BBC Bullshit

Oh dear Stav and gimp are about to be schooled again ( I could go on about what a gimp does according to Rhonda, but honestly it’s just too pathetic). Here are the theatres of war:

European Theater

1. Western Front: The area of conflict between Nazi Germany and the Allied powers (such as Britain, France, and later the United States) from 1939 to 1940, and again from the Normandy landings in 1944.
2. Eastern Front: A vast and brutal conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.
3. Mediterranean and Middle East: A theater that included campaigns in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Europe, with land, sea, and air battles fought for control of the Mediterranean.
4. Nordic Front: This includes conflicts in the Nordic countries, such as the German invasion of Denmark and Norway.

Pacific Theater

1. This theater, sometimes called the Pacific War, was fought between Japan and the Allies in East and Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and Oceania.
2. It is considered the largest theater of the war and involved some of the largest naval battles in history.
3. Key sub-theaters included the Second Sino-Japanese War and the South-East Asian theater, which included campaigns in Burma, the Philippines, and Singapore.

……

You will note the Sino Japanese war and Burma are considered part of the Pacific Theater. You did know China is bordered by the Pacific Ocean? Burma isn’t, but is still considered part of the Pacific campaign.

Also WW2 was the fight, not just Europe as you fellows in the European Theme Park might think. While there were 8.3 million Americans on the battle field, they were backed up by another 7.8 million at home. That’s the total force, 12% of the population was in uniform, many fighting your fight.

The Yanks left their allies out to dry until they were hit themselves at Pearl Harbour.

Spin it however you want, that's the bottom line.

Britain stood alone, the only help coming from their Commonwealth friends, South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. . . along with resistance movements from within Nazi occupied countries. There were no Yanks at the turning point of the war, the Battle of Britain.

America only joined after that turning point . . . and only after they were attacked by Japan.

Credit to FDR who tried hard to convince congress to join the allies but the fact remains, America left their allies out to dry.

‘America Left their allies out to dry’. That’s awful, but hold on there’s this:

America was officially neutral, and American foreign policy in the 1930s was dominated by isolationism. While the US provided aid through programs like "cash and carry" and later the Lend-Lease Act to Britain and France before entering the war, these were not formal alliances, and it officially entered the war only after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

1. Isolationism and Neutrality: In the decade leading up to the war, a combination of the Great Depression and the memory of World War I fueled American isolationism, which favored avoiding involvement in European conflicts. This stance was codified in a series of Neutrality Acts, which initially barred the sale of arms to belligerent nations.
2. Shifting Policies: As the war began in Europe, President Roosevelt persuaded Congress to amend the Neutrality Acts to allow arms sales on a "cash and carry" basis. This allowed Britain and France to buy supplies but required them to pay upfront and transport the goods on their own ships, a way to aid the Allies without direct American involvement.
3. Pre-War Aid: The US also provided significant aid through programs like Lend-Lease, which was crucial for Britain and other allies. However, this was a partnership of necessity rather than a formal military alliance like NATO, which was formed after the war to provide collective security in peacetime.
4. Formal alliance post-WWII: The US only became a formal ally in a military sense after the war, with the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949

……

There was no formal alliance between the UK and the USA at the start of the war. So no, America never left it’s ‘allies’ in the lurch, in fact through the Lend-Lease act it significantly helped keep Britain in the war:

‘The total value of all Lend-Lease assistance provided to more than 30 countries throughout the entire war was approximately $50 billion(equivalent to roughly $690 billion in 2020 dollars). While a precise, separate total for the period before the attack on Pearl Harbor is not specified in the search results, a significant amount of aid had already been shipped to Britain and other nations after the program began in March 1941.

