Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:04 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:That's a bit rich from someone who doesn't want to obey the result of the referendum.

Except I do.

But apart from little bit of quite important info eh?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:07 am

Jakubclaret wrote:If you provided factual evidence to substantiate that impression/opinion it would assist without information obtained from any pro or anti media outlet, basically I’m asking as boris Johnson lied to you on a face to face basis? if the answer to that question is no it’s absolutely impossible to formulate 100% with any degree of certainty that BJ is indeed a liar.

Johnson is a proven liar.

You can pretend that he isn't if you want.

Doesn't change the fact that he's a proven liar.

You do know he's lost two jobs because he's been found out to be a proven liar?

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:11 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Johnson is a proven liar.

You can pretend that he isn't if you want.

Doesn't change the fact that he's a proven liar.

You do know he's lost two jobs because he's been found out to be a proven liar?

Are you a proven liar Lancaster?

Did you tell your kids Santa came and dropped the presents off for years and years? Going to extreme lengths like leaving milk or sherry and a mince pie and carrot out?

Everybody has lied at some point, it's human nature unfortunately.

Heathclaret · Post by **Heathclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:19 am

I’m sorry buddy, but that is one of the most pathetic responses I’ve seen. If that is your argument, you don’t have one.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:23 am

Quickenthetempo wrote:Are you a proven liar Lancaster?

Did you tell your kids Santa came and dropped the presents off for years and years? Going to extreme lengths like leaving milk or sherry and a mince pie and carrot out?

Everybody has lied at some point, it's human nature unfortunately.

Absolutely ridiculous comparison! Come on man!

Basically, I'm not the PM of the United Kingdom.

How many jobs have you lost because you are have been found out to be a proven liar Quick?

Genuinely struggling with the idea that so many of you don't think it matters that he's a proven liar.

That means (and again, genuinely perplexed about actually having to explain this bit!) that what he's saying to you cannot be taken at face value.

That means that when he's telling the EU that you will have to trust me that I've got a plan for alternative arrangements on the border, then they are thinking

"Thank god that man has got an unblemished record of telling the truth in public life so we can take his words at face value"

It is quite important that you are not a proven liar!

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:24 am

martin_p wrote:a) the government wasn’t elected, it was given a majority by the DUP
b) it is now a minority government because it withdrew the whip from over 20 of its own MPs
c) a new government being put into power by parliament is no different to how any other government is put into power, if a majority have confidence then it’s good to go.
d) suggest you look up the definition of the word ‘coup’.

I dont need to google anything pal.
In regards to your first 3 points, all of this could be solved with a general election.
I understand why remainers are terrified of that prospect (despite saying the public now want to remain) but one way or another, it's coming. And when it does, quite a few MP's will be finding themselves out of a job

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:27 am

Damo wrote:I dont need to google anything pal.
In regards to your first 3 points, all of this could be solved with a general election.
I understand why remainers are terrified of that prospect (despite saying the public now want to remain) but one way or another, it's coming. And when it does, quite a few MP's will be finding themselves out of a job

But you lot are so sure you are going to win?

Burnley is one of the biggest leave areas of the country.

Its not representative of the whole country though!

And no one doesn't want a GE as far as I know, they just want to stop a undemocratic "No Deal" before there is one.

I don't see the issue with backing that stance at all.

If you win the GE, you can still have the "No Deal"

What on earth is the problem?

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:28 am

However if the Court orders on Monday that he has to send the surrender letter and the deadline is not until the 19th, it has interfered in any legal challenge that might be coming in and in doing so taking most of any pressure on the EU to deal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:28 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Surely you can see that it makes her look biased?

In the current climate, even if she isn’t biased, that seems thick as mince. It comes across as everyone in her circle is a Remainer so she can get away with making those jokes, which then reinforces the people vs establishment viewpoint. It’s desperately sad given that she obviously isn’t thick but very clever.

Actually, I have a great respect for Brenda Hale. She has made a lot of rulings that have affected me personally, she is from a girl’s school in Yorkshire, as is my daughter, as a whole her career has set a great example.

