empire has proved, in many cases, a poisoned challice.
      Also, I think it's a mistake to imply that the UK is composed of four seperate and mutually hostile "nationalities". It's really not like that,despite what some fanatics may say. There are too many "half-breeds" about (me, for instance)

      Also some of the most enthusiastic imperialists were Scots.
      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
      Samuel Johnson.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by m kenny View Post

        I never said GB actively sought war. I said the cause of the war was the struggle between GB and Germany for the position of top dog in Europe. I think the war was a miscalculation by both sides and no one set out to engineer a war.
        German was rising fast and was recognised as a threat to GBs interest. The German desire for a 'Place In The Sun' was troubling and it forced the UK and France into an Alliance after centuries of warfare. France knew her time was over and a Naval Ally was crucial to her survival just as much as the UK realised it needed French troops to fight its ground war. The threat of a rival to match the RN was the final step that made war more or less inevitable. If it had not happened in 1914 it would have in the following decade.
        Anyway the German rise in the 20th century has been remarkable. Twice reduced to ground zero and still she clawed back to the top of the pile You can make a case that but for WW1 and WW2 Europe would be a very different place today with Germany being the world superpower.



        Really? You never heard the term before?
        Your last comment first: yes, but not in this context.

        We're certainly approaching WW1 from entirely different stand-points.

        The cause of WW1 had very little to do with Anglo-German hostility particularly naval hostility, which had largely subsided by 1914. Had not Germany chosen to implement the Schlieffen Plan by invading Belgium it is doubtful whether Britain would have become involved at all.

        France "knew her time was over"? Are you having a laugh ?

        If history teaches anything, it is that very little is "ïnevitable".
        "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
        Samuel Johnson.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
          'Continue to benefit from their conquests " ?? Really ? How ? I would have thought that the possession of an empire has proved, in many cases, a poisoned challice.
          Also, I think it's a mistake to imply that the UK is composed of four seperate and mutually hostile "nationalities". It's really not like that,despite what some fanatics may say. There are too many "half-breeds" about (me, for instance)

          Also some of the most enthusiastic imperialists were Scots.
          I would have thought the possession of oil & gas resources that would belong to an independent Scottish nation was a pretty handy benefit. The availability of that resource to the English dominated UK government over generations has provided benefits that are ongoing and would have been unavailable otherwise.

          I'm not claiming everyone in the three smaller nations is hostile to English rule, but it is not and has not been a partnership of equals. However enthusiastic Scots, Welsh, Irish or even Cornish might have been about Empire, it was still fundamentally an English project.

          In any case, I'm simply providing a counterpoint to the patently ridiculous claims of one of our resident Brexiteers, who appears to suffer the affliction of so many of his kind - an obsession with Britain's role in WW2.
          Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BF69 View Post

            I would have thought the possession of oil & gas resources that would belong to an independent Scottish nation was a pretty handy benefit. The availability of that resource to the English dominated UK government over generations has provided benefits that are ongoing and would have been unavailable otherwise.
            The oil and gas resources was a voiced concern from the English as recently as the Scottish referendum, talks about who was going to control them, as if to suggest these resources would have ended up under English control, had Scotland seceded from the Union.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

              The French-Russian alliance was only a hoax : at every crisis before 1914, both parties abandoned each other .Britain was more important for France than Russia,because it was not far away from France and would help France if it was attacked, while Russia was far away and always had abandoned France when France needed her .
              No it most definitely was not some hoax. And the UK wasn't more important for France. What the Franco-Russian alliance also was not, was an alliance of close coordination.

              The Russians came damn close to pulling France into a war in the Balkans in 1912. But the French at the time were very optimistic about their prospects for winning such a war. Poincaré himself asked the French QG staff to prepare a dossier for him re the French prospects of winning a major European war. The dossier was delivered on 2 Sept 1912, and according to it the French generals were confident they would bowl the Germans over, if they were busy in the east against Russia, while the Austrians were tied down in the Balkans. It wasn't made public, but it was distributed to the French diplomatic missions around the world, as a kind of instruction if that already anticipated major war would roll around.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                Anyway getting back on topic.

                Which country within the EU is going to play the role Portugal did in the Napoleonic wars and help the UK break the Continental System? Hungary perhaps? Though it would be difficult for Britain to be able to send help to Hungary and I cant see them holding out against the Franco-Germans for long.
                Disregarding, for argument's sake, that you're the one thinking you're at war and having the rhetoric to match (disturbing in itself), what makes you think that's even relevant as an analogy? What did the Continental System in was wholesale smuggling. The early modern states were unable to effectively control their borders. Today they can. But if you want the Napoleonic war tropes to even reasonably work here you should be asking who would be willing to engage in wholesale deception of the EU and the subversion of the Common Market?

                The answer really is that there's no upside for anyone in the CM to do that, so the UK can't buy friends inside the EU like that. And May has already tried to court this, by attempting to bypass Barnier's team and talk directly to the national governments. The outcome was no takers, but on top of that they have now been insulted by the UK government, and only reaffirmed their confidence in Barnier. (The UK govt by the look of it comes across as respecting Barnier and the EU aggregate level, but not liking it much, while being seen to think the national governments fools, and insisting on it.) And so here the UK stands, May most importantly (apparently also you) insisting on doubling down on that somehow dividing the EU on the issues by attempting things it seems to assume SHOULD work, even when it clearly doesn't. There's a definition of madness that comes pretty close...
                Last edited by Johan Banér; 01 Oct 18, 04:04.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                  whom they installed upon conquering Kabul in August 1839
                  The English did not install anyone in Kabul. Agains you should read your own link.
                  "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                    Anyway getting back on topic.