This immense flow of materials effectively made the U.S. the "arsenal of democracy" and a vital contributor to the Allied war effort well before its formal declaration of war’

The difference is, Baboon-ou's zealotry can be humorous (usually unintentionally . . . but still) while DumbAss is just a deeply unpleasant human being with no humour and no discernible intelligence but lots of self-righteous indignation.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

Oh dear Stav and gimp are about to be schooled again ( I could go on about what a gimp does according to Rhonda, but honestly it’s just too pathetic). Here are the theatres of war:

Oh no, Moz schooling us on military history just like that them schooled us all when you called Japan's WW2 carrier feet it's primary striking force a deterrent. Or when you compared the US pull out of Afghanistan a highly successful military campaign followed by a disastrous evacuation to Gallipoli a disastrous military campaign followed by a near flawlessly executed evacuation. Or the classic but now long refuted trope of the Russian winter beating the Germans.

I remember that thread were you jumped on to mockingly spell/grammar check a post only to make one yourself, and I posted two pictures of Napoleon in jest one where's he in a majestic pose and another of his ingenious retreat from Moscow only. You responded by asking ah so you think of me as Napoleon, is it because you think I'm short or that I over wintered in Moscow.

I got a good laugh out of that, but I just didn't have the heart to tell you Napoleon wasn't short nor did he overwinter in Moscow.

I've love the way you pass yourself off as knowledgeable about historical events, but its pretty clear once you scratch the surface of it, that it amounts to nothing more than knowing a few cliches and having see a few movies based on historical events. Let me guess 95% of you opinion of Bernard Montgomery comes from the move Patton?

But back on the theatres of WW2.

Lets ask ChatGPT

List the theatres of WW2

Here are the widely recognized theatres of World War II, grouped the way historians and military organizations typically classify them. Because different nations used different administrative structures, I’m giving both the commonly taught global theatres and the U.S.-specific theatre designations.

1. European Theatre

1. Western Europe (France, Low Countries, Germany)
2. Eastern Front (Soviet Union vs. Germany)
3. Balkans (Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania)

2. African / Mediterranean Theatre

1. North Africa (Desert Campaign)
2. Mediterranean Sea operations
3. Italian Campaign (Sicily and mainland Italy)

3. Pacific Theatre

1. Central Pacific (island-hopping)
2. Southwest Pacific (New Guinea, Philippines)
3. Japanese home islands

4. Asian Theatre

Often separated from the Pacific because the fighting was mostly land-based and predated Pearl Harbor.

1. China (Second Sino-Japanese War)
2. Burma, India, Indochina
3. Manchuria (Soviet vs. Japan, 1945)

The U.S. Army recognized three principal theatres, each with sub-theatres:

1. European Theater of Operations (ETO)

1. Western Front
2. Central Europe
3. Northern Europe

2. Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO)

1. North Africa
2. Sicily
3. Italy
4. Southern France (Dragoon)

3. Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO)

1. Pacific Ocean Areas (Nimitz)
2. Southwest Pacific Area (MacArthur)

Plus one distinct joint-theatre:

4. China–Burma–India (CBI) Theater

1. China defense/offensive operations
2. Burma campaigns
3. India–Burma supply networks
4. (Administratively separate from the Pacific)

5. Battle of the Atlantic

1. Anti-submarine campaigns in the North Atlantic, Caribbean, and Arctic convoys.
2. (Considered a major theatre but not tied to a single geographic combat command.)

WWII’s major theatres, in the broad historical sense:

1. European Theatre
2. Mediterranean/North African Theatre
3. Pacific Theatre
4. Asian Theatre
5. Battle of the Atlantic
6. China–Burma–India Theatre (often listed separately)

Maybe Chat's having a bad day

Lets ask Co-pilot if China-Burma is a separate theater,

Yes, the Burma-China Campaign during World War II is generally considered part of a distinct theater of operations known as the China-Burma-India Theater (CBI).

??? Overview of the China-Burma-India Theater

• Scope: The CBI Theater encompassed military operations in China, Burma (now Myanmar), and India.

• Purpose: It was primarily focused on supporting Chinese resistance against Japan, maintaining supply routes (like the Burma Road and later the Ledo Road), and countering Japanese advances in Southeast Asia.

