Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Full bodied red said:
Too idealistic by far.

Germany DID start WW1 and WW2.

After WW1, they got what Hitler managed to persuade many Germans was a punitive deal from the Allies, and which ultimately led to WW2.

I won't argue about the war reparations, whether too much or too little, but not an unreasonable apportionment of blame, I think.
Click to expand...

Ironically neither wars were started by Germany. In WW1 Austria started the war after a Serbian separatist shot the crown prince. Germany entered into it as allies just like Russia did. In WW2 it was Britain and France who declared war with Germany not viceversa although I agree that Hitler had to be stopped.

The treaty of Versailles was a punitive deal, the worst of its kind. In some ways it reminds me of the Dublin 2 which puts ridiculously amount of pressure on the Southern European nations in terms of immigration and the pressure war torn neighbouring countries are feeling in terms of mass immigration. Sure there's alot of difference between one another. However the result seem to be the same = extremism.

I don't think that kicking a fallen enemy is wise as much as I disagree in making war profitable.
 
Kentonio said:
To be fair it was a punitive deal, especially considering the great depression also devastated an already broken German economy. At one point when Germany had been trying extremely hard to meet its obligations under Versaille, the French marched in with a load of troops over a late delivery of hundreds of thousands of wooden telegraph poles. That kind of thing causes genuine resentment.
Click to expand...

The French, heh ?

I know nothing about the WW1 Reparations - were they impossible or just vindictive ?

The German people saw reparations as a national humiliation; the German Government worked to undermine the validity of the Treaty of Versailles and the requirement to pay. British economist John Maynard Keynes called the treaty a Carthaginian peace that would economically destroy Germany. His arguments had a profound effect on historians, politicians, and the public at large. Despite Keynes' arguments and those by later historians supporting or reinforcing Keynes' views, the consensus of contemporary historians is that reparations were not as intolerable as the Germans or Keynes had suggested and were within Germany's capacity to pay had there been the political will to do so. - Wiki
 
@Full bodied red impossible. In most neutral text and historical books, they are pointed as a key reason for the rise of Hitler and WW2. I can give more detail later after work if needed.
 
devilish said:
Ironically neither wars were started by Germany. In WW1 Austria started the war after a Serbian separatist shot the crown prince. Germany entered into it as allies just like Russia did. In WW2 it was Britain and France who declared war with Germany not viceversa although I agree that Hitler had to be stopped.

The treaty of Versailles was a punitive deal, the worst of its kind. In some ways it reminds me of the Dublin 2 which puts ridiculously amount of pressure on the Southern European nations in terms of immigration and the pressure war torn neighbouring countries are feeling in terms of mass immigration. Sure there's alot of difference between one another. However the result seem to be the same = extremism.

I don't think that kicking a fallen enemy is wise as much as I disagree in making war profitable.
Click to expand...


Almost correct.

WW1 -

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia on 28.07.1914.

Germany, as an ally of the Austrian Empire, then declared war on Russia - a Serbian ally - on 01.08.1914, after the Russians refused a German demand not to moblise its armies to help defend Serbia. Strangely, The Empire didn't declare war on Russia until a few days later.

On the same date - 01.08.1914 - France started to mobilise its armies in preparation to help the Russians in the event that Germany invaded Russia.

On 03.08.1914 Germany then declared war on France and invaded Belgium and Luxemburg on 04.08.1914- who were both neutral countries - to enable an invasion of France.

Subsequently, Britain declared war on Germany on 04.08.1914 as a result of Germany's invasion of neutral Belgium.

So while I agree with you that WW1 started as a result of the incident in Sarajevo, Germany was the first country to declare war - on both Russia and France - and so escalated what was a local conflict between The Empire and Serbia into WW1.

Bugger - just rereading this thread and I said The Empire decalred war on Serbia in 2014 !!!!

So edited, of course.
 
Last edited:
NM said:
@Full bodied red impossible. In most neutral text and historical books, they are pointed as a key reason for the rise of Hitler and WW2. I can give more detail later after work if needed.
Click to expand...


