Theresa May

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Theresa May

Page 21 of 42 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Jul 17 4.31pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Spot on Jamie, I was about to post something similar myself. (Pity your grasp of history slackens when you keep on saying the DUP are as bad as Sin Fein/IRA.) Both sides engaged in the murder of British Citizens, its just the Loyalists weren't killing British Soldiers and bombing English cities. I don't see that as making them any better, just that they saw themselves as being on 'our side'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Jul 17 4.31pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Spot on Jamie, I was about to post something similar myself. (Pity your grasp of history slackens when you keep on saying the DUP are as bad as Sin Fein/IRA.)

Both sides engaged in the murder of British Citizens, its just the Loyalists weren't killing British Soldiers and bombing English cities.

I don't see that as making them any better, just that they saw themselves as being on 'our side'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 05 Jul 17 4.40pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Chamberlain tried to avoid a war that we could not win. Without events making America and Russia get involved, we would have been a part of greater Germany. I am suggesting that Labour would do anything to get power regardless of the damage done. Pretty questionable statement. I'm in the middle of reading William L Shirer's excellent history of the third reich after a recommendation on HOL and this is not the picture painted in that history. He's very much disparaging of Chamberlain and his government's lack of action in the years before the war and in particular his efforts surrounding the Nazi occupations of Austria and the Sudetenland. It seems to be his assertion that Germany did not posses sufficient strength in 1937 and in the Spring of 1938, let alone when the entered the demilitarised zone over the Rhine in early 1936 when an attack from the French or the Brits would have likely finished Hitler in double quick time, an attack prescribed by the post WW1 treaties entered into by Germany and the Allies.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 05 Jul 17 4.40pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Chamberlain tried to avoid a war that we could not win.

Without events making America and Russia get involved, we would have been a part of greater Germany.

I am suggesting that Labour would do anything to get power regardless of the damage done.

Pretty questionable statement. I'm in the middle of reading William L Shirer's excellent history of the third reich after a recommendation on HOL and this is not the picture painted in that history. He's very much disparaging of Chamberlain and his government's lack of action in the years before the war and in particular his efforts surrounding the Nazi occupations of Austria and the Sudetenland. It seems to be his assertion that Germany did not posses sufficient strength in 1937 and in the Spring of 1938, let alone when the entered the demilitarised zone over the Rhine in early 1936 when an attack from the French or the Brits would have likely finished Hitler in double quick time, an attack prescribed by the post WW1 treaties entered into by Germany and the Allies.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Jul 17 5.03pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Pretty questionable statement. I'm in the middle of reading William L Shirer's excellent history of the third reich after a recommendation on HOL and this is not the picture painted in that history. He's very much disparaging of Chamberlain and his government's lack of action in the years before the war and in particular his efforts surrounding the Nazi occupations of Austria and the Sudetenland. It seems to be his assertion that Germany did not posses sufficient strength in 1937 and in the Spring of 1938, let alone when the entered the demilitarised zone over the Rhine in early 1936 when an attack from the French or the Brits would have likely finished Hitler in double quick time, an attack prescribed by the post WW1 treaties entered into by Germany and the Allies. Hindsight. After WW1, no one had the stomach for another conflict and we did not rearm. If we had become more militaristic after WW1 and squashed Germany, you revisionists would be saying we were aggressive imperialists. I'm still blaming Hitler for WW2 myself.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Jul 17 5.03pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Hindsight.

After WW1, no one had the stomach for another conflict and we did not rearm. If we had become more militaristic after WW1 and squashed Germany, you revisionists would be saying we were aggressive imperialists.