• Key Forces:

• Allied forces included American, British, Indian, Chinese, and other Commonwealth troops.

• The U.S. played a major role through the American Volunteer Group (AVG) and later the U.S. Army Air Forces, especially in airlift operations over the Himalayas ("The Hump").

• Command Structure: It was one of the lesser-known but strategically vital theaters, with complex command arrangements. General Joseph Stilwell was a prominent figure in coordinating Allied efforts.

?? Why It’s Considered Separate

• Geographic Isolation: The CBI was geographically distant from the Pacific and European theaters.

• Strategic Objectives: Its goals were distinct—primarily logistical support to China and containment of Japanese forces in Southeast Asia.

• Operational Challenges: The terrain, climate, and logistical difficulties made it unique among WWII theaters.

So yes, the Burma-China Campaign was part of a separate and officially recognized theater of operations during WWII.

You will note the Sino Japanese war and Burma are considered part of the Pacific Theater. You did know China is bordered by the Pacific Ocean? Burma isn’t, but is still considered part of the Pacific campaign.

Let me correctly phrase that, it is sometimes incorrectly considered part of the Pacific Theater for convivence sake usually when looked at from an Anglo-American viewpoint. But it was it's own separate campaign. It had its own set of commanders and its own set of strategic goals.

Also to have it labelled as sub-theatre of the Pacific war is also bit of American centric view of the war. China had 16 million men fighting there more than America had in all the other theatres. The bulk of the Japanese Army was also tied down in China, not the Pacific.

You did know China is bordered by the Pacific Ocean?

You do know Europe is bordered by the Mediterranean right?

Also WW2 was the fight, not just Europe as you fellows in the European Theme Park might think.

No one claimed WW2 was, but the fight but you specifically brought up was resistance to Hitler which was primary a European conflict.

That’s the total force 12% of the population was in uniform, many fighting your fight.

LOL your fight. Yeah it was kind of America's fight, right around the time Germany declared war on the US. Like as if America was going just say mehh! its Europe's problem that German U-Boats are sinking our merchant ships of out coastline.

The fact of the matter is while a majority of American's were sympathetic to the Allies, a majority of American's wanted to stay out of the war and opposed direct military intervention before they were attacked. Ireland was the same in that respect, just it was never attacked. I'm sure had the German's attacked us we would of joined the Allies.

‘Oh no, Moz schooling us on military history just like that them schooled us all when you called Japan's WW2 carrier feet it's primary striking force a deterrent. Or when you compared the US pull out of Afghanistan a highly successful military campaign followed by a disastrous evacuation to Gallipoli a disastrous military campaign followed by a near flawlessly executed evacuation. Or the classic but now long refuted trope of the Russian winter beating the Germans.’

…..

Stav that is scarily like CleverMike, garbled and incorrectly recalling past debates. Post the exchanges you are referencing and I’ll respond.

I actually do know a few things about the war and even met one of the main participants…..no not Hitler. And you’re quite wrong my view of Montgomery came more from the movie The Desert Fox starring James Mason…it’s a good watch.

For the rest, there are several ways of dividing up the war depending on perspective. My objective in raising that was to point out your unfortunate mistake using only troops in Europe as a percentage of the US population. It was an embarrassing mistake on your part, no point in trying to put lipstick on the pig.

For Americans Europe was ‘over there’ for Ireland it was next door. And Americans who were non Anglo had no immediate animus against Germany and particularly Italy. You could argue the same thing for Ireland, but the Germans were in your neighborhood.

You say if Ireland was attacked they would have fought. Unclear, the practical folk who avoided war in the first place may have decided by then that capitulation was the more sensible approach. We’ll never know, because Ireland was okay with Europe disappearing under a cloud of fascism.

Stav that is scarily like CleverMike, garbled and incorrectly recalling past debates. Post the exchanges you are referencing and I’ll respond.

How am I incorrectly recalling them? I've no idea of the threads they where posted in, there is no moderation on this forum and threads go all over the place this thread being another example. Are you telling me you can't recall any of these these debates?