Like I said - I've no idea whether they were reasonable or punitive, but absolutely, positively, definitely did lead to Hitler's subsequent rise to power.
 
Full bodied red said:
I grew up in Germany during some of the 50s and then again during some of the 60s.

I've always believed the basis for Germany's rebirth and economic prosperity that we now see, was that for most of my time there there were 2 million+ US, UK and French military personnel and their families stationed there as part of the Cold War. All these people ( we were one of them ) spent all their income into the German economy but didn't take anything out of it. They had their own schools, hospitals, etc, which cost the German Government nothing, and it's difficult to imagine what a fantastic set of circumstances that was for Germany. Imagine having two million immigrants come into France or the UK who you don't have to find jobs for; spend all their money in France or the UK; don't cost the French or UK Government a single pound for health services and education and housing; and don't qualify for the countries' Social Security and Pensions systems. Even UKIP would support that.

And the military also provided hundreds of thousands of jobs for local contractors and suppliers when half of Germany was still a massive bombsite.

.Meanwhile, German industry was getting cheap loans from the UN to help rebuild their manufacturing base with new factories / tooling / etc and importing cheap labour from Jugoslavia and Turkey to man their factories and coal mines and rebuild their cities.

Not really Germany's fault that it was like that - everyone was shit scared of the Russians, and Germany just prospered from it.
Click to expand...

Germany's recovery to world manufacturing powerhouse within 10 years was truly miraculous, and largely down to the removal of strict regulations crippling countries like the UK.
 
Thinking May is this 'strong and stable leader' that is going to take Britain to new heights and guide Britain through the shitfest that is and will be Brexit, is like a Utd fan saying Moyes should of had more time.
 
Full bodied red said:
I've always believed the basis for Germany's rebirth and economic prosperity that we now see, was that for most of my time there there were 2 million+ US, UK and French military personnel and their families stationed there as part of the Cold War. All these people ( we were one of them ) spent all their income into the German economy but didn't take anything out of it. They had their own schools, hospitals, etc, which cost the German Government nothing, and it's difficult to imagine what a fantastic set of circumstances that was for Germany. Imagine having two million immigrants come into France or the UK who you don't have to find jobs for; spend all their money in France or the UK; don't cost the French or UK Government a single pound for health services and education and housing; and don't qualify for the countries' Social Security and Pensions systems. Even UKIP would support that.
Click to expand...
Yeah except for the 5 Billion Mark (5bil. 1950's money) paid by Germany during that time (between 1946 and 1950) for hosting those armies. I can't find the numbers for between 1950-1955, but it was 300mil DM paid afterwards to each of them per year... Probably only a fraction of the actual costs of the 4, but it's not as if they didn't cost 'a single pound'.
 
Abizzz said:
Yeah except for the 5 Billion Mark (5bil. 1950's money) paid by Germany during that time (between 1946 and 1950) for hosting those armies. I can't find the numbers for between 1950-1955, but it was 300mil DM paid afterwards to each of them per year... Probably only a fraction of the actual costs of the 4, but it's not as if they didn't cost 'a single pound'.
Click to expand...


I won't argue with you, although I was always told that the money paid to the foreign militaries was because the Germans weren't allowed to have their own 'full-on military' during those years, and the amount they 'contributed' was based on the cost they would have incurred if they had had their own military.

Rent-an-Army, if you want....
 
Full bodied red said:
I won't argue with you, although I was always told that the money paid to the foreign militaries was because the Germans weren't allowed to have their own 'full-on military' during those years, and the amount they 'contributed' was based on the cost they would have incurred if they had had their own military.

Rent-an-Army, if you want....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the money was for exactly. I think we can both agree that having the American, English and French there was hugely beneficial for West Germany at the time either way, I just wanted to point out that the new Germany did contribute a bit too.
 
Abizzz said:
I'm not sure what the money was for exactly. I think we can both agree that having the American, English and French there was hugely beneficial for West Germany at the time either way, I just wanted to point out that the new Germany did contribute a bit too.
Click to expand...

