Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Ruairi77]

We didn't need to get involved? We let the situation get so out of hand that Germany was a very real threat to our existence as an Empire and it cost millions of lives to stop them.



They would have stopped him, which would probably have been enough to bring him down given the nature of his regime. If we had stood up to him at any point from 1934 onwards the Second World War would almost certainly not have happened, certainly not



This is where you are going wrong.

The Germans had been secretly co-operating with the Soviets as part of the Rapallo Pact, but they were testing tactics and equipment that were at best equal to what the British and French were fielding, there was very little innovation beyond that (and what did happen was in the Soviet's benefit) and it was emphatically not about stockpiling equipment that could be quickly used (which is what "building up the German Army" would require). We even knew about it at the time, via our own intelligence and by reports in the German press, but decided to ignore it.

As an example of how "developed" they were, when Guderian was posted to be the expert on armoured warfare for the German Army in 1931 he had never actually been in a tank (he had to wait until a working holiday with his wife to Sweden, when the Swedes let him have a go on one of their ex-WW1 machines), and he and his then boss had to create the Panzer forces from nothing.

When Hitler took power in 1933 the Panzer forces didn't exist in any real form, nor did the Luftwaffe, nor did the Kriegsmarine. They were inferior to the French (never mind everyone else), which is why the French insisted at the Geneva Conference that Germany should remain militarily inferior to them. They were still inferior to them by 1936, when Hitler went into the Rhineland and terrified almost all of his senior officers who knew what would happen if the French sent their army in. If he had been confronted by a combination of the UK, the French, the Poles and the Czechs at any point up to the Anschluss (and probably any point up to Munich) he would have lost, or more accurately he would have backed down and then lost.

In short, the dominance they appeared to have in 1938/9 that you point to was because we had spent five or six years not stopping him, letting him build his forces up and generally looking the other way (edit: and not rearming properly ourselves). Had we stepped in earlier, as we might well have done (and as Barthou had tried to do before his death) then he would not have got to that point.

That is what I was trying to say when mentioning our inaction during the 19th century, during the 1930s, what it led to and the fundamental daftness of yet more inaction now.

Like Pete said, excellent post. I dont know a whole lot (bar the obvious) about the build up to ww2. Insightful stuff.

 

[peteblue]

This Trump steel and aluminium tariff strategy on a country by country basis will be interesting. Obviously he will give the Germans no relief, but what happens if he offers relief to the U.K. or France. The EU will not allow this of course, but it will throw the cat amongst the pigeons.........

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Oh dear, roydo, are you still trotting that old chestnut out? It shows how far the remain debate has come. It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement.

Second paragraph, fair enough. I made my own mind up, outwith anything that Farage or Boris said. But others may have been swayed by them. Just as some no doubt were swayed by what Cameron said (and his £9.5 Million booklet), or the threat of a swingeing budget from the Chancellor is leave won the day. It's a two-way street, roydo...

The £350m to the NHS was a blatant shameless lie and undoubtedly had an effect on the final vote given its prominence in the final days.

 

[Old Blue 2]

We didn't need to get involved? We let the situation get so out of hand that Germany was a very real threat to our existence as an Empire and it cost millions of lives to stop them.



They would have stopped him, which would probably have been enough to bring him down given the nature of his regime. If we had stood up to him at any point from 1934 onwards the Second World War would almost certainly not have happened, certainly not



This is where you are going wrong.

The Germans had been secretly co-operating with the Soviets as part of the Rapallo Pact, but they were testing tactics and equipment that were at best equal to what the British and French were fielding, there was very little innovation beyond that (and what did happen was in the Soviet's benefit) and it was emphatically not about stockpiling equipment that could be quickly used (which is what "building up the German Army" would require). We even knew about it at the time, via our own intelligence and by reports in the German press, but decided to ignore it.

As an example of how "developed" they were, when Guderian was posted to be the expert on armoured warfare for the German Army in 1931 he had never actually been in a tank (he had to wait until a working holiday with his wife to Sweden, when the Swedes let him have a go on one of their ex-WW1 machines), and he and his then boss had to create the Panzer forces from nothing.