I actually do know a few things about the war and even met one of the main participants…..no not Hitler. And you’re quite wrong my view of Montgomery came more from the movie The Desert Fox starring James Mason…it’s a good watch.

Makes sense, Montgomery didn't even make an on screen appearance in that movie.

For the rest, there are several ways of dividing up the war depending on perspective. My objective in raising that was to point out your unfortunate mistake using only troops in Europe as a percentage of the US population. It was an embarrassing mistake on your part, no point in trying to put lipstick on the pig.

No embarrassment at all. You . You specifically mentioned refusing to join the resistance against Hitler. Therefore I was simply comparing troops number by proportion of population in the theater where the resistance against Hitler actually occurred, pointing out both countries committed a similar % of their population to actually fighting Hitler but in Ireland's case it was entirely voluntarily. So after trying to cast shade on Ireland by bringing up a topic unrelated to what we were actually discussing you ended up once again showing your superficial grasp of history and rather than admit you were wrong something you're pathological incapable of doing you moved the goalpost by including other theaters.

For Americans Europe was ‘over there’ for Ireland it was next door. And Americans who were non Anglo had no immediate animus against Germany and particularly Italy. You could argue the same thing for Ireland, but the Germans were in your neighborhood.

The reason Ireland stayed out of the war was not only that it wanted to avoid the devastation it would bring it wanted to been clearly seen that Ireland's foreign policy was independent of the UK. We had only won our independence less than 20 years before the war, and vestiges of it like the Oath of Allegiance and the treaty ports were only gotten rid of even less than that, the treaty ports literally just before the outbreak of the war. If Ireland joined the Allies, given the strength of both our economy and military our armed forces would of being effectively absorbed straight back into the British military. That wasn't something that would of be acceptable to the average Irish person given the recent history of the two countries. That's why we stayed out. Now you can argue later in the war when Nazi atrocities became more apparent that it would of be morally justifiable for Ireland to join the war and particular when it was apparent the Allies were going win and the risk was relatively low to Ireland, but de Valera at the time viewed neutrality as something you chose because you believed in it and it was not something you discarded when there was an opportune time to do so. He also didn't like the idea of kicking someone when they were already down. Regardless of the why, Ireland choose those options and gained both the benefit it brought and the suffered the price it cost. But a host of countries choose neutrality, including the US, which makes your whole argument hypocritical.

You say if Ireland was attacked they would have fought. Unclear, the practical folk who avoided war in the first place may have decided by then that capitulation was the more sensible approach. We’ll never know, because Ireland was okay with Europe disappearing under a cloud of fascism.

So was America, we will never know if they would of bothered entering the European war if Germany and Italy hadn't declared war on them.

Could one of the Servile Gimps please throw in the towel here?

Stay down, Moffie. I know you're lacking in self-awareness but surely even you know you're taking a beating here. Don't try to get up. Know when you're beaten.

Where's a Gimp when you need one?

How am I incorrectly recalling them? I've no idea of the threads they where posted in, there is no moderation on this forum and threads go all over the place this thread being another example. Are you telling me you can't recall any of these these debates?

I can remember the debates but all I can recall is saying that the US military action in Afghanistan was clinical, the occupation fruitless and the pull out under Biden was a disaster. And when you link that to Gallipoli I have no idea what you are trying to say.

As for the Russian winter not being a major factor in the German collapse, this is Chat’s conclusion:

Yes—but only as a multiplier of Germany’s earlier mistakes.

Historians generally conclude:

1. The winter intensified Germany’s logistical collapse.
2. But the real cause of failure was the inability to defeat the USSR quickly.
3. The Soviet Union was too large, too resilient, and too capable of replacing losses.

If Barbarossa had achieved its intended quick victory, winter would not have mattered.

Since it failed, winter helped turn a stalled offensive into a strategic catastrophe.

..

Which sounds like the winter amplified the strategic mistakes the Germans made and if the Germans had launched earlier they may have taken Moscow…..why… because they had more time before the winter for which they were unprepared. Stalin was actually planning to leave Moscow before bad weather slowed the German advance

Makes sense, Montgomery didn't even make an on screen appearance in that movie.

No he didn’t but there are a stream of references to him throughout the movie by Rommel, how cautious and predictable he was and how fussy…Rommel predicted he would bring Montgomery to heel the day he landed. Ironically because Rommel was seriously injured near a village called Montgomery.

It creates a clear image of a rules man in contrast to Rommel’s intuition.

Then your long diatribe on why Ireland never fought

Some of that is understandable, up until the point that Germany flattened Poland and the rest of Northern Europe united to fight Germany. Clearly many Irish citizens saw the need, the fact the government didn’t can’t be reasoned away.

‘Finally the point about America only entering the war after Germany and Italy declared war. But that was on December 11, four days after Pearl Harbor and two days after this:

In a fireside chat delivered on December 9, 1941, the day after Congress declared war against Japan, Roosevelt charged that Japan’s path to war with the United States was more than just a parallel path to those of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. “It is actual collaboration,” he told the American people, “so well calculated that all the continents of the world, and all the oceans, are now considered by the Axis strategists as one gigantic battlefield

That depiction could have left Hitler in no doubt that he was at war with America and he declared two days later. If America never wanted to go to war there was ample time to call in the German ambassador and give him a path to follow to avoid that. Instead Roosevelt threw out the bait and Hitler did exactly what he wanted.

n

I can remember the debates but all I can recall is saying that the US military action in Afghanistan was clinical, the occupation fruitless and the pull out under Biden was a disaster. And when you link that to Gallipoli I have no idea what you are trying to say.

You compared the pull out of Afghanistan under Biden to the evacuation at Gallipoli. Something along the lines of it was the worst evacuation since Gallipoli.

As for the Russian winter not being a major factor in the German collapse, this is Chat’s conclusion:

You've moved positions, back at time of discussion you took the standard position that the German failure was caused by the Russian winter, as in the primary reason of failure not that it was major factor. Now I said at the time in fairness that was a common misconception that had been around for year, but ultimately it was inaccurate.

The reason why the German's failed in 1941 was because of the damaged inflicted upon them by the Red Army and the collapse of its logistical system. Operation Typhoon the offensive to tack Moscow failed because the German's simply lack the strength to take the city. When the bad weather arrived it merely served to make a terrible situation for them much worse.

Since it failed, winter helped turn a stalled offensive into a strategic catastrophe.

Again partially correct, but that strategic catastrophe came about because of a massive Soviet Counter Offensive. The German's were in a dire situation at that point regardless of the weather.

Which sounds like the winter amplified the strategic mistakes the Germans made and if the Germans had launched earlier they may have taken Moscow…..why… because they had more time before the winter for which they were unprepared.

Had the German's launched an earlier offensive they have may taken Moscow because Moscow would of been less well defended and the Germans wouldn't have sustained as many losses in getting to that point. But Hitler opted to close an encirclement around Kiev and destroying a Soviet force of over 600,000 rather than prioritize Moscow. One can argue it was a massive mistake but on the other hand leaving such a large force against an exposed flank could of been equally bad or possibly worse.

The whole the Germans would of won if not for the winter myth is pretty much a Hitler excuse. He blamed the diversion of German forces to Greece to bail out Italy as the cause of the delay to the start of Barbarossa but the fact of the matter it was irrelevant to the start date of Barbarossa. Hitler and his generals just wanted an excuse to explain why they failed and rather than admit Barbarossa was a severely flawed plan as was their assumptions underpinning it. It was easier saying the winter beat them as opposed to army composed of Untermensch Slavs.

No he didn’t but there are a stream of references to him throughout the movie by Rommel, how cautious and predictable he was and how fussy…Rommel predicted he would bring Montgomery to heel the day he landed. Ironically because Rommel was seriously injured near a village called Montgomery.

It creates a clear image of a rules man in contrast to Rommel’s intuition.