Your other point has also suffered from a bit of Remainiacness. As I have put in my above post, I have no desire for Boris to circumvent the Remainers (not the law, if he does it he will do it legally). I do feel he has been left with little option though, the tactics against him are so underhand. I would prefer an election first to test the mood of the public. I suspect it would be overwhelming.

Someone says "girly swot" - evidence

Loads of actual government papers saying how bad a no deal will be - not evidence

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:33 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Absolutely ridiculous comparison! Come on man!

Basically, I'm not the PM of the United Kingdom.

How many jobs have you lost because you are have been found out to be a proven liar Quick?

Genuinely struggling with the idea that so many of you don't think it matters that he's a proven liar.

That means (and again, genuinely perplexed about actually having to explain this bit!) that what he's saying to you cannot be taken at face value.

That means that when he's telling the EU that you will have to trust me that I've got a plan for alternative arrangements on the border, then they are thinking

"Thank god that man has got an unblemished record of telling the truth in public life so we can take his words at face value"

It is quite important that you are not a proven liar!

You want rid of Boris because you say he is a proven liar, yet you want him replacing with Corbyn, who is a proven liar

Anyone would think that you dont care about the liar bit, and you just want a Corbyn government

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:38 am

Post deleted

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:42 am

Damo wrote:You want rid of Boris because you say he is a proven liar, yet you want him replacing with Corbyn, who is a proven liar
Anyone would think that you dont care about the liar bit, and you just want a Corbyn government

Jeez

Deal, if no deal, remain

If we need a alternative govt to stop a "No deal" and to make sure we have a solution to this that is another vote (GE or whatever) , then I want absolutely anyone to be that alternative PM.

Genghis Khan, Brian Laws, Jack walker, Jeremy corbyn - Not bothered

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:51 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Jeez

Deal, if no deal, remain

If we need a alternative govt to stop a "No deal" and to make sure we have a solution to this that is another vote, then I want absolutely anyone to be that alternative PM.

Genghis Khan, Brian Laws, Jack walker, Jeremy corbyn - Not bothered

Fair enough from your position. However I don't trust MPs to just stick to stopping no deal and in particular not to set up another referundum (with a biased question) after all that's what many of them have been after all along.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:25 am

aggi wrote:Erm, I think your knowledge of the second world war may not be complete.

Which part do you think is incorrect??

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:08 am

Lowbank, it was the Soviet Red Army that was primarily responsible for the defeat of Germany. At no time after D Day did the Germans have less than 80% of their forces on the Eastern Front. The campaign is Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 was certainly significant, but it was primarily the defeats on the Eastern Front that destroyed the German army.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:09 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:But you lot are so sure you are going to win?

Burnley is one of the biggest leave areas of the country.

Its not representative of the whole country though!

And no one doesn't want a GE as far as I know, they just want to stop a undemocratic "No Deal" before there is one.

I don't see the issue with backing that stance at all.

If you win the GE, you can still have the "No Deal"

What on earth is the problem?

None, I agree with you.

Let’s get on and have a general Election.

There must be a way on stopping crashing out that suits both sides.

In no way do I want us crashing out by some action that’s deemed by remainers as incorrect, that will just cause more and more bad feeling.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:18 am

Erasmus wrote:Lowbank, it was the Soviet Red Army that was primarily responsible for the defeat of Germany. At no time after D Day did the Germans have less than 80% of their forces on the Eastern Front. The campaign is Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 was certainly significant, but it was primarily the defeats on the Eastern Front that destroyed the German army.

Yes the soviets did have more troops involved.

America had the largest force in theatre after them, the Soviets were not exactly true allies.

As can seen by the post war wall.

America as victors gathered all the defeated countries and did the Bretton Woods agreement.

Please don’t forget the US was fighting multiple theatres.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:23 am

Erasmus wrote:Lowbank, it was the Soviet Red Army that was primarily responsible for the defeat of Germany. At no time after D Day did the Germans have less than 80% of their forces on the Eastern Front. The campaign is Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 was certainly significant, but it was primarily the defeats on the Eastern Front that destroyed the German army.

Correct, and just to add that there were over twice as many Soviet troops engaged in the war than American, despite Lowbank's claim that the USA had far more than any other country.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:29 am

Erasmus wrote:Lowbank, it was the Soviet Red Army that was primarily responsible for the defeat of Germany. At no time after D Day did the Germans have less than 80% of their forces on the Eastern Front. The campaign is Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 was certainly significant, but it was primarily the defeats on the Eastern Front that destroyed the German army.

True, but let’s not forget the contribution allied AirPower did to the rail networks & the luftwaffe weakening & minimising the deployment on the eastern front & facilitating the red army to be in that advantageous position, after the blitzkriegs initial rapid progress various turning points ensued assisted by the west logistically.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:31 am

Twenty million dead too.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:41 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:Yes the soviets did have more troops involved.

America had the largest force in theatre after them, the Soviets were not exactly true allies.

As can seen by the post war wall.

America as victors gathered all the defeated countries and did the Bretton Woods agreement.

Please don’t forget the US was fighting multiple theatres.

It's pretty simple really. "Not exactly true allies" or not it was Russia that stood firm against the Nazis, put the most troops in, lost the most lives, and eventually turned the tide of the war.
Could USA/ UK etc. have defeated the Nazis if the Soviets had surrendered and thus freed up the vast majority of Nazi troops to fight in the west?
Well, who knows, but it would have been incredibly difficult.
And considering the fact that the relatively new Soviet regime, and the governments of the West were so far apart politically and culturally and had total distrust of each other, Stalin and his regime turned out to be a rather more reliable ally than might have been expected.
As to what happened after the war, well we could debate that all day long, but essentially the Soviets made the most sacrifices during the war, lost the most citizens, (approx 24 million*), and understandably wanted to establish a Communist buffer zone against the west after the war. (This incidentally was agreed by Churchill at conferences held before the war ended).
The wall was an unfortunate consequence of this, but we've had relative peace in Europe since 1945, and the wall has come down, so maybe it served its purpose.
* for context the 24 million civilian and military Russian dead compares with well under 1 million USA / UK (combined) deaths.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:43 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:Which part do you think is incorrect??

America having the most troops in WWII. The Soviet Union had about twice as many.

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 10:45 am

Yes, you are quite right Lowbank in the sense that the USA was overwhelmingly responsible for the defeat of Japan. But in Europe it was primarily the Soviet Union that brought about the defeat of Germany, though of course the contribution of the British navy and airforce was also significant. Post-war policies are a different matter.

I feel that history has become a little distorted in the intervening period and it is often represented that the D-Day offensive was the prinicipal cause of Germany's defeat. That fits nicely with our nationalist narrative events, but it is not actually the case.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:01 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Unfortunately there are too many people who hold the view that the referendum result of 2016, which was first of all advisory, and second of all narrowly won by one side, gives the government a blank cheque to basically do whatever they like in order to try and deliver their particular interpretation of that result.

It's insanity. People have well and truly lost their minds over this issue, to the point where they're actually comfortable with Parliament (our democracy) being shut down, and laws being ignored to try and deliver something which is essentially undeliverable.

Edit - and the really weird thing is, the people who are comfortable about all of this tend to be the same people who were hell bent on leaving the EU in order to restore UK parliamentary sovereignty (which we always had) and the supremacy of UK law (which was already supreme in the vast majority of cases).

Question-

Prior to the 2016 Peoples Vote, was there preset criteria that if the winning margin was less than a given figure , the result would not stand?

Answer - No.

The 1975 Common Market referendum was not binding.

The result was implemented. The losing side accepted it and in a free democracy, they were entitled to campaign to leave.

The Welsh devolution referendum of 1997 result was 50.3% and 49.7%. The result was implemented and the losing side accepted it.

“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent.

When the British people have spoken you do what they command.

Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.”

Paddy Ashdown on the eve of the 2016 Peoples Vote result.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:01 am

Erasmus wrote:Yes, you are quite right Lowbank in the sense that the USA was overwhelmingly responsible for the defeat of Japan. But in Europe it was primarily the Soviet Union that brought about the defeat of Germany, though of course the contribution of the British navy and airforce was also significant. Post-war policies are a different matter.