I'm still blaming Hitler for WW2 myself.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Jul 17 5.38pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle Pretty questionable statement. I'm in the middle of reading William L Shirer's excellent history of the third reich after a recommendation on HOL and this is not the picture painted in that history. He's very much disparaging of Chamberlain and his government's lack of action in the years before the war and in particular his efforts surrounding the Nazi occupations of Austria and the Sudetenland. It seems to be his assertion that Germany did not posses sufficient strength in 1937 and in the Spring of 1938, let alone when the entered the demilitarised zone over the Rhine in early 1936 when an attack from the French or the Brits would have likely finished Hitler in double quick time, an attack prescribed by the post WW1 treaties entered into by Germany and the Allies. The Obama of the 1930s We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Jul 17 5.38pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

Pretty questionable statement. I'm in the middle of reading William L Shirer's excellent history of the third reich after a recommendation on HOL and this is not the picture painted in that history. He's very much disparaging of Chamberlain and his government's lack of action in the years before the war and in particular his efforts surrounding the Nazi occupations of Austria and the Sudetenland. It seems to be his assertion that Germany did not posses sufficient strength in 1937 and in the Spring of 1938, let alone when the entered the demilitarised zone over the Rhine in early 1936 when an attack from the French or the Brits would have likely finished Hitler in double quick time, an attack prescribed by the post WW1 treaties entered into by Germany and the Allies.

The Obama of the 1930s

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 6.15pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Probably not. Neither the US or Russia entered the war until the British Military had achieved successes in Africa. Now the British probably wouldn't have been able to win the war without the US and Russia, but once the Battle of Britain was won, Germany was never going to be able to invade. In all likelihood, if the US hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have consumed Europe or if the two had maintained peace, most of Europe would have been occupied Germany. By 1941 the fate of the UK is pretty much secured from Invasion. Que? I think you'll find that the Soviets entered the war against the Axis when it found millions of German soldiers pouring over the border. Operation Sea lion was little more than a pipedream once Hitler ordered the bombers to stop attacking RAF airfields. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 6.15pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Probably not. Neither the US or Russia entered the war until the British Military had achieved successes in Africa. Now the British probably wouldn't have been able to win the war without the US and Russia, but once the Battle of Britain was won, Germany was never going to be able to invade.

In all likelihood, if the US hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have consumed Europe or if the two had maintained peace, most of Europe would have been occupied Germany.

By 1941 the fate of the UK is pretty much secured from Invasion.

Que? I think you'll find that the Soviets entered the war against the Axis when it found millions of German soldiers pouring over the border.

Operation Sea lion was little more than a pipedream once Hitler ordered the bombers to stop attacking RAF airfields.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 05 Jul 17 6.32pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Que? I think you'll find that the Soviets entered the war against the Axis when it found millions of German soldiers pouring over the border. Operation Sea lion was little more than a pipedream once Hitler ordered the bombers to stop attacking RAF airfields. Quite happy to be their pals until Hitler doubled-crossed them though. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 05 Jul 17 6.32pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Que? I think you'll find that the Soviets entered the war against the Axis when it found millions of German soldiers pouring over the border.

Operation Sea lion was little more than a pipedream once Hitler ordered the bombers to stop attacking RAF airfields.

Quite happy to be their pals until Hitler doubled-crossed them though.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Jul 17 6.53pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Probably not. Neither the US or Russia entered the war until the British Military had achieved successes in Africa. Now the British probably wouldn't have been able to win the war without the US and Russia, but once the Battle of Britain was won, Germany was never going to be able to invade. In all likelihood, if the US hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have consumed Europe or if the two had maintained peace, most of Europe would have been occupied Germany. By 1941 the fate of the UK is pretty much secured from Invasion. I don't agree. The war was going badly for us in the early stages and given time, Germany would have had time to develop the weapons and superior aircraft that would have crushed British resistance. The Russians could not have been defeated but neither could they have had as much success on the offensive without the Americans in the war. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Jul 2017 6.57pm) Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Jul 2017 6.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Jul 17 6.53pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

In all likelihood, if the US hadn't gotten involved, the Soviet Union would have consumed Europe or if the two had maintained peace, most of Europe would have been occupied Germany.