                    Which country within the EU is going to play the role Portugal did in the Napoleonic wars and help the UK break the Continental System? Hungary perhaps? Though it would be difficult for Britain to be able to send help to Hungary and I cant see them holding out against the Franco-Germans for long.
                    Orban was VERY silent on the matter when put on the spot, so no matter UK Tory endorsements of Orban's attempts to disrupt the fundamental principles of the EU.

                    Don't get your hopes up. Hungary doesn't want to be rid of the EU, much less the common market (it wants to take it over from the inside, the certainly will be happy to get UK help, alongside the Russian) but the UK cannot afford to compensate it either so why would you think the Hungarians would do themselves harm for the UK's sake? That's a pretty desperate casting about for options that are not there.

                    That's the UK government's problems, those kinds of opportunities are not there. The continentals are neither fools or interested in self-harm, even when fundamentally at odds over what principles should govern society, and inform the EU. "Self-harm on behalf of the UK" doesn't come in anywhere, and the UK isn't actually even offering anything beyond things that generally would screw the EU, as if that should be sufficient, in particular to countries that see that they clearly want and need the EU, even when it would be a different EU than the present. Anyway, the UK cannot afford to buy the Hungarians, even if they would be for sale.

                    There are things where the UK MIGHT find cracks between EU members to exploit, but the Common Market isn't one of those. In particular not the UK Tories, with the commitment to the kind of rapacious market economy they have. CORBYN could mount a much more serious challenge to the EU, including the Common Market.

                    Effectively the UK wants the EU to compromise itself, specifically the Common Market, on the UK's behalf, for the UK really wants the Common Market, even if what the UK wants would put it in jeopardy. The unreflected sense of entitlement is staggering.

                    Comment


                    • I would say the latest news from the UK with regards to the Brexit are really starting to go into the utterly absurd territory at least from the EU27 perspective,

                      Theresa May's £120M "Festival of Britain" for starters - already marked as "Brexit festival". The probably most telling of its 'quality' was that many thought it was just sarcasm or parody instead of actual news - I'm bit on the fence on that myself to be fair.

                      Jeremy Hunt's comparison of the EU to the Soviet prisons. Which is kind of peculiar to say the least since the UK is leaving the EU.
                      It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                        The English did not install anyone in Kabul. Agains you should read your own link.
                        Initially, the British successfully intervened in a succession dispute between emir Dost Mohammad (Barakzai) and former emir Shah Shujah (Durrani), whom they installed upon conquering Kabul in August 1839.
                        It appears it is you that have not read the link.
                        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post



                          It appears it is you that have not read the link.
                          I have. Read it again. This time slowly.
                          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                            I would say the latest news from the UK with regards to the Brexit are really starting to go into the utterly absurd territory at least from the EU27 perspective,

                            Theresa May's £120M "Festival of Britain" for starters - already marked as "Brexit festival". The probably most telling of its 'quality' was that many thought it was just sarcasm or parody instead of actual news - I'm bit on the fence on that myself to be fair.

                            Jeremy Hunt's comparison of the EU to the Soviet prisons. Which is kind of peculiar to say the least since the UK is leaving the EU.
                            We all know TM is mad. Aside from her horrendous Chequers proposal one of her faults is her desire to fritter tax payers money away on irrelevant projects. Probably comes with being a vicars daughter. If she had been a grocer's daughter she would have been very different.
                            Last edited by Surrey; 01 Oct 18, 05:51.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by BF69 View Post

                              Britain was ruled by the English. It was part of a larger empire. The subject nationalities within Britain got to participate in the Imperial project, but the English were the ones who ultimately ran the show. It was their empire. Everyone else participated on their terms.

                              That makes the claim by a Little Englander that Germans were only 'civilised' and learned the value of hard work because losing WW2 stopped them invading & occupying people the most absurd piece of hypocrisy. Predictable, but absurd. The English have continued invading people unabated since WW2 and continue to benefit from their conquests. Presumably they are neither civilised nor have an understanding of hard work.
                              You have clearly watched Brave Heart one too many times. Tip - Mel Gibson's version of history is not exactly accurate...


                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                                No it most definitely was not some hoax. And the UK wasn't more important for France. What the Franco-Russian alliance also was not, was an alliance of close coordination.

                                The Russians came damn close to pulling France into a war in the Balkans in 1912. But the French at the time were very optimistic about their prospects for winning such a war. Poincaré himself asked the French QG staff to prepare a dossier for him re the French prospects of winning a major European war. The dossier was delivered on 2 Sept 1912, and according to it the French generals were confident they would bowl the Germans over, if they were busy in the east against Russia, while the Austrians were tied down in the Balkans. It wasn't made public, but it was distributed to the French diplomatic missions around the world, as a kind of instruction if that already anticipated major war would roll around.
                                If it was not an alliance of close coordination, it was not an alliance .
                                The French let down the Russians in 1908, in 1912 and 1914.
                                The Russians let down the French in 1898, in 1905 ,1911 and 1914.
                                There was no risk of a war in 1912. France always refused to be committed in the Balkans .
                                That the French generals were confident to defeat the Germans if these were tied against the Russians is totally irrelevant,as France would only be at war if it was attacked by Germany, not if Germany attacked Russia,or Russia attacked Germany .
                                The dossier prepared for Poincaré was irrelevant, as the situation mentionned in the dossier never materialized.
                                France was not certain of Russia, but was certain of Britain,that's why Britain was more important .
                                Last edited by ljadw; 01 Oct 18, 06:05.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X