I feel that history has become a little distorted in the intervening period and it is often represented that the D-Day offensive was the prinicipal cause of Germany's defeat. That fits nicely with our nationalist narrative events, but it is not actually the case.

Another way to look at it, is that Hitler brought about defeat on himself in Europe by invading a neutral Soviet Union - particularly as winter approached. He got ahead of himself in terms of clearing colony space and planning extraction for natural resources. The cause of Germany's defeat isn't down to a singular event and all of history is subjective, but in my point the principle cause of defeat was Hitler.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:11 am

Back to Brexit:

The most logical solution to the 'latest impasse' would be for NI to have a referendum on whether they want to stay in the EU on not. They would probably vote yes and the backstop and most of the other insurmountable problems would dissappear.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:14 am

Mala591 wrote:Back to Brexit:

The most logical solution to the 'latest impasse' would be for NI to have a referendum on whether they want to stay in the EU on not. They would probably vote yes and the backstop and most of the other insurmountable problems would dissappear.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's a joke

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Someone says "girly swot" - evidence

Loads of actual government papers saying how bad a no deal will be - not evidence

Seriously Lancs, we are saying that she was very unwise to reinforce the lack of trust the working class person has against judges. That’s all. Personally I do think they were biased - but unconsciously cognitively biased. I suspect if the boot was on the other foot and a Remain PM had prorogued Parliament the judgement would have been different. We are all cognitively biased - human nature demands it.

On a separate note I see you are still trotting out the “Boris is a lier” line.

Well, yes, we all know that. But in the scheme of things his ill deeds are small fry for a PM.

Cameron lied about the government implementing what the people decided.

Theresa May lied to win the leadership - she was an arch Remainer (shown by speeches she gave to bankers behind closed doors) but won the PM gig by persuading the right of her party she was for Brexit, thus causing this farce.

Tony Blair was judged by Chilcott to have not been straight with the nation about Iraq.

So, I’ve gone to lengths to explain on here why Boris’s personality is “troubled” but I genuinely believe he is trying to do the right thing in a broad sense. That makes him better than recent PMs, not worse.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:45 am

Mala591 wrote:Back to Brexit:

The most logical solution to the 'latest impasse' would be for NI to have a referendum on whether they want to stay in the EU on not. They would probably vote yes and the backstop and most of the other insurmountable problems would dissappear.

They may be a small bunch of people but they are OUR people - we look after them, that is what sovereignty is.

Cooking up a referendum at a temporary time of chaos when the polls are distorted one way is not the way to do it.

Offering a referendum in 10 years time to test how things have bedded in and whether there is an appetite to leave the UK, that is different. EDIT - come to think of it, that applies to the whole rejoining thing as well.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:47 am

willsclarets wrote:I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's a joke

Why would the suggestion that giving the people of Northern Ireland the democratic control over the future of their province be a joke?

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:00 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:They may be a small bunch of people but they are OUR people - we look after them, that is what sovereignty is.

Cooking up a referendum at a temporary time of chaos when the polls are distorted one way is not the way to do it.

Offering a referendum in 10 years time to test how things have bedded in and whether there is an appetite to leave the UK, that is different. EDIT - come to think of it, that applies to the whole rejoining thing as well.

I disagree. A referendum would be a logical step forward and it might also catalyse their 'politicians' to grow up and work together for the benefit of their province.

p.s. they have already voted once to stay in because they could see what was down the road if the whole UK voted leave

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:11 pm

Mala591 wrote:I disagree. A referendum would be a logical step forward and it might also catalyse their 'politicians' to grow up and work together for the benefit of their province.

p.s. they have already voted once to stay in because they could see what was down the road if the whole UK voted leave

So would this be which of the following

1/ N.Ireland becoming its own separate country breaking away from the Union
2/ A single united Ireland
3/ A border between us an the EU that is controlled and administered on both sides by the UK without the EU have any control which you expect the EU to be ok with
4/ Or something else that you could explain to us

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:25 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:So would this be which of the following

1/ N.Ireland becoming its own separate country breaking away from the Union
2/ A single united Ireland
3/ A border between us an the EU that is controlled and administered on both sides by the UK without the EU have any control which you expect the EU to be ok with
4/ Or something else that you could explain to us

A version of 3/

There would be a customs union and single market border down the Irish Sea. The GB side would be managed/monitored by GB. The Irish side would be managed by the EU and NI and ROI.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:27 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:It's pretty simple really. "Not exactly true allies" or not it was Russia that stood firm against the Nazis, put the most troops in, lost the most lives, and eventually turned the tide of the war.
Could USA/ UK etc. have defeated the Nazis if the Soviets had surrendered and thus freed up the vast majority of Nazi troops to fight in the west?
Well, who knows, but it would have been incredibly difficult.
And considering the fact that the relatively new Soviet regime, and the governments of the West were so far apart politically and culturally and had total distrust of each other, Stalin and his regime turned out to be a rather more reliable ally than might have been expected.
As to what happened after the war, well we could debate that all day long, but essentially the Soviets made the most sacrifices during the war, lost the most citizens, (approx 24 million*), and understandably wanted to establish a Communist buffer zone against the west after the war. (This incidentally was agreed by Churchill at conferences held before the war ended).
The wall was an unfortunate consequence of this, but we've had relative peace in Europe since 1945, and the wall has come down, so maybe it served its purpose.
* for context the 24 million civilian and military Russian dead compares with well under 1 million USA / UK (combined) deaths.

Hi nil_d, wow, you might think you are telling history as it happened, but there's some enormous truths that you've missed out.

What happened in Sept 1939? Yes, Germany invaded Poland - and the Soviet Union invaded the east of Poland... many of the Polish officers were massacred by the Soviet Union.

In 1940, after the fall of France and Dunkirk, it was only Britain that stood against Hitler.

Jun-1941 - Operation Barbarossa - Hitler ended his alliance with Stalin and invaded Soviet Union. That was when Soviet Union entered WWII on the allies side.

Dec-1941 - Japan bombed Pearl Harbour - and USA entered the war.

I'm not sure what you point is with "the relatively new Soviet regime." Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin took over Russia in 1917 (the October revolution was in November in our calendar) and Russia withdrew from WWI. The Soviet Union had been around for 2 decades - Hitler's Nazi Germany hadn't existed for 1 decade.

Do you know why Stalin had entered into an agreement with Hitler? I'm sure the massacre and starvation of 10s of millions of Russians in the 1930s - including most of the Soviet Army officer class had something to do with it. And, why so many Soviet deaths during the war? because they didn't have the training, leadership, equipment to repulse the German forces without massive loss of life.

Rather reliable ally? Well, "my enemies enemy is always my friend" in difficult times. Tell the people of Poland how "reliable" an ally the Soviet forces were when the citizens of Warsaw sort to over throw the German occupiers - while Stalin's troops held back a few miles away and allowed the Nazi's to destroy Warsaw.

And, "the wall was an unfortunate consequence...." Tell that to the people of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and more....

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:28 pm

You can see from this link just what the remain alliance is doing to the national interest in that the EU may condition an extension on us paying more and giving something up on fishing rights. This is what happens when people interfere in a PM'S role to bring a deal for consideration.

It's madness and these MPs deserve to be booted out soon.

https://www.ft.com/content/7e1de956-e69 ... 24ec9edc59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:34 pm

willsclarets wrote:Another way to look at it, is that Hitler brought about defeat on himself in Europe by invading a neutral Soviet Union - particularly as winter approached. He got ahead of himself in terms of clearing colony space and planning extraction for natural resources. The cause of Germany's defeat isn't down to a singular event and all of history is subjective, but in my point the principle cause of defeat was Hitler.

As historians, I suspect that our time would be much better spent debating the reasons for Germany and Japan losing the war, and how the fallout from the defeat of Germany and Japan has influenced events over the past 70+ years, rather than the endless repetitive arguments over how best to achieve an unachieveable consensus over Brexit.
The only problem with that however is that some people have such a poor and uninformed grasp of what actually happened (e.g. the UK won the war), that we might end up with the usual suspects rewriting history to fit their agenda.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:37 pm

Perhaps the EU is thinking we could be getting our fishing rights back, and decided just to empty the seas around the UK. Plus sell the fish to Africa it says.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-10-03/the ... s-of-fish/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:43 pm

Mala591 wrote:A version of 3/

There would be a customs union and single market border down the Irish Sea. The GB side would be managed/monitored by GB. The Irish side would be managed by the EU and NI and ROI.

So it wouldnt be as simple as just an NI referendum and all the problems disappear as it would still need considerable negotiation and agreement with the EU and the ROI to enact the result and thats assuming they vote to remain in the EU in the way you propose

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:45 pm

Look all

WWII was a victory for the allies.

Thst alliance included lots of countries.

Could any country have beaten Nazi Germany on it's own?

No

Russia needed the lorries, food, oil that the US provided (figures on Soviet vehicle production as opposed to tank production are astonishing)

Russia also needed the fighting in the West 41-45.

And ditto

The western allies needed Russian manpower to bleed the Germans on the eastern front.

All sides needed each other.

Imagine eh? Different countries united in a achieving a common goal?

Might catch on!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:48 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d, wow, you might think you are telling history as it happened, but there's some enormous truths that you've missed out.

What happened in Sept 1939? Yes, Germany invaded Poland - and the Soviet Union invaded the east of Poland... many of the Polish officers were massacred by the Soviet Union.

In 1940, after the fall of France and Dunkirk, it was only Britain that stood against Hitler.

Jun-1941 - Operation Barbarossa - Hitler ended his alliance with Stalin and invaded Soviet Union. That was when Soviet Union entered WWII on the allies side.

Dec-1941 - Japan bombed Pearl Harbour - and USA entered the war.

I'm not sure what you point is with "the relatively new Soviet regime." Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin took over Russia in 1917 (the October revolution was in November in our calendar) and Russia withdrew from WWI. The Soviet Union had been around for 2 decades - Hitler's Nazi Germany hadn't existed for 1 decade.

Do you know why Stalin had entered into an agreement with Hitler? I'm sure the massacre and starvation of 10s of millions of Russians in the 1930s - including most of the Soviet Army officer class had something to do with it. And, why so many Soviet deaths during the war? because they didn't have the training, leadership, equipment to repulse the German forces without massive loss of life.

Rather reliable ally? Well, "my enemies enemy is always my friend" in difficult times. Tell the people of Poland how "reliable" an ally the Soviet forces were when the citizens of Warsaw sort to over throw the German occupiers - while Stalin's troops held back a few miles away and allowed the Nazi's to destroy Warsaw.

And, "the wall was an unfortunate consequence...." Tell that to the people of East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and more....

A lot to digest there Paul, but I won't take any lectures from you on this topic.
Re: your final point. As it happens I was in Berlin last week, staying with friends who were brought up on the wrong side of the wall. My point is that whilst the "wall" did bring misery to many people, we had relative peace in Europe all the time it was up, and it came down peacefully. This contrasts with the previous decades and centuries, when central European nations had been continually at war with each other. There was no perfect solution to make everyone happy in 1945, but the division of Europe into Eastern and Western spheres of influence was probably the only solution. This inevitably led to a border / wall somewhere. We all know from the brexit discussion how resolving hard border disputes is difficult.
None of your other points particularly contradict what I said. Of course the Stalin regime was atrocious and their behaviour towards Poland - in particular was appalling. (Having said that there were always historic disputes over the existence of Poland - unfortunately).
Both the Communist and Nazi Regimes were new in historical terms. You can't describe 10 or 20 years as a long time, and throughout the 1930s there was deep distrust between the western countries and the Soviet Union, to the extent that most people perceived the Communist threat to be worse than the Nazi one. Indeed it was due to the distrust of the Communists that many thought that an alliance with the Germans to combat communism would be best. (This is one reason for the ill-fated appeasement policy)
In that context the way in which Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt worked together as allies was pretty remarkable, and hence my comment a "pretty reliable" ally.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:09 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:A lot to digest there Paul, but I won't take any lectures from you on this topic.
Re: your final point. As it happens I was in Berlin last week, staying with friends who were brought up on the wrong side of the wall. My point is that whilst the "wall" did bring misery to many people, we had relative peace in Europe all the time it was up, and it came down peacefully. This contrasts with the previous decades and centuries, when central European nations had been continually at war with each other. There was no perfect solution to make everyone happy in 1945, but the division of Europe into Eastern and Western spheres of influence was probably the only solution. This inevitably led to a border / wall somewhere. We all know from the brexit discussion how resolving hard border disputes is difficult.
None of your other points particularly contradict what I said. Of course the Stalin regime was atrocious and their behaviour towards Poland - in particular was appalling. (Having said that there were always historic disputes over the existence of Poland - unfortunately).
Both the Communist and Nazi Regimes were new in historical terms. You can't describe 10 or 20 years as a long time, and throughout the 1930s there was deep distrust between the western countries and the Soviet Union, to the extent that most people perceived the Communist threat to be worse than the Nazi one. Indeed it was due to the distrust of the Communists that many thought that an alliance with the Germans to combat communism would be best. (This is one reason for the ill-fated appeasement policy)
In that context the way in which Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt worked together as allies was pretty remarkable, and hence my comment a "pretty reliable" ally.