When Hitler took power in 1933 the Panzer forces didn't exist in any real form, nor did the Luftwaffe, nor did the Kriegsmarine. They were inferior to the French (never mind everyone else), which is why the French insisted at the Geneva Conference that Germany should remain militarily inferior to them. They were still inferior to them by 1936, when Hitler went into the Rhineland and terrified almost all of his senior officers who knew what would happen if the French sent their army in. If he had been confronted by a combination of the UK, the French, the Poles and the Czechs at any point up to the Anschluss (and probably any point up to Munich) he would have lost, or more accurately he would have backed down and then lost.

In short, the dominance they appeared to have in 1938/9 that you point to was because we had spent five or six years not stopping him, letting him build his forces up and generally looking the other way (edit: and not rearming properly ourselves). Had we stepped in earlier, as we might well have done (and as Barthou had tried to do before his death) then he would not have got to that point.

That is what I was trying to say when mentioning our inaction during the 19th century, during the 1930s, what it led to and the fundamental daftness of yet more inaction now.

I am not wrong, but you have added to the 'bigger picture' with the above.

It is hard for us nowadays to be able to fathom out exactly why things advanced the way they did. It was akin to a slow drip process, while in the background, one might say unseen, serious plans were afoot, militarily. Along with the brinkmanship was the build-up of the military forces, coupled with the kind of forward thinking that was not happening in the forces of other nations. Of course it was not an overnight thing, when it was suddenly announced. The hard work on the organisational side of things had been going on for a long time pre-1933, and that continued apace from 1933 onwards. I agree about the inertia of the other nations, but that was driven, as we are led to believe, by the fear of another major conflict such as had happened with WW1, and the desire for it not to happen again. Which played EXACTLY into the hands of Germany under Hitler in the 1930s and their rearmament programme.

 

[peteblue]

I am not wrong, but you have added to the 'bigger picture' with the above.

It is hard for us nowadays to be able to fathom out exactly why things advanced the way they did. It was akin to a slow drip process, while in the background, one might say unseen, serious plans were afoot, militarily. Along with the brinkmanship was the build-up of the military forces, coupled with the kind of forward thinking that was not happening in the forces of other nations. Of course it was not an overnight thing, when it was suddenly announced. The hard work on the organisational side of things had been going on for a long time pre-1933, and that continued apace from 1933 onwards. I agree about the inertia of the other nations, but that was driven, as we are led to believe, by the fear of another major conflict such as had happened with WW1, and the desire for it not to happen again. Which played EXACTLY into the hands of Germany under Hitler in the 1930s and their rearmament programme.

A harsh lesson not learnt I’m afraid.........

 

[Old Blue 2]

The £350m to the NHS was a blatant shameless lie and undoubtedly had an effect on the final vote given its prominence in the final days.

Did you not read my post? Seriously. Did you not read my post? This is what I said:
"...It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement..."

I have set in bold the pertinent part.

I have posted this up before, but here it is again, from a 'Leave' leaflet:

The £350 million is the gross figure, we all know after rebate the amount is less. But the above shows a comparison. A comparison cost. There was NO lie about it at all.

 

[peteblue]

Did you not read my post? Seriously. Did you not read my post? This is what I said:
"...It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement..."

I have set in bold the pertinent part.

I have posted this up before, but here it is again, from a 'Leave' leaflet:

The £350 million is the gross figure, we all know after rebate the amount is less. But the above shows a comparison. A comparison cost. There was NO lie about it at all.

I hadn’t seen that leaflet at all, but as you say the graphic above is quite specific......

 

[joey_macmo]

Did you not read my post? Seriously. Did you not read my post? This is what I said:
"...It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement..."

I have set in bold the pertinent part.

I have posted this up before, but here it is again, from a 'Leave' leaflet:

The £350 million is the gross figure, we all know after rebate the amount is less. But the above shows a comparison. A comparison cost. There was NO lie about it at all.

The picture with Boris has been shown to you countless times in this thread.

Why do you bother?

 

[joey_macmo]

Just for reference.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Did you not read my post? Seriously. Did you not read my post?

Always with the passive aggressive anger.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Did you not read my post? Seriously. Did you not read my post? This is what I said:
"...It was a comparative. Neither campaign had the ability, or executive authority, to implement anything. It was a comparative figure, and a comparative statement..."

I have set in bold the pertinent part.

I have posted this up before, but here it is again, from a 'Leave' leaflet:

The £350 million is the gross figure, we all know after rebate the amount is less. But the above shows a comparison. A comparison cost. There was NO lie about it at all.

Excuse me but you are wrong in every sense.

The £350m figure was banded about in bold on the side of buses. It was a glib headline trotted about without any careful explanation.

The clear and undisputed implication it gave was that by voting to Leave there would be an additional £350m each week to spend on the NHS. That is patently untrue.

It ignores the rebate as you say but it also ignores the positive wealth that accompanies EU membership. Post Brexit it ignores the likely forecast negative economic impacts of leaving the EU.

It's a headline that played out well to the thick and uneducated that bought the line.

Even if you dispute the suggestion that the EU brings with it wider economic benefits you must agree that it is wrong simply by virtue of it ignoring the rebates back from the EU.

You are playing semantics and ignoring the banner headline.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Always with the passive aggressive anger.

Well when somebody quotes my post, but apparently does not then post to the post he is supposedly replying to, I have to ask whether he has actually read it and understood it in the first place.

So your comment about passive aggressive anger is rubbish, 100%. There you go, something else to have a go at me about. Comments from you to me are basically not worth a carrot! There you are, something else. Love winding you up, and it works every time...

 

[Old Blue 2]

Just for reference.

Just for reference, and at the risk of repeating myself once again, neither campaign had any power whatsoever to implement anything. That remained the remit of the Government of the day.

What you see there is a suggestion. And the amount was a comparative one, with the figure relating to the cost of an NHS hospital.

I really don't know why some people who post in this thread can't see that.

(Cue bring the ghost on to accuse me of passive aggressive anger again - where are you, Ghost?????????)

 

[Old Blue 2]

Excuse me but you are wrong in every sense.

The £350m figure was banded about in bold on the side of buses. It was a glib headline trotted about without any careful explanation.

The clear and undisputed implication it gave was that by voting to Leave there would be an additional £350m each week to spend on the NHS. That is patently untrue.

It ignores the rebate as you say but it also ignores the positive wealth that accompanies EU membership. Post Brexit it ignores the likely forecast negative economic impacts of leaving the EU.

It's a headline that played out well to the thick and uneducated that bought the line.

Even if you dispute the suggestion that the EU brings with it wider economic benefits you must agree that it is wrong simply by virtue of it ignoring the rebates back from the EU.

You are playing semantics and ignoring the banner headline.

Jeez, IT WAS A COMPARATIVE FIGURE.

Do I need to say that again and again. Maybe I should put it in the biggest font available, and in bold, for it to sink in...

And the gross figure to the EU will disappear. Note the word GROSS. It is not in dispute that there is a rebate, I have said that many times before also.

Semantics? Let's get this straight. The ones who are playing at semantics are the remainers in this thread, picking up on a single word and hammering it into the ground.

And one might equally say that the thick and uneducated bought into the lines thrown out by Cameron and the Chancellor at the time. There will be a swingeing budget the day after the Referendum that will hit the lower classes. Class act, that Chancellor we had, with his threats. Actually, he was an utter lying prick! And jumped ship when things did not go his way. So a lot of thickos danced to his and Cameron's tune. And still do.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Jeez, IT WAS A COMPARATIVE FIGURE.

Do I need to say that again and again. Maybe I should put it in the biggest font available, and in bold, for it to sink in...

And the gross figure to the EU will disappear. Note the word GROSS. It is not in dispute that there is a rebate, I have said that many times before also.

Semantics? Let's get this straight. The ones who are playing at semantics are the remainers in this thread, picking up on a single word and hammering it into the ground.

And one might equally say that the thick and uneducated bought into the lines thrown out by Cameron and the Chancellor at the time. There will be a swingeing budget the day after the Referendum that will hit the lower classes. Class act, that Chancellor we had, with his threats. Actually, he was an utter lying prick! And jumped ship when things did not go his way. So a lot of thickos danced to his and Cameron's tune. And still do.

What message was that £350m poster trying to convey to the public?