Ask dumb questions, get dumb answers.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
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.
Russians will say themselves and guess what...
Americans would say The Americans
Basically what @Ubik said.
I'm a Brit, I absolutely wouldn't say ourselves.
Russians, with approx 20 million casualties played a much bigger role than Britain.
Last edited:
Is death toll the way to judge a role played?
Not everyone in Britain is as smart as you obviously.
No, the slowing down and eventual reversal of the German army, appalling numbers of casualties they sustained fighting on the Eastern front, as well as shattering their aura of invincibility are far more important than mere number of casualties for the Soviets.
Dumb question to begin with, but boy it begs the question what’s being in taught in British schools when it comes to history lessons.
However, as some rightly mentioned above you would expect to get similar responses in the U.S. too though.
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.
The correct answer is the English Channel, the Japanese and Hitler's bad decisions.
The English Channel stopped the Nazis invading and over-running Britain like they had the other western European countries.The US wouldn't have joined if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler made some very bad decisions.
The English Channel stopped the Nazis invading and over-running Britain like they had the other western European countries.The US wouldn't have joined if the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler made some very bad decisions.
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.
That's awesome, thanks for sharing.
This has become the WWII thread.
Bodes well for Brexit.
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.
Anyway back to topic..
You can just replace it with the capture of the Enigma machine and the work at Bletchley.
House of Lords voted for an amendment to the withdrawal bid that allows continued membership of the (or a) customs union with the EU.
And De La Rue isn't going to appeal the passports contract decision. Haaaaaaaa.
And De La Rue isn't going to appeal the passports contract decision. Haaaaaaaa.
The House of Lords undoing the wishes of a hardline Tory base that probably has always loved the House of Lords would be good fun.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
The EU want the UK to remain in the SM and the CU and the border to stay as it is. That would be their best option having the UK still basically as they are, paying in and the UK having little say by being out of the EU in name only, the fallback is what Silva said but I don't see that.
Question is are the UK going to give in? because if they don't there's no transition either.
As for the meaningful vote in parliament, I don't see that at all.
It looks like a Hard Brexit at the moment but the UK government could suddenly concede. I find it bewildering.
Edit: what is even more bewildering is that if the UK don't concede to remain in the CU, the cliff edge is in less than a year's time and there is no way the UK will be ready for that occurrence, nor will the EU but at least the EU are putting measures in place and it's only one country for the EU, it's 27 for the UK, unbelievable.
Re-edit: it's more than 27 for the UK, it's also the agreements with non-EU countries they have through the EU, and furthermore they won't belong the WTO either.
Last edited:
The EU would also have customs officers at the NI/Britain sea border, much like the UK has in France.
Do you think Westminster would agree to that?
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.
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.
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.
Considering Brexiteers still think it's 1945 (or 1966 to really rub it in to the Germans) then it's not surprising.
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.
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.
Ah lads their going to turn us into iPhones.