By 1941 the fate of the UK is pretty much secured from Invasion.

I don't agree.
The war was going badly for us in the early stages and given time, Germany would have had time to develop the weapons and superior aircraft that would have crushed British resistance. The Russians could not have been defeated but neither could they have had as much success on the offensive without the Americans in the war.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Jul 2017 6.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 05 Jul 17 7.00pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Hmmm so the Loyalists never bombed NI or murdered Catholics in order to subvert British Politics and democracy. Its a bit like arguing who was better Hitler or Stalin, there's no gain, because neither is acceptable. Protestants had a democratic majority. There was no need for any Loyalist to kill to subvert democracy.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

05 Jul 17 7.00pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Hmmm so the Loyalists never bombed NI or murdered Catholics in order to subvert British Politics and democracy.

Its a bit like arguing who was better Hitler or Stalin, there's no gain, because neither is acceptable.

Protestants had a democratic majority. There was no need for any Loyalist to kill to subvert democracy.

Alert a moderator to this post

Southampton_Eagle At the after party 05 Jul 17 7.05pm
Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent.
Alert a moderator to this post

Southampton_Eagle

At the after party 05 Jul 17 7.05pm

Send a Private Message to Southampton_Eagle

Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent.

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Jul 17 7.17pm
Originally posted by Southampton_Eagle Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent. Basically it's deflecting away from May's s***eness. It evolved from a comment that Corbyn would be friends with Hitler if it got him into power.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 05 Jul 17 7.17pm

Originally posted by Southampton_Eagle

Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent.

Basically it's deflecting away from May's s***eness. It evolved from a comment that Corbyn would be friends with Hitler if it got him into power.

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 8.25pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't agree. The war was going badly for us in the early stages and given time, Germany would have had time to develop the weapons and superior aircraft that would have crushed British resistance. The Russians could not have been defeated but neither could they have had as much success on the offensive without the Americans in the war. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Jul 2017 6.57pm) This is becoming a much more interesting thread :-) Hrolf, I tend to agree that if WW2 had remained a one-front war then the UK would have eventually had to negotiate some sort of armistice. Eventually being the operative word. I also think that the Soviets were starting defeat fully in the face in the early autumn of 1941 before the weather bailed them out. The outcome in Europe was decided at Kursk in 1943. From that point, the only "winner" in Europe was going to be the Soviets and the only thing to argue about was "how long". If it wasn't for the Manhattan Project, I reckon you would have seen T-34s rolling through Paris and another evacuation across the Channel. Edited by Mr_Gristle (05 Jul 2017 8.26pm) Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 8.25pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Jul 2017 6.57pm)

This is becoming a much more interesting thread :-)

Hrolf, I tend to agree that if WW2 had remained a one-front war then the UK would have eventually had to negotiate some sort of armistice. Eventually being the operative word.

I also think that the Soviets were starting defeat fully in the face in the early autumn of 1941 before the weather bailed them out.

The outcome in Europe was decided at Kursk in 1943. From that point, the only "winner" in Europe was going to be the Soviets and the only thing to argue about was "how long".

If it wasn't for the Manhattan Project, I reckon you would have seen T-34s rolling through Paris and another evacuation across the Channel.

Edited by Mr_Gristle (05 Jul 2017 8.26pm)

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 8.30pm
Originally posted by Southampton_Eagle Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent. We're trying to decide if she's better / worse / equivalent to Chamberlain, Stalin or Hitler. We haven't got to Mussolini or Hirohito yet. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 05 Jul 17 8.30pm

Originally posted by Southampton_Eagle

Saw the thread title, skipped straight to the final page to see if she'd signed yet & got a WW2 history lesson. I'm not quite intrigued enough to read the whole thread to unravel the tangent.

We're trying to decide if she's better / worse / equivalent to Chamberlain, Stalin or Hitler. We haven't got to Mussolini or Hirohito yet.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 21 of 42 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Theresa May

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors