National Service

[ClaretMoffitt]

No insults, buddy, the truth : you talk about being willing to do National Service, very safe in the knowledge that it can never happen.
Then, of course, your default prejudices come out and it's any and all folk you don't agree with who should be made to do it.
As I said, you're weak, petty and frightened of anyone different to you. Your inferiority complex and lack of real self-confidence really are astonishing.
It makes you look a cowardly ****.

You don't know the first thing about me or what I'd be prepared to do.

Seems to me you're the weak an cowardly one who gets so flustered and upset over messageboard posts you start throwing random insults out without having the first clue what you are talking about. It's cool though, I ain't mad, I actually find it really funny.

[RingoMcCartney]

Houseboy, Russia was a credible threat to the west throughout that period.

Still is actually, but in a different way.

And because Nukes are so apocalyptic, it was the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO that stopped Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe.

But, you previously claimed it was the European Union that was responsible for keeping the peace in Europe. Not "the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO"

[Greenmile]

The alt right are just Neo-Nazis lite. They have all the same ideals the only difference as far as I can tell is that alt righters don't advocate genocide as a means to their ends.

Dont confuse anti-progressive **** posters and their jesting language as that of the alt rights. They are not the same at all, the alt right are a very sinister bunch.

There is no formal definition of the alt-right, as far as I’m aware, but anti-progressive **** posters (what’s wrong with just saying “regressive”, btw) certainly make up their number, as do the folk you clearly follow on Twitter (Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, Jim Hoft et al). The type of people who bang on about cultural Marxism as if it’s a real thing, call feminism cancer, and encourage the murder of journalists.

You seem to be trying to reduce the definition of alt right to “actual white supremacists”, just so you can distance yourself from them. I say that anyone who (unironically) uses terms like “soy boy”, “cuck” or “beta male” is alt-right, and I’m fairly sure I could find loads of articles to back me up on that, although you would no doubt deride them as MSM fake news - another alt-right soundbite.

[Greenmile]

Sorry Houseboy, I'm not disputing that Russia had more tanks than it knew what to do with, but the NATO forces in the period had a massive technological advantage, which is even more pronounced now.

You can't compare (for example) an M1 Abrahams with a T-72, or a Sukhoi Frogger with an A-10, or a Stinger with a SAM-7 etc etc

The advantages where even more stark in the air, and the Warsaw Pact was hopelessly outclassed at sea.

I'm not saying it would have been a guaranteed NATO win, but it wasn't just about numbers.

I might be mixing him up with another poster (in which case, I apologise unreservedly), but I’m fairly sure Houseboy is a 9/11 truther, so of course he believes the Cold War was just anti-Russian propaganda. Why believe the complicated truth when a simple lie is easier?

[Lancasterclaret]

It is possible for it be more than one reason Ringo.

NATO, Nuclear deterrent and the EU (amongst others ) have all contributed to peace in Europe.

[evensteadiereddie]

You don't know the first thing about me or what I'd be prepared to do.

Seems to me you're the weak an cowardly one who gets so flustered and upset over messageboard posts you start throwing random insults out without having the first clue what you are talking about. It's cool though, I ain't mad, I actually find it really funny.

You come across as a sneering, cowardly keyboard dick and, as you know, my insults - as you call them - are neither random nor unfounded.
I'm not upset by your stupidity - it's a messageboard we're on, ffs, - nothing of any significance but I will continue to point out your idiocy, telling you how it is.
You don't like your views challenged ? **** off, then.

[ClaretMoffitt]

There is no formal definition of the alt-right, as far as I’m aware, but anti-progressive **** posters (what’s wrong with just saying “regressive”, btw) certainly make up their number, as do the folk you clearly follow on Twitter (Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, Jim Hoft et al). The type of people who bang on about cultural Marxism as if it’s a real thing, call feminism cancer, and encourage the murder of journalists.

You seem to be trying to reduce the definition of alt right to “actual white supremacists”, just so you can distance yourself from them. I say that anyone who (unironically) uses terms like “soy boy”, “cuck” or “beta male” is alt-right, and I’m fairly sure I could find loads of articles to back me up on that, although you would no doubt deride them as MSM fake news - another alt-right soundbite.

The only one I follow out of those 3 is PJW, I've never even heard of Jim Hoft and Milo is a sensationalist idiot who has trouble follow him everywhere he goes. The term beta male actually originated on Misc ( a body building forum ) to describe low testosterone males. So saying that they are all far right? Or do you just associate effeminate, weak traits in men with the left wing?

[ClaretMoffitt]

You come across as a sneering, cowardly keyboard dick and, as you know, my insults - as you call them - are neither random nor unfounded.
I'm not upset by your stupidity - it's a messageboard we're on, ffs, - nothing of any significance but I will continue to point out your idiocy, telling you how it is.
You don't like your views challenged ? **** off, then.

I love having my views challenged, as many of the posters on here (if they are being fair) will confirm.

It would take someone with a higher level of debate prowess than yourself thought to manage that, believe it or not, saying " ******* coward, muff, ******, prick blah blah blah " isn't all that intellectually challenging, in fact it's about the level of "challenging of views" I'd expect to see from a salty, flustered girlfriend who has just been dumped.

[RingoMcCartney]

It is possible for it be more than one reason Ringo.

NATO, Nuclear deterrent and the EU (amongst others ) have all contributed to peace in Europe.

How?

[Greenmile]

The only one I follow out of those 3 is PJW, I've never even heard of Jim Hoft and Milo is a sensationalist idiot who has trouble follow him everywhere he goes. The term beta male actually originated on Misc ( a body building forum ) to describe low testosterone males. So saying that they are all far right? Or do you just associate effeminate, weak traits in men with the left wing?

Jim Hoft is aka the Gateway pundit - you’ve quoted him before on this forum, I think. I’m pretty sure you’ve defended Milo on here in the past too, before his pro-paedophilia statements, granted. Weren’t you the one telling me he can’t be racist because he fancies black men, can’t be homphobic because he’s gay, and can’t be antisemitic because he has Jewish ancestry? (In all honesty that may have been one of the other alt-righters on here - you all blend into one after a while, and the search function seems to be on the blink).

I associate the hatred of all things feminine (hence the use of terms which posit feminine traits as an insult) with the alt-right and men’s rights groups, which are two cheeks of the same stinking arse.

Edit - just noticed you’re trying to conflate alt-right and far right again. They aren’t the same thing.

Edit 2 - also “effeminate” and “weak”. Why do you feel the need to denigrate feminine traits?

[Lancasterclaret]

What do you mean?

How?

[RingoMcCartney]

What do you mean?

How?

How did the EU "stop Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe." As you put it?

[boatshed bill]

There could be forms of national service which would greatly benefit both the participants and our society in general; not military for me, though, perhaps environmental work?

[Ooogeorgeorgeoghani]

Boatshed bill , national service is history what you are suggesting is actually a really good idea , paid local government work or national work doing simple tasks to help our environment , depenď how it's managed but it could be fantastic for local areas and real life work experience for or youth even if it's only for a month or two when they leave school

[Healeywoodclaret]

I totally agree with all this, but I'm left asking myself a question: If we decide we need an army, someone has to do it, so who should do it? At the moment the military blatantly target the disappointed, the poor, and the ones in dead end jobs. I've seen their TV adverts, and they're horrible: You might be a total loser now, but join the army and we'll make you a man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAMFQwebh6Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (ok-navy) And some of them are married with kids, too. They even target kids on results day, hoping they'll make a rash decision driven by despair https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... itment-ads" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . At the moment (albeit with exceptions), we are getting the poor to fight for the well-off. The politicians would think more carefully how the military were deployed if their own kids were on the front line.

You really believe that b*locks don't you? You really can't see that many leave university and relatively wealthy families to make a career in the military.

[boatshed bill]

Boatshed bill , national service is history what you are suggesting is actually a really good idea , paid local government work or national work doing simple tasks to help our environment , depenď how it's managed but it could be fantastic for local areas and real life work experience for or youth even if it's only for a month or two when they leave school

I believe they do this sort of thing in some European countries.
I think it rather dangerous to enlist young people (who may well be totally unsuited) to the military.

[Imploding Turtle]

Politicians might say this a free country is it **** certainly there's no free speech anymore. And what's wrong with serving your country?

What makes you think I think there's something wrong with serving your country?

[Lancasterclaret]

Because its all linked together Ringo

We have got on since 1945, which is the longest period in european history without a war.

The various bits of the EU and its predecessors helped all that, along with NATO by linking us all closer to together, through trade, prosperity etc etc

"promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens" is part of the European charter.

I'm absolutely no idea why you are arguing over this, because its not as issue that its been good for pan-European peace surely?

[RingoMcCartney]

Because its all linked together Ringo

We have got on since 1945, which is the longest period in european history without a war.

The various bits of the EU and its predecessors helped all that, along with NATO by linking us all closer to together, through trade, prosperity etc etc

"promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens" is part of the European charter.

I'm absolutely no idea why you are arguing over this, because its not as issue that its been good for pan-European peace surely?

1945 is an important date.

"It was a different world then Houseboy. Between 1945 and the early sixties"

"Houseboy, Russia was a credible threat to the west throughout that period."

Your words Lancaster.

During this period, apart from 45-49, which organisation actually existed. NATO or the EU! To "stop Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe."

And how does the fact you have a charter that says, "
"promote peace, its values and the well-being of its citizens" is part of the European charter" deter a potential nuclear Russian foe

The wording of that, I suggest , is aimed at INTERNAL ambitions. Rather than the EXTERNAL threats that would be posed by an aggressive Russia.

If Russia had try to "take over western Europe like it did eastern europe" would it have turned to this charter, or the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO ? Being concerned about the "well being of its citizens" isn't going to put up much of fight against the military hardware of Russia.

This "longest period in european history without a war" Of which you speak. The European Charter that you hold up as being responsible for peace. Didn't seem to have a lot of influence in Yugoslavia did it!? (Around 130,000 dead)

I agree entirely with your original statement.

" it was the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO that stopped Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe."

The credit youre now giving the EU for "stoping Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe. Is as undeserved as it is misplaced.

Stick to your first claim mate, it's true!

Have a great evening.

[jurek]

See little or no benefit in re-introducing National Service, be it for one month or longer.
I suspect the cost alone would be prohibitive in relation to any possible benefits.
A voluntary scheme may be a better option but then again can't see many volunteering
for a stint in the military.

It may benefit some youngsters currently serving custodial sentences for such offences
as death by dangerous driving or similar but even then I'm not sure apart from
thinking it may be notionally better than spending x months in prison.

I'm not totally against some form of service to the country but uncertain what may be best
or a better alternative to military service.

I was born in 1951 and wasn't obliged to do National Service as it ended in 1960 or thereabouts
but I'm pretty I would have resented having to do it.

[lancastrian]

National Service? Before a job offer people usually like to know what the wages and conditions are, so what are they then?

Still waiting for the answer.

Four bob a day full board and lodgings. Shouted at morning noon and night with plenty of bromide in your tea. Evenings spent kit cleaning and bulling boots ready for a kit inspection next morning.. As i said previously the modern generation couldn't cope. We had no option and had to go and serve for two years in various places throughout the British Empire.

[nil_desperandum]

Boatshed bill , national service is history what you are suggesting is actually a really good idea , paid local government work or national work doing simple tasks to help our environment , depenď how it's managed but it could be fantastic for local areas and real life work experience for or youth even if it's only for a month or two when they leave school

And this is pretty much exactly what Macron is proposing, - but most people have not read his proposals and have assumed it's military service for adults, hence we've gone way off topic.
Just to be clear: it's one months "service" for 16 year olds, (i.e. schoolchildren), with the option of volunteering to do more, but no one has any obligation to be involved in the military.
It has considerable merit IMO.

[South West Claret.]

Four bob a day full board and lodgings. Shouted at morning noon and night with plenty of bromide in your tea. Evenings spent kit cleaning and bulling boots ready for a kit inspection next morning.. As i said previously the modern generation couldn't cope. We had no option and had to go and serve for two years in various places throughout the British Empire.

Thanks Lancastrian...in that case no to National Service.

[Imploding Turtle]

...
This "longest period in european history without a war" Of which you speak. The European Charter that you hold up as being responsible for peace. Didn't seem to have a lot of influence in Yugoslavia did it!? (Around 130,000 dead)

...

When did Yugoslavia become a member of the EU?

[If it be your will]

.

[Imploding Turtle]

Didn't a couple of our princes not too long ago complete fairly distinguished stints of military service? Or are they not the kind of rich people that Healeywoodclaret is talking about?

[bluelabrador16]

On my reading list: ( after watching Renegade Inc...Looting Libya )




Britain's Secret Wars: How and Why the United Kingdom Sponsors Conflict Around the World
by T. J. Coles

"In a devastating analysis, T. J. Coles reveals the true extent of Britain's covert foreign policy that supports war, conflict and oppression around the world. Unbeknownst to the broad population, the Shadow State sponsors a 'new world order' that allies Britain with America's quest for global power - what the Pentagon calls 'Full Spectrum Dominance'. Coles documents how British operatives have interfered in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran and Yemen with the aim of deposing unwanted regimes. In doing so, they have helped create extensive terrorist networks across the Middle East, reviving previously-failing Jihadist groups such as ISIL, which has now transformed into an international terror franchise. In addition to waging clandestine wars in the Middle East, the secret services have used the military to run drugs by proxy in Colombia, train death squads in Bangladesh, and support instability in Ukraine, where NATO's strategic encroachment on Russia is drawing the world closer to terminal nuclear confrontation.Coles unearths Britain's involvement in the recent ethnic cleansing of Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan government, the invasion of Somalia by Somali and Ethiopian warlords, and Indonesia's atrocities in Papua. He also exposes the extensive use of drones for murder and intimidation across the Middle East and elsewhere. Britain's Secret Wars is essential reading for anyone who wants to dig beneath the surface of current events."

After watching Renegade Inc......Looting Libya

"One of the biggest Western foreign policy adventures in recent years is something that is underreported in the media. So-called ‘intervention’ in Libya has created a failed state that is riven with extremists all vying for power. So we ask: was this really an epic foreign policy mistake? Or was destroying Libya just another day at the office for politicians, shortsighted bureaucrats, and vulture corporates who continually try to enforce global economic supremacy...."

https://renegadeinc.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well recommended!

Why bother with National Service when we can rely on our Jihadis, ISIS, Al Qaeda (the database), White Helmets, etc

[If it be your will]

.

[Rumbletonk]

I wonder if national service would provide a more relevant purpose in today's society. Putting people from different backgrounds/cultures together that might not necessarily mix and making them work side by side

[RingoMcCartney]

When did Yugoslavia become a member of the EU?

It wasn't.

Lancaster claret claimed "We have got on since 1945, which is the longest period in european history without a war."

Yugoslavia was in Europe. Consequently, the civil WAR that occurred there, was part of "European history"

You idiot.

[Rumbletonk]

On my reading list: ( after watching Renegade Inc...Looting Libya )




Britain's Secret Wars: How and Why the United Kingdom Sponsors Conflict Around the World
by T. J.



After watching Renegade Inc......Looting Libya



Well recommended!

Why bother with National Service when we can rely on our Jihadis, ISIS, Al Qaeda (the database), White Helmets, etc

How do you get through the day you twisted bellend

[whooooshy]

A pretty poor show again Lancaster.

You've changed.

I don't think he has. As someone who was a regular poster years ago, and a lurker for many years since then, the recent years have been grim with the amount of ignorant and intolerant posts on the site. LC has always (from what I've seen) been a voice of reason. He's stayed the same, maybe it's the board and society in general that's changed...and definitely not for the better. Good on ya LC!

[bluelabrador16]

Rumbletonk

How do you get through the day...

Very well thanks and you. Plenty of walking in our lovely countryside. Just won a game of backgammon.

By the way, did I hit a nerve with my post? Do you not like the truth?

[Lancasterclaret]

Ringo

Yugoslavia was a civil war

Yugoslavia was not in Western Europe

In anytime you care to mention, the period of peace enjoyed by Western Europe is unprecedented in European history. There isn't a period of peace quite like it.

The war ended in 1945, but the US and Western allies disagreements with the Soviet Union had begun well before that when it became obvious that the democratic ideas of the West were not going to apply to anywhere in Eastern Europe. hence NATO was formed in 1948 ( a scant three years after the end of the deadliest war in humankind) because of the real and current threat from Soviet Russia.

The European Coal and Steel community came into being in 1950- the beginnings of the EU with six countries (two axis from the war, four allied) - in less than five years after the end of the war. Whether you like it or not, this is where people started to talk about peace, prosperity etc etc.

All done because of the threat from the East. All done because the realisation that democracy and the western way of life was under threat. That has lasted through the 50s. the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and beyond.

So the precursor of the EU is set up to help the peace and prosperity of Western Europe, along with NATO. Its unarguable that its contributed to peace and prosperity in Western Europe.

You might not like it, and we are leaving it, but its a vital part of the peace and prosperity that Western Europe enjoys.

[Bin Ont Turf]

I don't think he has. As someone who was a regular poster years ago, and a lurker for many years since then, the recent years have been grim with the amount of ignorant and intolerant posts on the site. LC has always (from what I've seen) been a voice of reason. He's stayed the same, maybe it's the board and society in general that's changed...and definitely not for the better. Good on ya LC!

He definitely has and I've seen the change.

Let's pretend that it's funny likening folk to mass murderers.

Over the last few months he's joined the black clad face covering venomous sandal wearers.

He doesn't know what's in his room.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l71pbhqnvNM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[jackmiggins]

Cyprus 74. Thanks Europe. Btw could Germany see it’s way clear to Second World War recompense that would dwarf the German banks supposed ‘bailout’ from a Eurodirective to borrow from, guess who? The Deutschland banks.
National Service - pay. Bodies are inconsequential nowadays, they were in 14, 39 & 74 & we should all hang our heads in shame for Jugoslavia.

[Inchy]

If someone tried to make me join the army I’d sooner go to jail.


Probably better food.

[Imploding Turtle]

It wasn't.

Lancaster claret claimed "We have got on since 1945, which is the longest period in european history without a war."

Yugoslavia was in Europe. Consequently, the civil WAR that occurred there, was part of "European history"

You idiot.

But you and I both know he was referring to EU nations when he said "europe". When was the last war between two EU nations?

[Lancasterclaret]

BOT, I haven't changed, possibly I've got less annoyed on here than I was years ago.

You definitely have, it used to be not serious with you. Now its like listening to your grandma go on about immigrants

[ClaretAndJew]

Put your sandals on Lancaster

[Walton]

Don't forget these sandals are venomous

[RingoMcCartney]

But you and I both know he was referring to EU nations when he said "europe". When was the last war between two EU nations?

Do we!? Do " you and I both know he was referring to EU nations when he said "europe" is that right!? So your now able to know and tell me what I understood by "europe"

When he said, "which is the longest period in european history without a war."

Why didn't he say EUROPEAN UNION HISTORY?

And when he said,

"the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO, Nuclear deterrent and the EU (amongst others ) have all contributed to peace in Europe."

Why didn't he say "peace in THE EUROPEAN UNION" then either?

And when I asked the question, "But, you previously claimed it was the European Union that was responsible for keeping the peace in Europe." I chose to say EUROPE, not the EUROPEAN UNION.

Why was that?

It's because you and I know, that he and I, meant Europe don't we.

If you don't think that a civil WAR that took place on European soil, which qualifies it to be both a war and European, that resulted in the loss of around 130,000 lives, cannot be counted, due to your intellect and lack of basic geographical knowledge. You're wrong. It does.

You hapless clown.

[Tall Paul]

You idiot.

You hapless clown.

Don't be a cock all your life Ringo. It's Saturday. Take the weekend off.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo

Yugoslavia was a civil war

Yugoslavia was not in Western Europe.

The clue is in the phrase "civil WAR"

A civil war that cost the lives of 130,000 people. Stop moving the goalposts lancs.


