Ubik
Nothing happens until something moves!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 19,133
Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers.
Obviously if you ask Brits that we are going to say ourselves.
Russians will say themselves and guess what...
Americans would say The Americans
Basically what @Ubik said.
Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers.
And look at the awful role nationalism plays in Russia and the US.Obviously if you ask Brits that we are going to say ourselves.
Russians will say themselves and guess what...
Americans would say The Americans
Is death toll the way to judge a role played?I'm a Brit, I absolutely wouldn't say ourselves.
Russians, with approx 20 million casualties played a much bigger role than Britain.
Not everyone in Britain is as smart as you obviously.I'm a Brit, I absolutely wouldn't say ourselves.
Russians, with approx 20 million casualties played a much bigger role than Britain.
Is death toll the way to judge a role played?
Another one of the many reasons why this country is leaving the EU.
Also it really should say the Soviet Union instead of Russia
I'm a Brit, I absolutely wouldn't say ourselves.
Russians, with approx 20 million casualties played a much bigger role than Britain.
Another one of the many reasons why this country is leaving the EU.
Also it really should say the Soviet Union instead of Russia
Is death toll the way to judge a role played?
Well they certainly threw poorly trained soldiers to the front line to be shot at by highly trained german soldiers.No (and I didnt make the original comment but I agree with it) - sources have suggested that Hitler's plan was to quickly move east and crush the Russians/Soviets, who he didnt anticipate would offer much resistance, so that he could then focus on the western front. By all accounts, this was pivotal to Hitler's plans as he knew he wouldnt be able to face a prolonged fight on two fronts. The fact the Russians put up more of a fight than he expected (due to Stalin's modernisation - which obviously came at a massive cost of human life) basically put a spanner in the works for Hitler, especially when winter hit and the Germans lost huge amounts of troops due to the harsh climates.
Needless to say, the "correct" answer is that multiple parties were all hugely important in WW2. The Brits - and particularly their interception of the Zimmermann telegram, which is essentially what persuaded the US to join in, as well as the navy and airforce. Lots of countries had big parts to play. Except the French of course.![]()
This video paints a pretty good picture.
Bodes well for Brexit.This has become the WWII thread.
No (and I didnt make the original comment but I agree with it) - sources have suggested that Hitler's plan was to quickly move east and crush the Russians/Soviets, who he didnt anticipate would offer much resistance, so that he could then focus on the western front. By all accounts, this was pivotal to Hitler's plans as he knew he wouldnt be able to face a prolonged fight on two fronts. The fact the Russians put up more of a fight than he expected (due to Stalin's modernisation - which obviously came at a massive cost of human life) basically put a spanner in the works for Hitler, especially when winter hit and the Germans lost huge amounts of troops due to the harsh climates.
Needless to say, the "correct" answer is that multiple parties were all hugely important in WW2. The Brits - and particularly their interception of the Zimmermann telegram, which is essentially what persuaded the US to join in, as well as the navy and airforce. Lots of countries had big parts to play. Except the French of course.![]()
I know it took the US a long time to get involved in the war but the Zimmermann telegram was sent in 1917 - think you're a bit confused.
Oh yeah, probably thinking of WW1 there. My bad - the other stuff I said stands.
Senior EU diplomatic sources said that Mrs May’s plan for avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland was subjected to a “systematic and forensic annihilation” this week at a meeting between senior EU officials and Olly Robbins, the UK’s lead Brexit negotiator.
“It was a detailed and forensic rebuttal,” added the source who was directly briefed on the meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. “It was made clear that none of the UK’s customs options will work. None of them.”
In an interview with France2 TV Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said there was still a risk the Brexit talks could fail because only 75% of the withdrawal deal was agreed. He said:
I say as the union’s negotiator that there are still difficulties, still a risk of failure. On 25% of the text, we don’t have agreement. If there is no agreement, there is no orderly withdrawal, there is a disorderly withdrawal and there is no transition.
Barnier also restated the EU’s insistence that the integrity of the single market, including free movement, was “non-negotiable”. When asked if the UK could obtain a “single market a la carte” deal, Barnier switched from French to English and replied: “No way.”