No lectures from me, nil_d. You do know that communism came to power in Russia with a plan for world revolution, don't you? Of course, the democratic world was "distrustful." We had a "cold war" in Europe from the end of the war until the collapse of the Soviet Union - if you are satisfied with that as "relative peace" - well, I set my standards a lot higher.

Do you know anything about the attempt by Hungary to free themselves from Soviet rule in 1956? Do you know anything about Czechoslovakia's "Prague spring" in 1968? And, Poland's struggles for their "peace" more than 40 years? And, what about all the east German's who tried to flee from the East to the West which led to the "wall" being built and the barbered wire and the machine gun posts? They weren't there to defend the East from the West, they were there to keep those in eastern Europe "in their place."

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:13 pm

nil_desperandum wrote: The only problem with that however is that some people have such a poor and uninformed grasp of what actually happened (e.g. the UK won the war), that we might end up with the usual suspects rewriting history to fit their agenda.

If I can suggest, nil_d, think about your own posts in this context.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:23 pm

I spent quite a bit of time in Eastern Europe in the seventies, well before the wall came down, on business. I was in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and saw the poverty, the despair and the fear of the people in those countries. Obviously, they very rarely would even discuss their plight, but when I got to know people better, normally after a couple of vodkas, they all prayed for the West to stand up to Russia in some way and make them free nations again. Some actually said that they wanted a war between the West and Russia in order to liberate their countries.
I used to feel quite scared when people talked like this to me, because I thought they might testing me in some way. I did actually spend a couple of days locked up in Karl-Marx-Stadt police station (now Chemnitz in East Germany) for being in a place I wasn't supposed to be in. Believe me, it was horrendous and I had nothing but pity for the inhabitants over there, those of Poland in particular.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:58 pm

The mantra from the remain group is “BJ is a proven liar, we have caught this naughty boy in a lie”. It’s there doctrine from previous such as fool, buffoon, etc all stated as there methodology to have people relook at his popularity and try to destroy that and at the same time throw laws about, generally collude to bring him down and hopefully the government eventually.

Now there is no discussing/debating with some people because this is entrained in there thinking, shows such a lack of character, the same people who I would bet a lot that have lied and broken the law of the land, people in glass houses springs to mind.

The same leaders of this campaign have started to realise that this tactic has got them no where, the ones with no backbone or conviction, proven categorically when ask to put a vote of no confidence in the same government and there leader, these are the the people who they are supporting and trying to justify. Yet unfortunately BJ’s popularity has risen in the week since the great revelation that he lied, it’s a contradiction for them they simply don’t understand and now it’s going to be the party line I don’t want to discuss anything with anyone who supports a liar, boohoo, I’m going home, it’s just not fair

The same people supporting a coward, laughable really if it wasn’t so serious

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:28 pm

Paul Waine wrote:No lectures from me, nil_d. You do know that communism came to power in Russia with a plan for world revolution, don't you? Of course, the democratic world was "distrustful." We had a "cold war" in Europe from the end of the war until the collapse of the Soviet Union - if you are satisfied with that as "relative peace" - well, I set my standards a lot higher.