"NATO, Nuclear deterrent and the EU (amongst others ) have all contributed to peace in Europe."

Your words Lancaster. No mention of western Europe

[RingoMcCartney]

Don't be a cock all your life Ringo. It's Saturday. Take the weekend off.

Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle......

[Tall Paul]

Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle......

Yeah, that's what I said when you said it to me

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo

Yugoslavia was a civil war

Yugoslavia was not in Western Europe

In anytime you care to mention, the period of peace enjoyed by Western Europe is unprecedented in European history. There isn't a period of peace quite like it.

The war ended in 1945, but the US and Western allies disagreements with the Soviet Union had begun well before that when it became obvious that the democratic ideas of the West were not going to apply to anywhere in Eastern Europe. hence NATO was formed in 1948 ( a scant three years after the end of the deadliest war in humankind) because of the real and current threat from Soviet Russia.

The European Coal and Steel community came into being in 1950- the beginnings of the EU with six countries (two axis from the war, four allied) - in less than five years after the end of the war. Whether you like it or not, this is where people started to talk about peace, prosperity etc etc.

All done because of the threat from the East. All done because the realisation that democracy and the western way of life was under threat. That has lasted through the 50s. the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and beyond.

So the precursor of the EU is set up to help the peace and prosperity of Western Europe, along with NATO. Its unarguable that its contributed to peace and prosperity in Western Europe.

You might not like it, and we are leaving it, but its a vital part of the peace and prosperity that Western Europe enjoys.

"There isn't a period of peace quite like it."

Couldn't agree more. Thanks to NATO.

"The European Coal and Steel community". Now this is where your fixation with giving the EU credit it doesn't deserve goes into the realms of fantasy.

How the hell did a body set up by "6 European countries set up after World War II to regulate their industrial production under a centralised authority." Have anything, absolutely anything to do with keeping "Russia which was a credible threat to the west throughout that period." At bay!!!!???

To even suggest that an organisation that was set up to address heavy industrial processes, was responsible for European peace. And not NATO an organisation whose raison d-etre was to protect Europe from the perceived threat of Russia, is ridiculous.

"this is where people started to talk about peace, prosperity "

Laughable Lancaster claret, laughable. If Soviet Russia had decided to invade the West. What would have stopped them, or critically more importantly, made them think again. An organisation. Concerned about steel and coal production. That had sweet jack sh1t. Or an organisation armed to the teeth with weaponry. Weaponry that included nuclear? A NATO that in your very own words, " had a massive technological advantage, which is even more pronounced now. "

You know the answer. I know the answer.

You say it was a "precursor to the EU" that kept the peace in Europe. So even if it were true, ( which it's not) that it did keep the peace. If it was a "precursor to the EU". It wasn't actually the EU was it!!!! It was a "precursor"!!!

The only one single, constant, armed as an equal (or in your opinion, superior) to the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact/Russia. "That has lasted through the 50s. the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and beyond. Was NATO. Fact.

That's why I agree with the guy who said the followimg-

"but the NATO forces in the period had a massive technological advantage, which is even more pronounced now."

He also said,

"And because Nukes are so apocalyptic, it was the actual troops, guns, tanks, aircraft and ships of NATO that stopped Russia taking over Western Europe like it took over Eastern Europe."

And when he was referring to National Service who supplemented the regs who were part of NATO-

" Between 1945 and the early sixties over 2million young men did their National Service supplementing the regular military at a time when the Cold War was at its height. But for those (NS men you could well be speaking Russian today")

Your words Lancaster claret. Your words. If it wasn't for NATO we could speaking Russian now.........

[ClaretAndJew]

Do you think we'd all be talking Russian so quickly considering 60 odd (or 50 odd back then) million people spoke English.

[RingoMcCartney]

Yeah, that's what I said when you said it to me

No you didn't.

You said, "Pot, kettle, Black"

I can even do the pedantry better.

[RingoMcCartney]

Do you think we'd all be talking Russian so quickly considering 60 odd (or 50 odd back then) million people spoke English.

Ask Lancaster claret. Seeing as he was the one making the claim.