What were the plans that the UK government presented. Are they still based on technology that doesn’t exist yet?
I still can't see past a hard brexit and a hard Irish border the way it's going.Still the same as before Xmas, option A is the comprehensive free trade agreement which is ruled out because of no single market/customs union and Option B was the Unicorn uninvented technology solution. C is the fallback.
Four months have passed and nothing has progressed and there are only six months left to wrap up an agreement - the government seem to be drifting the UK towards oblivion.
Their answer was included in the first stage agreement, and the draft agreement that the UK signed on to. Basically, no border in Ireland and NI stays in CU, border checks in mainland UK.I still can't see past a hard brexit and a hard Irish border the way it's going.
I know you're much better read on the EU side of things than I am Paul, do you mind me asking, assuming Brexit takes place, what does the EU want to happen with the Irish border? Not what they don't want, that's easy, what is it they do want?
Wouldn't that enable Britain to carry out only the checks that suited it though, and not bother with those that didn't? Ireland might effectively lose the ability to set it's own excise duties for example, as British companies could ship over anything that they wanted to. And not just to Ireland, the whole EU would be opened up to British trade, with nothing to stop it.Their answer was included in the first stage agreement, and the draft agreement that the UK signed on to. Basically, no border in Ireland and NI stays in CU, border checks in mainland UK.
I still can't see past a hard brexit and a hard Irish border the way it's going.
I know you're much better read on the EU side of things than I am Paul, do you mind me asking, assuming Brexit takes place, what does the EU want to happen with the Irish border? Not what they don't want, that's easy, what is it they do want?
The EU would also have customs officers at the NI/Britain sea border, much like the UK has in France.Wouldn't that enable Britain to carry out only the checks that suited it though, and not bother with those that didn't? Ireland might effectively lose the ability to set it's own excise duties for example, as British companies could ship over anything that they wanted to. And not just to Ireland, the whole EU would be opened up to British trade, with nothing to stop it.
Do you think Westminster would agree to that?The EU would also have customs officers at the NI/Britain sea border, much like the UK has in France.
Yes. The majority of MPs are remains and opposed to a no-deal Brexit. The government will have to decide if they're willing to have an election on the back off the cliff edge, and they'll likely decide to take whatever on the table, lest Jeremy wins.Do you think Westminster would agree to that?
Thanks, and you may be right of course. Personally I think the Tory backbenchers would go nuts if asked to vote for EU border controls being set up within the UK, I just can't see it. Some nasty times to come I'm afraid, I just hope I'm wrong.Yes. The majority of MPs are remains and opposed to a no-deal Brexit. The government will have to decide if they're willing to have an election on the back off the cliff edge, and they'll likely decide to take whatever on the table, lest Jeremy wins.
The 1922 committee will be shouting the riot act at May, but there's still enough rebels in their benches to take the government down.Thanks, and you may be right of course. Personally I think the Tory backbenchers would go nuts if asked to vote for EU border controls being set up within the UK, I just can't see it. Some nasty times to come I'm afraid, I just hope I'm wrong.
This has become the WWII thread.
Rebels against the 1922 committee (if there could be such a thing) or rebels against the government? In any case I don't think May would even put such a thing to a vote, but we seem to disagree on that.The 1922 committee will be shouting the riot act at May, but there's still enough rebels in their benches to take the government down.
Rebels against the government. And I think she has to, per the lawsuit the government lost.Rebels against the 1922 committee (if there could be such a thing) or rebels against the government? In any case I don't think May would even put such a thing to a vote, but we seem to disagree on that.![]()
You've lost me really, sorry. I can't see that May would agree to EU border controls within the UK anyway, so that won't be in any proposal to parliament in the first place, but, if I were wrong on that, then Tory backbenchers themselves would vote it down, not to mention the DUP. I suppose she might look to rely on Labour support, but things would have to get even more bizarre for that to work out.Rebels against the government. And I think she has to, per the lawsuit the government lost.