Do you know anything about the attempt by Hungary to free themselves from Soviet rule in 1956? Do you know anything about Czechoslovakia's "Prague spring" in 1968? And, Poland's struggles for their "peace" more than 40 years? And, what about all the east German's who tried to flee from the East to the West which led to the "wall" being built and the barbered wire and the machine gun posts? They weren't there to defend the East from the West, they were there to keep those in eastern Europe "in their place."

Generally, Paul, I find you a polite and reasoned poster, but I find all your posts towards me today quite out of character.
Nothing you've written contradicts my initial post which pointed out the key role USSR played in defeating the Axis, and the horrific price they paid compared to other nations.
Of course, I'm aware of the struggles for freedom that Eastern bloc countries had in that period. (A lot of my family are Eastern European and lived through it and experienced it (ffs), so as I said I won't be lectured on it. I visit all the time.)
All you say about barbed wire etc. is totally correct, and I haven't sought to dispute it. The point is that understandably the Soviet Union wanted territories in the East and beyond if possible - an Empire of sorts. Because of the way Europe was carved up in 1945, the USA influence in the West prevented this, and there was relatively little bloodshed in Europe throughout the Cold War. The Iron Curtain had to be enforced by the East as you say. So it's nothing to do with "my standards" it's just reality that we had a Cold War, but it was a good deal better than the bloodshed preceded it.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 2:55 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Generally, Paul, I find you a polite and reasoned poster, but I find all your posts towards me today quite out of character.
Nothing you've written contradicts my initial post which pointed out the key role USSR played in defeating the Axis, and the horrific price they paid compared to other nations.
Of course, I'm aware of the struggles for freedom that Eastern bloc countries had in that period. (A lot of my family are Eastern European and lived through it and experienced it (ffs), so as I said I won't be lectured on it. I visit all the time.)
All you say about barbed wire etc. is totally correct, and I haven't sought to dispute it. The point is that understandably the Soviet Union wanted territories in the East and beyond if possible - an Empire of sorts. Because of the way Europe was carved up in 1945, the USA influence in the West prevented this, and there was relatively little bloodshed in Europe throughout the Cold War. The Iron Curtain had to be enforced by the East as you say. So it's nothing to do with "my standards" it's just reality that we had a Cold War, but it was a good deal better than the bloodshed preceded it.

Hi nil_d, ok, yes, I try to be polite and I thank you for mentioning it. I agree I didn't "contradict" anything that you'd written - but you'd left so much out that was so important to understanding the true situation that I felt it important to post. All you'd posted was a distortion.

You say that it's "understandable the Soviet Union wanted territories in the East...." but, what about the people in those countries? How did your family in Eastern Europe feel about it?

Let's not get into a "body count." WWII was horrendous, just as WWI was. The cold war was also very bad; lots of "hot wars" as proxies away from Europe - Syria being one of the recent example - and a nuclear stand-off between East and West that came close to and fortunately was never triggered. I'm sure it's no "picnic" for the people in Ukraine at the moment, nor was it for the passengers on the Malaysian airline flight.

I'm not "lecturing to you" - you can take it or leave it. There's a lot more truth in my posts than all the posts on this thread concerning Brexit - and applies to all the remainer views just as all the leavers.

Games about to kick off. 3 points for the Clarets and it will be a great afternoon.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:09 pm

Well we got three points on a great afternoon for the clarets.

Just read Boris talk with EU cancelled.

Not looking good for his reheated May’s Deal.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 6:12 pm

Just before I cause another rumpus.
Another article say his request for talks over the weekend were rejected.

Lowbankclaret · Post by **Lowbankclaret** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:00 pm

When the journalists did they just uncover. More and more. Jo Swinson oh dear oh dear.

https://nyebevannews.co.uk/swinson-fail ... ean-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:03 pm

D.A., you have a go at sorting your smallotry out first....