|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 9, 2021 18:58:29 GMT
Well yes but we didn't avoid them,just escaped. Germans let the lads escape didn't they, very sad that 3.5k lost their lives in that grave error. The Germans main target was russian Bolshevism so didnt push for a full land battle with england at that point. Well not quite,Goering was adamant that the Luftwaffe could destroy what was left of the BEF so no need to risk valuable men and materials,this was against the advice from Guderian and the other Panzer generals who wanted to finish the BEF after they had closed the trap. By the time they realised their mistake Operation Dynamo was well under way,Hitler also believed that Britain could not carry on the war and would sue for peace as whilst the men returned other than light arms all heavy weapons were left on the beaches,particularly as Lord Halifax was openly canvassing support for peace terms . |
|
|
|
Post by stuartcampbell on Mar 9, 2021 20:08:55 GMT
95% on the side of Meghan and Harry. The media in this country is an absolute joke and there is undoubtedly unreal comparisons between Kate and Meghan in the exact same situation, for example, when cradling her unborn child. Kate's headline read: "Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due 'any minute now.'" Meghan's headline read: "Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride? vanity? acting? - or a new bonding technique? Another example was of a bloody avocado, Kate's read: "Kate's morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted with an avocado for Princess Duchess," Meghan's read "Meghan Markle's beloved avocado linked to human rights abuse and drought, millenial shame."
There seemed to be other implications from the entire thing. I think those talking about "oh she hates media attention but she's fine with an Oprah interview," completely miss the point. Her expressing her story in the manner which she chooses is uncomparable to clear media double-standards. I would not be shocked if the concern about her child potentially being black comment was from Prince Charles, and I don't doubt for a second the "protection of others," comment is in reference to that nonce Prince Andrew. The only thing I questioned was the comments on the lack of titles for her children which is explainable given Royalist customs but I could certainly see this as the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't doubt her suicidal thoughts, and I've despised the Royal Family as an institution since the way they treated Diana (and I still believe they had a firm role in her death). I think people who think she's just made this all up and led Harry astray like an evil serpentress need to realise we're not in a Fairy Tale. I sincerely doubt she married into this institution for riches given her previous status, made this all up and led him astray. Live in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgas on Mar 9, 2021 21:35:23 GMT
Interesting poll stats on sky news about who has and has not got sympathy for Harry & Meghan. Conservative voters very little , Labour voters a lot more.18-24 yr olds I think was something like 44% and over 65s only 9% . With age comes wisdom. youll get there one day, look back and wonder how you could have held such ridiculous views. Grover won't, he's a tinpot Marxist bankrupt haulage contractor. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Mar 9, 2021 22:26:09 GMT
Interesting poll stats on sky news about who has and has not got sympathy for Harry & Meghan. Conservative voters very little , Labour voters a lot more.18-24 yr olds I think was something like 44% and over 65s only 9% . With age comes wisdom. youll get there one day, look back and wonder how you could have held such ridiculous views. Grover won't, he's a tinpot Marxist bankrupt haulage contractor. Christ, you must have been a right facist back in your day then. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,502 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Mar 9, 2021 23:00:22 GMT
Interesting poll stats on sky news about who has and has not got sympathy for Harry & Meghan. Conservative voters very little , Labour voters a lot more.18-24 yr olds I think was something like 44% and over 65s only 9% . With age comes wisdom. youll get there one day, look back and wonder how you could have held such ridiculous views. Grover won't, he's a tinpot Marxist bankrupt haulage contractor. Better than being a sad old racist I guess . |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 9, 2021 23:39:19 GMT
Only to a point, not entirely. Germany had no global empire, they wanted Eastern Europe. We fought the Germans in 1939/40 at the start, North Africa theatre came later when the Italians needed backing up. Ww1 was Germany's attempt to get a global empire. They were late to the party in that respect. England joined the French and russians in ww1 to maintain their empire and keep routes open to India. Seems war is money orientated, not the moral crusade we are told it was after the event. Disagree on your first point, the German global empire was pretty insignificant by comparison, our concern was more the naval arms race and growing economic clout, we even found a solution with France who were our biggest traditional colonial rivals. If you are looking for a single reason for the First World War, you would be better off with the Balken Wars of 1912 and 1913. It started a chain reaction of nationalist movements with the potential disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the various interwoven alliances. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 9, 2021 23:49:45 GMT
Well yes but we didn't avoid them,just escaped. Germans let the lads escape didn't they, very sad that 3.5k lost their lives in that grave error. The Germans main target was russian Bolshevism so didnt push for a full land battle with england at that point. Not sure where you got your numbers from, we lost over 11,000 dead and 10s of thousands captured. We certainly didn't avoid Germany, even after Dunkirk we fought on, you may not be aware of the Second BEF, Operation Ariel and Saarforce where we lost the 51st Highland Division. On top of that we continued in places like Norway. The Germans stopped for a few reasons, they had overstretched themselves and needed to regroup, they thought the air force would do the job and not forgetting the rearguard fighting, especially by the French First Army. As for fighting Bolshevism, don't forget the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. What Hitler wanted was the natural resources of Eastern Europe, not to defeat an ideology. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 10, 2021 6:50:58 GMT
