PDA

View Full Version : David Cameron criticised over World War II history slip



AndyJWest
07-21-2010, 10:05 PM
David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.

He made the historical slip, neglecting the fact that the US had yet to enter the war, on the second day of his first trip to the US as prime minister.

Labour's David Miliband called it a "slight", while a veterans' group said it could "alienate" former troops.

No 10 said Mr Cameron had not meant to belittle the efforts of British troops.

Mr Cameron referred to the situation in 1940 during an interview with Sky News in which he was asked about the changing nature of the "special relationship" with the US and his meeting with President Obama on Tuesday.
'High regard'

"I think it is important in life to speak as it is and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US but we are the junior partner," he said.

"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739

And David Cameron went to Eton? What exactly do they teach there?

AndyJWest
07-21-2010, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> David Cameron has been criticised after mistakenly saying the UK was the "junior partner" in the allied World War II fight against Germany in 1940.

He made the historical slip, neglecting the fact that the US had yet to enter the war, on the second day of his first trip to the US as prime minister.

Labour's David Miliband called it a "slight", while a veterans' group said it could "alienate" former troops.

No 10 said Mr Cameron had not meant to belittle the efforts of British troops.

Mr Cameron referred to the situation in 1940 during an interview with Sky News in which he was asked about the changing nature of the "special relationship" with the US and his meeting with President Obama on Tuesday.
'High regard'

"I think it is important in life to speak as it is and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US but we are the junior partner," he said.

"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10719739

And David Cameron went to Eton? What exactly do they teach there?

LEBillfish
07-21-2010, 10:25 PM
This one is too easy to get a dig in with, I'll wait for the next http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52Uther
07-22-2010, 12:27 AM
A bit annoying,but then Cameron does love America,and probably didn't want to get a dig in that they were late to the war (again)

Much more interesting comment from the number 2 in the government saying the Iraq war was illegal.
So now we are the war criminals...

ImpStarDuece
07-22-2010, 02:08 AM
The 1940 comment is pretty indefensible, but even the 'junior partner' part is not going to go down well in the UK. But, the kicker is that he is right. Even Churchill recognised that.

This does not marginalise the effort of the British, and the Commonwealth for that matter, during WW2. They made the greatest contribution that they could, given their resources.

However, by the middle of 1943 the material effort of the UK/Commonwealth was significantly eclipsed by that of the US. Afterall, here was an economy four times the size of the UK, with the wealth and manpower to match.

By mid-1944, when Western Allied forces returned to the continent, there is no doubt that the UK/Commonwealth forces were indeed the junior partner.

64 US divisions served in Western Europe in 1944-1945. This compares to the 36 divisions UK/Commonwealth & Polish forces fielded. Some of the UK divisions did not actually serve on the continent, while others were broken up during the campaign.

In the annexes to 'Operation Unthinkable' (Churchill's requested study on the Western Allies going to war with the Soviet union), the assesment of comparative strengths of land forces in Europe as of 1st July 1944 is this:

US: 64 divisions;
British and Dominion: 35 divisions;
Polish: 4 divisions
Soviet: 264 divisions.

That puts it quite clearly into perspective for me.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-22-2010, 03:04 AM
Of course the Daily Heil's got to have its' say on this ineptitude:-

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/22/article-1296551-0A86E858000005DC-860_634x185.jpg


"David Cameron faced a furious backlash yesterday for the astonishing claim that the UK was a 'junior partner' to America in 1940 - a year before the U.S. even entered the war..."

Dave even takes time out to munch on a hot dog with Mayor Bloomberg and have his picture taken...not a desperate staged p.r. stunt at all, honest it ain't, Dave loves hot dogs, Dave does...

Hurrah for the British! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296551/David-Cameron-describes-Britain-junior-partner-Americans-1940.html)

As usual, the comments section is a great read... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

thefruitbat
07-22-2010, 05:36 AM
bless him, he was only out by a couple of years.

So much for eton education http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

leitmotiv
07-22-2010, 05:59 AM
If one takes the time to study the relationship between FDR and WSC in the summer of 1940, one understands clearly why Cameron spoke of the British as a junior partner even at this early date. WSC decided to destroy the French fleet at Oran based on FDR's concerns over its falling into the hands of the Germans. In addition, he believed the act would demonstrate that the Empire was serious about fighting on to FDR. FDR was bullying WSC in messages, especially about gold. He wanted to send a USN cruiser to South Africa to transport gold to the USA. He pestered WSC about basing the Royal Navy on US territory because he was concerned the British were goners in the Battle of Britain. WSC was continually reminding FDR the Empire was heading for bankruptcy in the autumn like a desperate relation pleading for help. WSC even stated to his close advisors that the British could not be too proud when it came to dealing with the Yanks. All of the modern biographies and political biographies of WSC detail this; it is neither new nor "revisionist." Charmley has done a good job of analyzing the special relationship under WSC:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Church...id=1279799539&sr=1-2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchill-End-Glory-Political-Biography/dp/0571249035/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279799539&sr=1-2)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Church...id=1279799614&sr=1-5 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Grand-Alliance-Anglo-American-Relationship/dp/0151275815/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279799614&sr=1-5)

Personally, if I had been Cameron, I'd have given the parvenu dilettante Obama a Thatcherian handbag whack over the head, a kick in the posterior, and a rude order to porter my luggage, rather the way Thatcher laid about Bush MkI in the summer of '90 while he was dithering about Iraq. Obama has made it clear he has no respect for the British. There is no need to palliate the dunce. Time for a robust Palmerston to show the colonials where they can get off.

leitmotiv
07-22-2010, 06:25 AM
The most astute biographers of WSC have emphasized that Churchill mistakenly believed Americans loved the British as much as he loved the Americans. He saw the whole country as the wealthy and powerful white Anglo-Saxon Protestants he hobnobbed with on the East Coast. He seemed unable to realize the country had significant numbers of Irish and German descendants who loathed the British. Most critically of all, FDR thought the British empire was evil and hoped to break it up along with the Nazi empire, and the Japanese empire. FDR was not an Anglophile. Throughout the war FDR wanted WSC to let go of India, and this provoked rage from WSC at times---this was one issue upon which he would not bend to FDR. By 1944 FDR deluded himself into thinking he had more in common with Stalin than with WSC.

ploughman
07-22-2010, 06:39 AM
"The error is even odder, given his penchant for war movies. He's seen Where Eagles Dare 17 times, apparrently."

Aha! I think I know where the problem lies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

leitmotiv
07-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Considering how much WSC loved watching American films, its amazing he didn't notice all the Irish actors, and all the films depicting the British as the bad guys---too many viewings of "Gunga Din" and "Dawn Patrol" I suspect.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-22-2010, 07:25 AM
Well, Uncle Adolph was into Gary Cooper...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Bengal_lancer_movieposter.jpg


More of a Dad's Army man, myself...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/6/8/1275954673646/08.06.10-Steve-Bell-on-Da-005.jpg

Mercanario
07-22-2010, 08:06 AM
Yet another British Prime Minister trying to get his tounge into an American President`s bottom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Messaschnitzel
07-22-2010, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ploughman:
"The error is even odder, given his penchant for war movies. He's seen Where Eagles Dare 17 times, apparrently."

Aha! I think I know where the problem lies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I guess he always misses this part of the movie:

Lt. Morris Schaffer: "Do me a favor, will you? Next time you have one of these things, keep it an all British operation."

Maybe he should watch this movie for some inspiration on how to apply a 'fourpenny one', metaphorically speaking of course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLnmAMnOssM

It would be funny though to see the President of the U.S. and the PM of the UK duke it out till they drop. In spite of being a cheapskate, I'd actually pay money to see that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

horseback
07-22-2010, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
A bit annoying,but then Cameron does love America,and probably didn't want to get a dig in that they were late to the war (again) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy, but in both cases we were about 1500 miles (or 2 weeks minimum by ocean liner) away, and not particularly interested in cleaning up messes that Britain and France could have avoided entirely by acting decisively a bit sooner.

In the case of the first War, there was some (quite justified) apprehension about French or British generals using American troops up the way they had used up Australian and Canadian troops.

On the other hand, if we'd known that entering WWII would have distracted FDR and his minions from screwing up the economy for two more years, we'd have had our entire 400 man army mobilized NLT September 2nd, 1939.

cheers

horseback

ploughman
07-22-2010, 12:36 PM
Well fished JG52, horse just can't help himself with that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

JG52Uther
07-22-2010, 01:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

MB_Avro_UK
07-22-2010, 01:51 PM
It was all a very long time ago. Yesterday,I mean. Or was it the day after?

jarink
07-22-2010, 04:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Of course the Daily Heil's got to have its' say on this ineptitude:-

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/22/article-1296551-0A86E858000005DC-860_634x185.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: Roland Haines quote - One could actually make a convincing argument that from Sep '39 until Jun '40 France was the "senior partner" in the war and Britain was the junior.

Airmail109
07-22-2010, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The most astute biographers of WSC have emphasized that Churchill mistakenly believed Americans loved the British as much as he loved the Americans. He saw the whole country as the wealthy and powerful white Anglo-Saxon Protestants he hobnobbed with on the East Coast. He seemed unable to realize the country had significant numbers of Irish and German descendants who loathed the British. Most critically of all, FDR thought the British empire was evil and hoped to break it up along with the Nazi empire, and the Japanese empire. FDR was not an Anglophile. Throughout the war FDR wanted WSC to let go of India, and this provoked rage from WSC at times---this was one issue upon which he would not bend to FDR. By 1944 FDR deluded himself into thinking he had more in common with Stalin than with WSC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is utterly hilarious in the context of the empire that the United States has been building since the end of the second world war. A country full of *sarcasm on* Irish people *sarcasm off* screaming "For Tha Cause!!" that has pretty much been at war covertly and overtly to try to further its own economic influence for the past 60 years.

Your not even doing a very good job of it, we conqured the world with a smaller standing army than we have now. You can't even do one over Iraq with a few hundred thousand troops.

Interestingly out of all the countries we once conquered, which ones like the United States more than us? Kenya, one half of Ireland and perhaps Canada? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
07-22-2010, 05:23 PM
horseback wrote...

Sorry old boy, but in both cases we were about 1500 miles (or 2 weeks minimum by ocean liner) away, and not particularly interested in cleaning up messes that Britain and France could have avoided entirely by acting decisively a bit sooner

Totally agree old boy, but it's a different story when the mess comes calling... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I remember a wake up call that happened in 2001 that gave all Americans an inkling just what it's like to have the enemy at your door...

And look what a mess that drew both the US & the UK down into Hell in a hand basket...

Airmail109
07-22-2010, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
A bit annoying,but then Cameron does love America,and probably didn't want to get a dig in that they were late to the war (again) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy, but in both cases we were about 1500 miles (or 2 weeks minimum by ocean liner) away, and not particularly interested in cleaning up messes that Britain and France could have avoided entirely by acting decisively a bit sooner.

In the case of the first War, there was some (quite justified) apprehension about French or British generals using American troops up the way they had used up Australian and Canadian troops.

On the other hand, if we'd known that entering WWII would have distracted FDR and his minions from screwing up the economy for two more years, we'd have had our entire 400 man army mobilized NLT September 2nd, 1939.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could have been avoided had your country let France have it's way with Germany at the end of the First World War. But nooooooooooooooooo

waffen-79
07-22-2010, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
our entire 400 man army mobilized NLT September 2nd, 1939.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif well said HorseBack, maybe those fellas would've stop teh gErMaNs from going spec-ops over Belgium

huggy87
07-22-2010, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The most astute biographers of WSC have emphasized that Churchill mistakenly believed Americans loved the British as much as he loved the Americans. He saw the whole country as the wealthy and powerful white Anglo-Saxon Protestants he hobnobbed with on the East Coast. He seemed unable to realize the country had significant numbers of Irish and German descendants who loathed the British. Most critically of all, FDR thought the British empire was evil and hoped to break it up along with the Nazi empire, and the Japanese empire. FDR was not an Anglophile. Throughout the war FDR wanted WSC to let go of India, and this provoked rage from WSC at times---this was one issue upon which he would not bend to FDR. By 1944 FDR deluded himself into thinking he had more in common with Stalin than with WSC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is utterly hilarious in the context of the empire that the United States has been building since the end of the second world war. A country full of *sarcasm on* Irish people *sarcasm off* screaming "For Tha Cause!!" that has pretty much been at war covertly and overtly to try to further its own economic influence for the past 60 years.

Your not even doing a very good job of it, we conqured the world with a smaller standing army than we have now. You can't even do one over Iraq with a few hundred thousand troops.

Interestingly out of all the countries we once conquered, which ones like the United States more than us? Kenya, one half of Ireland and perhaps Canada? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aimail has US ***** envy.

ImpStarDuece
07-22-2010, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Personally, if I had been Cameron, I'd have given the parvenu dilettante Obama a Thatcherian handbag whack over the head, a kick in the posterior, and a rude order to porter my luggage, rather the way Thatcher laid about Bush MkI in the summer of '90 while he was dithering about Iraq. Obama has made it clear he has no respect for the British. There is no need to palliate the dunce. Time for a robust Palmerston to show the colonials where they can get off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freudian transference has a way of catching up with us all...

Gammelpreusse
07-23-2010, 01:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
A bit annoying,but then Cameron does love America,and probably didn't want to get a dig in that they were late to the war (again) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy, but in both cases we were about 1500 miles (or 2 weeks minimum by ocean liner) away, and not particularly interested in cleaning up messes that Britain and France could have avoided entirely by acting decisively a bit sooner.

In the case of the first War, there was some (quite justified) apprehension about French or British generals using American troops up the way they had used up Australian and Canadian troops.

On the other hand, if we'd known that entering WWII would have distracted FDR and his minions from screwing up the economy for two more years, we'd have had our entire 400 man army mobilized NLT September 2nd, 1939.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could have been avoided had your country let France have it's way with Germany at the end of the First World War. But nooooooooooooooooo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It could also have been avoided had the US not felt the need to save your butts.
But nooooooooooooooooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Airmail109
07-23-2010, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
A bit annoying,but then Cameron does love America,and probably didn't want to get a dig in that they were late to the war (again) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry old boy, but in both cases we were about 1500 miles (or 2 weeks minimum by ocean liner) away, and not particularly interested in cleaning up messes that Britain and France could have avoided entirely by acting decisively a bit sooner.

In the case of the first War, there was some (quite justified) apprehension about French or British generals using American troops up the way they had used up Australian and Canadian troops.

On the other hand, if we'd known that entering WWII would have distracted FDR and his minions from screwing up the economy for two more years, we'd have had our entire 400 man army mobilized NLT September 2nd, 1939.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could have been avoided had your country let France have it's way with Germany at the end of the First World War. But nooooooooooooooooo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It could also have been avoided had the US not felt the need to save your butts.
But nooooooooooooooooo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

World War One was crass stupidity, I never understand why the US even bothered to get involved. If they hadn't Britain "might" have gone home with it's tail between it's legs and Germany would have demitilarized France. Big deal lol.

Gammelpreusse
07-23-2010, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

World War One was crass stupidity, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I never understand why the US even bothered to get involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the US had invested crass amounts of money into the french and british war effort. Had those two countries lost, they would have faced bankruptcy, the US would have been in dire financial trouble, both due to lost loans and a breakup of markets. The US had not much choice there. (and it is sensible to assume that this market thinking prevented the french from having their way with Germany, too, and to prevent communism spreading into central Europe)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If they hadn't Britain "might" have gone home with it's tail between it's legs and Germany would have demitilarized France. Big deal lol.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible, but that is speculation.

However, Germany was never interested in having a go at the British in the first place. Neither in WW1, nor in WW2, nor before or after.

France..is a different affair &lt;=)

Whatever their motives, though, from the german perspective, it was the US winning the war in the West, in both conflicts.

Airmail109
07-23-2010, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

World War One was crass stupidity, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I never understand why the US even bothered to get involved. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the US had invested crass amounts of money into the french and british war effort. Had those two countries lost, they would have faced bankruptcy, the US would have been in dire financial trouble, both due to lost loans and a breakup of markets. The US had not much choice there. (and it is sensible to assume that this market thinking prevented the french from having their way with Germany, too, and to prevent communism spreading into central Europe)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If they hadn't Britain "might" have gone home with it's tail between it's legs and Germany would have demitilarized France. Big deal lol.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible, but that is speculation.

However, Germany was never interested in having a go at the British in the first place. Neither in WW1, nor in WW2, nor before or after.

France..is a different affair &lt;=)

Whatever their motives, though, from the german perspective, it was the US winning the war in the West, in both conflicts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting post!

Sometimes I wonder whether Britain entered on the wrong side. Should have annexed France with Germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , then Germany would have been in a stronger position to repulse the influence of Russia in the 1930's. With the possibility that a bunch of lunatics wern't running the show. Hindsights a *****.

Gammelpreusse
07-23-2010, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

Interesting post!

Sometimes I wonder whether Britain entered on the wrong side. Should have annexed France with Germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , then Germany would have been in a stronger position to repulse the influence of Russia in the 1930's. With the possibility that a bunch of lunatics wern't running the show. Hindsights a *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but then it might have required a holocaust and the most destructive war in history to get some sanity back into Europe. Else we might be waging wars with each other even today. Not exactly a world I'd like to live in.

On the other hand, France would have gone, hmmmmm.

Bremspropeller
07-23-2010, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sometimes I wonder whether Britain entered on the wrong side. Should have annexed France with Germany , then Germany would have been in a stronger position to repulse the influence of Russia in the 1930's. With the possibility that a bunch of lunatics wern't running the show. Hindsights a *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity, poor Harry could have legally joined the SS.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-23-2010, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sometimes I wonder whether Britain entered on the wrong side. Should have annexed France with Germany , then Germany would have been in a stronger position to repulse the influence of Russia in the 1930's. With the possibility that a bunch of lunatics wern't running the show. Hindsights a *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity, poor Harry could have legally joined the SS.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you two, brems and air, should be locked into a tight room for a month or two.

I'd be curious what comes out of that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ploughman
07-23-2010, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sometimes I wonder whether Britain entered on the wrong side. Should have annexed France with Germany , then Germany would have been in a stronger position to repulse the influence of Russia in the 1930's. With the possibility that a bunch of lunatics wern't running the show. Hindsights a *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity, poor Harry could have legally joined the SS.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? He's, you know, ginger.

horseback
07-23-2010, 03:54 PM
Well, that just brings to mind a whole other area of inquiry:

Can someone with red(dish) hair be considered Aryan?

Do true Aryans tan, freckle or burn and what rate of doing so would be acceptable?

cheers

horseback

Gammelpreusse
07-24-2010, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Well, that just brings to mind a whole other area of inquiry:

Can someone with red(dish) hair be considered Aryan?

Do true Aryans tan, freckle or burn and what rate of doing so would be acceptable?

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have freckles on my feet. Does that count?

Bremspropeller
07-25-2010, 04:29 AM
No, but you're now officially a witch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2010, 11:40 AM
This is drifting seriously off-topic. Please try to keep this thread about what an inept, seriously unfit for office person Dave is. Thank you.

Messaschnitzel
07-25-2010, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
This is drifting seriously off-topic. Please try to keep this thread about what an inept, seriously unfit for office person Dave is. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are absolutely correct. Ahem! Back on topic.

So let me get this straight: The public consensus is that Dave is inept, and is seriously unfit for the head wizard position of a large coven of publicly elected witches who all got freckles on their feet as a recognition mark?

Maybe Dave should do like Ronald Reagan did when working up a hex for his 'Reaganomics' plan, and swing a dead cat by the tail around his head in a graveyard at midnight. (IIRC, it was 'Voodoo' magic he was accused of using?) He could then make everybody forget about his WW2 slip. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MB_Avro_UK
07-25-2010, 03:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
This is drifting seriously off-topic. Please try to keep this thread about what an inept, seriously unfit for office person Dave is. Thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But didn't Gordon Broon make a gaffe a week according to the Daily Wail? The truth is out there.

"Please don't tell my mother I'm a columnist with the Guardian - she thinks I play the piano in a *****house".


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
07-25-2010, 03:47 PM
History reserves no favorites when it comes to political gaffes. Isn't it tiresome to continually politicize folly? And, some gaseous fops as gifted as Gordo certainly need the recognition due to them---compared to his prodigious output of maundering, the current officeholders appear to be rank amateurs---indeed, mere tyros.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2010, 03:49 PM
Then start a Gordon Broon thread, old chum. Maybe tribalist threads could restore some harmony here, and the dwindling band of stick-arounds could post about booze, babes and who knows? Even old aeroplanes in other threads, free from the fear of political correctness - or even political correction in extreme cases.

Dave upstaged by a goat (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/24/treasury-deletes-spending-challenge-page-after-being-upstaged-by-votegoat/)

leitmotiv
07-25-2010, 03:50 PM
Why have idiotic group gang bangs at all? Rather elementary school, innit?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Exactally! I've been as guilty as others. We must realise that this forum is not going to change the way anybody votes and move on to the broad sunlit uplands of cheerleeder threads and the perusal of old photographs. A difference of opinion and the right to voice it is a cornerstone of any democratic institution, yet civility should perhaps take precedence to maintain civilisation. I do politics a lot - I don't do it half as much here as I used to, There's a big bad world out there to change - I come here to get away from all that. Anyone with me? Repent and move on.

MB_Avro_UK
07-25-2010, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Then start a Gordon Broon thread, old chum. Maybe tribalist threads could restore some harmony here, and the dwindling band of stick-arounds could post about booze, babes and who knows? Even old aeroplanes in other threads, free from the fear of political correctness - or even political correction in extreme cases.

Dave upstaged by a goat (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/24/treasury-deletes-spending-challenge-page-after-being-upstaged-by-votegoat/) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have confused me ol' chap.

What is the meaning of this from your post may I ask?

&lt;Even old aeroplanes in other threads, free from the fear of political correctness - or even political correction in extreme cases&gt;.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2010, 04:14 PM
It's an attempted, and obviously failed, play on words - intended to be deliberately ambiguous, thus giving the reader/reactor a chance to decry my obvious extemist left wing/right wing viewpoint.

leitmotiv
07-25-2010, 04:14 PM
Coming from the instigator of innumerable highly politicized group affirmation threads which pander to one viewpoint, I find your line to be disingenuous in the extreme, LF!

Using false bonhomie to disguise a decided political agenda is a pretty charade, but a charade nevertheless.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-25-2010, 04:19 PM
Well there's more joy in heaven when an arch sinner repents...

Not so much repentance as abstention in certain circles, perhaps. Anyone else want to try it? Or shall we go round and round in ever decreasing circles? Shall we start a 'Take the pledge' thread?