Genuinely nice to finally agree on something.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Notice the wink
Click to expand...

Apologies.

On the other hand, I was cleaning out my PC yesterday, removing old files / downloads, and came across this one.

It seems that in 2012, the UK had contingent liabilities - not actual liablilities - of almost €150 billion directly as a result of it's EU membership.

Makes you think - €150+ billion was resting on the good financial health of the EU and some of its members, nothing to do with the UK's own economic status / performance.

https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-c...e-eib-and-other-european-financial-mechanisms

Seems unbelievably stupid to me - without being part of the Eurozone, the UK might have to cough up €150+billion ( or how ever much that is now ) if the eurozone can't manage the Greeks' problems to the benefit of the EU rather than Greece.
 
Full bodied red said:
Apologies.

On the other hand, I was cleaning out my PC yesterday, removing old files / downloads, and came across this one.

It seems that in 2012, the UK had contingent liabilities - not actual liablilities - of almost €150 billion directly as a result of it's EU membership.

Makes you think - €150+ billion was resting on the good financial health of the EU and some of its members, nothing to do with the UK's own economic status / performance.

https://www.brugesgroup.com/media-c...e-eib-and-other-european-financial-mechanisms

Seems unbelievably stupid to me - without being part of the Eurozone, the UK might have to cough up €150+billion ( or how ever much that is now ) if the eurozone can't manage the Greeks' problems to the benefit of the EU rather than Greece.
Click to expand...

The Uk lost it's AAA rating though since then
 
Just read an article which mentions Brian H Fishman's book The Master Plan, which is about ISIS and al-Qaeda's strategy. Apparently, around 2005 a seven stage plan was drawn up and stage 5 - 2013-2016 Declaring the State - predicts a British-led reversal of the rising unity of Europe, offering a prime opportunity to declare an Islamic state - the caliphate.

Edit : Just read about the attack in Iran so I'll mention stage 6 - Absolute Confrontation 2016-2018, which refers to the final conflict between the forces of faith and the forces of atheism. Presumably atheists are those with a different view to theirs on God.
 
Last edited:
With the potential of another election quite high, we could be looking at 6 months off a two year period for negotiations gone.
Incredible the clusterfeck Dave has created.
 
I bet the tory party would anything to avoid hard borders with the republic of ireland now. I wonder if the eu would go for an all or nothing now. Surely its unfair for the irish enjoy benefits that other Europeans cant enjoy
 
The EU have us over a barrel.
At this point, I can't see anything but another referendum after failed negotiations.
 
I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm wondering if some time ago Ken Clarke and a few others didn't go to May and say 'we don't want to split the party in public, but privately we're telling you we will vote against Brexit at the last'. Hence an absolute need for a larger majority, hence the election.
 
712 said:
I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm wondering if some time ago Ken Clarke and a few others didn't go to May and say 'we don't want to split the party in public, but privately we're telling you we will vote against Brexit at the last'. Hence an absolute need for a larger majority, hence the election.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the party split at the time of the referendum though, in public?
May thought she would sweep up the UKIP voters, I think it's just pure arrogance and poor judgement combined with being power hungry that has led to this shambles.
 
712 said:
I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but I'm wondering if some time ago Ken Clarke and a few others didn't go to May and say 'we don't want to split the party in public, but privately we're telling you we will vote against Brexit at the last'. Hence an absolute need for a larger majority, hence the election.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Except, things haven't quite worked out as planned :D
For Britain, however, I think the election result is a blessing in disguise...
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Wasn't the party split at the time of the referendum though, in public?
May thought she would sweep up the UKIP voters, I think it's just pure arrogance and poor judgement combined with being power hungry that has led to this shambles.
Click to expand...

Yes it was, I'm thinking that Clarke may have acted after and despite the referendum. This is a man who would almost certainly have led his party were he not pro-Europe. I suspect he would consider de-railing Brexit a pleasing and fitting end to his career. It's possible May had no choice, although if I am right, it leaves her with not a lot of choice now either!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.