95% on the side of Meghan and Harry. The media in this country is an absolute joke and there is undoubtedly unreal comparisons between Kate and Meghan in the exact same situation, for example, when cradling her unborn child. Kate's headline read: "Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due 'any minute now.'" Meghan's headline read: "Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride? vanity? acting? - or a new bonding technique? Another example was of a bloody avocado, Kate's read: "Kate's morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted with an avocado for Princess Duchess," Meghan's read "Meghan Markle's beloved avocado linked to human rights abuse and drought, millenial shame." There seemed to be other implications from the entire thing. I think those talking about "oh she hates media attention but she's fine with an Oprah interview," completely miss the point. Her expressing her story in the manner which she chooses is uncomparable to clear media double-standards. I would not be shocked if the concern about her child potentially being black comment was from Prince Charles, and I don't doubt for a second the "protection of others," comment is in reference to that nonce Prince Andrew. The only thing I questioned was the comments on the lack of titles for her children which is explainable given Royalist customs but I could certainly see this as the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't doubt her suicidal thoughts, and I've despised the Royal Family as an institution since the way they treated Diana (and I still believe they had a firm role in her death). I think people who think she's just made this all up and led Harry astray like an evil serpentress need to realise we're not in a Fairy Tale. I sincerely doubt she married into this institution for riches given her previous status, made this all up and led him astray. Live in the real world. I think the titles thing is a bit confusing. Archie wouldnt be a Prince yet whatever, due to some rule or decree back in the day, but as and when the Queen passed on, Archie would be 'upgraded' However the claim from Meghan and Harry is that this rule/decree whatever is/was going to change when the Queen does pass on and Archie would never be a Prince I think |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 10, 2021 7:05:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 10, 2021 7:52:16 GMT
95% on the side of Meghan and Harry. The media in this country is an absolute joke and there is undoubtedly unreal comparisons between Kate and Meghan in the exact same situation, for example, when cradling her unborn child. Kate's headline read: "Not long to go! Pregnant Kate tenderly cradles her baby bump while wrapping up her royal duties ahead of maternity leave - and William confirms she's due 'any minute now.'" Meghan's headline read: "Why can't Meghan Markle keep her hands off her bump? Experts tackle the question that has got the nation talking: Is it pride? vanity? acting? - or a new bonding technique? Another example was of a bloody avocado, Kate's read: "Kate's morning sickness cure? Prince William gifted with an avocado for Princess Duchess," Meghan's read "Meghan Markle's beloved avocado linked to human rights abuse and drought, millenial shame." There seemed to be other implications from the entire thing. I think those talking about "oh she hates media attention but she's fine with an Oprah interview," completely miss the point. Her expressing her story in the manner which she chooses is uncomparable to clear media double-standards. I would not be shocked if the concern about her child potentially being black comment was from Prince Charles, and I don't doubt for a second the "protection of others," comment is in reference to that nonce Prince Andrew. The only thing I questioned was the comments on the lack of titles for her children which is explainable given Royalist customs but I could certainly see this as the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't doubt her suicidal thoughts, and I've despised the Royal Family as an institution since the way they treated Diana (and I still believe they had a firm role in her death). I think people who think she's just made this all up and led Harry astray like an evil serpentress need to realise we're not in a Fairy Tale. I sincerely doubt she married into this institution for riches given her previous status, made this all up and led him astray. Live in the real world. I think the titles thing is a bit confusing. Archie wouldnt be a Prince yet whatever, due to some rule or decree back in the day, but as and when the Queen passed on, Archie would be 'upgraded' However the claim from Meghan and Harry is that this rule/decree whatever is/was going to change when the Queen does pass on and Archie would never be a Prince I think Do they know that for sure and in the end does it really matter,the World's in the sh** and their arguing over a bloody title,pathetic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 7:53:20 GMT
Interesting poll stats on sky news about who has and has not got sympathy for Harry & Meghan. Conservative voters very little , Labour voters a lot more.18-24 yr olds I think was something like 44% and over 65s only 9% . With age comes wisdom. youll get there one day, look back and wonder how you could have held such ridiculous views. Grover won't, he's a tinpot Marxist bankrupt haulage contractor. It's the trap isn't it, Tories especially are the party of capital. They want you have a 35 year mortgage, high rents, cars on finance, payday loans and maxed out credit cards so that you are in constant dept. The things you acquire as you get older. Let's be honest, most people vote for who the newspapers tell them to. |
|
|
|
Post by blueridge on Mar 10, 2021 8:33:21 GMT
Back on topic:
A few things I can’t really figure out, so excuse me if it’s obvious to some.
Why broadcast this at all at this time. They’re banging on about insensitivity within the royal household but they do just that, at a time when his grandfather is lying very seriously ill in hospital and his grandmother is probably worried sick about his condition and knowing full well the ramifications this was going to have. Personally I wouldn’t expect this in any family let alone broadcasting it to tens millions of people in trying to seemingly gain imo the moral high ground.
The so-called racist remark was clearly made by someone very close to Harry (one of two people imo). Why would Harry, knowing the fragility of his wife’s mind set at the time, relate that message to her, knowing full well the upset it would cause her. An untrue analogy - a bit like my brother saying to me - you’re wife’s got a fat arse - would I go and tell her that if I knew it would upset her - no I’d have it out with him there and then.
It was their decision to move to a $14.5 million mansion in California - how can they reasonable expect the Privy Purse (the taxpayer) to pay for their full time security over 5000 miles away?
Personally I thought the broadcast was cynical,(Meghan was an actor apparently) sickly and unnecessary - the perceived problems should of been kept within the confines of the family, Sadly it appears to me that irreparable damage has been done particularly to Harry and his family. Meghan had few if any family ties to damage already being estranged from her father and I believe from her sister.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 9:56:23 GMT
Germans let the lads escape didn't they, very sad that 3.5k lost their lives in that grave error. The Germans main target was russian Bolshevism so didnt push for a full land battle with england at that point. Not sure where you got your numbers from, we lost over 11,000 dead and 10s of thousands captured. We certainly didn't avoid Germany, even after Dunkirk we fought on, you may not be aware of the Second BEF, Operation Ariel and Saarforce where we lost the 51st Highland Division. On top of that we continued in places like Norway. The Germans stopped for a few reasons, they had overstretched themselves and needed to regroup, they thought the air force would do the job and not forgetting the rearguard fighting, especially by the French First Army. As for fighting Bolshevism, don't forget the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. What Hitler wanted was the natural resources of Eastern Europe, not to defeat an ideology. Pulled the numbers off of wiki, says 3.5k British soldiers died at Dunkirk. Our views on the war are very different for sure, whos propaganda is correct? Who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 10, 2021 10:06:58 GMT
Not sure where you got your numbers from, we lost over 11,000 dead and 10s of thousands captured. We certainly didn't avoid Germany, even after Dunkirk we fought on, you may not be aware of the Second BEF, Operation Ariel and Saarforce where we lost the 51st Highland Division. On top of that we continued in places like Norway. The Germans stopped for a few reasons, they had overstretched themselves and needed to regroup, they thought the air force would do the job and not forgetting the rearguard fighting, especially by the French First Army. As for fighting Bolshevism, don't forget the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. What Hitler wanted was the natural resources of Eastern Europe, not to defeat an ideology. Pulled the numbers off of wiki, says 3.5k British soldiers died at Dunkirk. Our views on the war are very different for sure, whos propaganda is correct? Who knows. I was referring to the campaign as a whole, not just Dunkirk. You asserted in an earlier post we avoided fighting the Germans, we clearly didn't either before or after. It's not propaganda though, interpretation of events is one thing, cherry picking individual actions to suit a pre determined opinion is another. Out of interest, where did you learn your WWII history? Wonder if the sources has any vested interest. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Mar 10, 2021 10:53:26 GMT
My Grandfather was on the beaches at Dunkirk and I recall some of his memories that he relayed to me. He was a Captain in the Royal Engineers at the time and had a number of men under his command.
He told me of the constant bombings by the German airforce of the beach and seeing many men blown to bits and others losing limbs. Some things he saw and did a bit too graphic to post.
He ensured that all men under his command got safely onto boats. When it came to him there were no boats left. He had two decisions either to become a POW or swim. He chose to swim so he took off his boots and jacket put a photo of mum who was a baby in his trouser pocket and swam.
He was a very accomplished swimmer and got half way across when he was picked up by a British destroyer. There is an old black and white film based on Dunkirk which ends with a lone swimmer being picked by a destroyer and my Grandfather always said that was based on him.
I never had the heart to say he probably wasn't the only one who took the decision to swim. But I was immensely proud of him.
Back to the point, I think if I had said to him the Germans let you all escape he would have been highly offended as would anyone who experienced it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 11:49:57 GMT
Pulled the numbers off of wiki, says 3.5k British soldiers died at Dunkirk. Our views on the war are very different for sure, whos propaganda is correct? Who knows. I was referring to the campaign as a whole, not just Dunkirk. You asserted in an earlier post we avoided fighting the Germans, we clearly didn't either before or after. It's not propaganda though, interpretation of events is one thing, cherry picking individual actions to suit a pre determined opinion is another. Out of interest, where did you learn your WWII history? Wonder if the sources has any vested interest. Ah I was referring to just the Brits lost. I won't go too deep here, but I started by reading Anthony beevor and Richard J evans years ago, and since the internet there are tonnes of academic resources online, from both left and right ideology. It's a minefield but fascinating to spot the propaganda that still exists today. PR stories and propaganda became part of our national identity. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 10, 2021 11:55:02 GMT
I was referring to the campaign as a whole, not just Dunkirk. You asserted in an earlier post we avoided fighting the Germans, we clearly didn't either before or after. It's not propaganda though, interpretation of events is one thing, cherry picking individual actions to suit a pre determined opinion is another. Out of interest, where did you learn your WWII history? Wonder if the sources has any vested interest. Ah I was referring to just the Brits lost. I won't go too deep here, but I started by reading Anthony beevor and Richard J evans years ago, and since the internet there are tonnes of academic resources online, from both left and right ideology. It's a minefield but fascinating to spot the propaganda that still exists today. PR stories and propaganda became part of our national identity. I was referring to just the British fatalities too, from all the fighting in the Battle of France. Still concerned about your use of the words PR and propaganda, not sure it is appropriate when discussing facts. Fascinating topic. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 12:29:46 GMT
My Grandfather was on the beaches at Dunkirk and I recall some of his memories that he relayed to me. He was a Captain in the Royal Engineers at the time and had a number of men under his command. He told me of the constant bombings by the German airforce of the beach and seeing many men blown to bits and others losing limbs. Some things he saw and did a bit too graphic to post. He ensured that all men under his command got safely onto boats. When it came to him there were no boats left. He had two decisions either to become a POW or swim. He chose to swim so he took off his boots and jacket put a photo of mum who was a baby in his trouser pocket and swam. He was a very accomplished swimmer and got half way across when he was picked up by a British destroyer. There is an old black and white film based on Dunkirk which ends with a lone swimmer being picked by a destroyer and my Grandfather always said that was based on him. I never had the heart to say he probably wasn't the only one who took the decision to swim. But I was immensely proud of him. Back to the point, I think if I had said to him the Germans let you all escape he would have been highly offended as would anyone who experienced it. Fantastic story and your grandfather was a brave man. I'm talking about the war on the whole though, not the story of individuals that we can relate to. The war is far more complex than the stories we are told. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 12:32:26 GMT
Ah I was referring to just the Brits lost. I won't go too deep here, but I started by reading Anthony beevor and Richard J evans years ago, and since the internet there are tonnes of academic resources online, from both left and right ideology. It's a minefield but fascinating to spot the propaganda that still exists today. PR stories and propaganda became part of our national identity. I was referring to just the British fatalities too, from all the fighting in the Battle of France. Still concerned about your use of the words PR and propaganda, not sure it is appropriate when discussing facts. Fascinating topic. Facts are what it boils down to for sure, and where those facts come from. |
|
|
|
Post by oliverhelmet on Mar 10, 2021 12:39:16 GMT
Back on topic: A few things I can’t really figure out, so excuse me if it’s obvious to some. Why broadcast this at all at this time. They’re banging on about insensitivity within the royal household but they do just that, at a time when his grandfather is lying very seriously ill in hospital and his grandmother is probably worried sick about his condition and knowing full well the ramifications this was going to have. Personally I wouldn’t expect this in any family let alone broadcasting it to tens millions of people in trying to seemingly gain imo the moral high ground. The so-called racist remark was clearly made by someone very close to Harry (one of two people imo). Why would Harry, knowing the fragility of his wife’s mind set at the time, relate that message to her, knowing full well the upset it would cause her. An untrue analogy - a bit like my brother saying to me - you’re wife’s got a fat arse - would I go and tell her that if I knew it would upset her - no I’d have it out with him there and then. It was their decision to move to a $14.5 million mansion in California - how can they reasonable expect the Privy Purse (the taxpayer) to pay for their full time security over 5000 miles away? Personally I thought the broadcast was cynical,(Meghan was an actor apparently) sickly and unnecessary - the perceived problems should of been kept within the confines of the family, Sadly it appears to me that irreparable damage has been done particularly to Harry and his family. Meghan had few if any family ties to damage already being estranged from her father and I believe from her sister. I think Meghan has come out of this extremely well,she’s actually a far better actress than she was previously given credit for. |
|