How predictable...that's why Monty didn't fall for Rommel's bait of retreating his tanks back to his 88mm batteries and bait the British tanks to get impaled on them. A frustrated Rommel proclaimed "the swine's not attacking!"

Rommel predicted he would bring Montgomery to heel the day he landed.

No he didn't Rommel was deeply pessimistic about Germany's chance of defeating any Allied landing in France.

Also Rommel was injured near a village called Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery which doesn't have quite the same ironic ring too it.

Regardless of the quality of the movie in entertainment value, it was generally well regarded particularly in the UK, the movie played a significant role in propagating the Rommel Myth.

Then your long diatribe on why Ireland never fought

Stating reason's is not a diatribe.

Some of that is understandable, up until the point that Germany flattened Poland and the rest of Northern Europe united to fight Germany. Clearly many Irish citizens saw the need, the fact the government didn’t can’t be reasoned away.

All of Northern Europe united you say. So that included, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Demark and Iceland right? And why are you limiting to Northern Europe, what about Greece and the Balkan's, Spain and Portugal. All of them did the same thing as Ireland did (hell Spain was pro Axis) as did America.

That depiction could have left Hitler in no doubt that he was at war with America and he declared two days later. If America never wanted to go to war there was ample time to call in the German ambassador and give him a path to follow to avoid that. Instead Roosevelt threw out the bait and Hitler did exactly what he wanted.

America had taken plenty of more serious actions against Germany long before that statement from Roosevelt. Not least of which was supplying Britain with arms but also the fact that had already proclaimed they would engage and destroy any Axis ships in waters it deemed necessary for the defence of the US and before December 7th there was also cases of American warships engaging German U-Boats. If the German's were looking for an excuse to go to war with the US they had plenty of them already.

So nope it wasn't a case of Hitler taking the bait but the question of why Hitler did declare war on the US one of those questions that was never really properly answered until recently. Seems the best explanation is that Hitler thought Japan would do the dirty on him and sign a peace deal with the American's . As in Hitler though it a realistic prospect that given the drubbing the American's had taken at Peal Harbour the American's might be willing to come to peace arrangement with Japan and if that happened it would free up the US to focus entirely on helping Britain out. He wanted to tie Japan to Germany, to ensure Japan could not come to a separate peace deal with the US and ensure American focus was split between the Pacific and Europe.

You compared the pull out of Afghanistan under Biden to the evacuation at Gallipoli. Something along the lines of it was the worst evacuation since Gallipoli.

I know nothing about the pull out of Gallipoli, you are thinking about the pull out from Vietnam. The point I probably made about Gallipoli is that it was a Churchillian disaster, where Australian and NZ troops were supposed to die in a lost cause under British generals.

You've moved positions, back at time of discussion you took the standard position that the German failure was caused by the Russian winter, as in the primary reason of failure not that it was major factor.

The primary reason the initial campaign failed was the winter, it slowed down the German advance which still got to Moscow’s outskirts despite the Kiev encirclement. There was no military victory by the Russians which stopped the German advance, it was a combination of weather and supplies.

It’s doubtful they could ultimately have successfully occupied Russia, it’s simply too vast. The whole Russian campaign relied on a quick decapitation of the Russian regime. Taking Moscow might have precipitated a fall in the government and a peace agreement somewhat like the Vichy government. In a protracted war German resources would have been depleted.

So in that sense the Winter took away Germany’s slim chance of good result in Russia.

How predictable...that's why Monty didn't fall for Rommel's bait of retreating his tanks back to his 88mm batteries and bait the British tanks to get impaled on them. A frustrated Rommel proclaimed "the swine's not attacking!"

No he didn't Rommel was deeply pessimistic about Germany's chance of defeating any Allied landing in France.

Also Rommel was injured near a village called Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery which doesn't have quite the same ironic ring too it.

We are talking about a movie here….you claimed Monty wasn’t in the movie in person. My response is he was referenced enough times to create the image his major protagonist held. And everything you are saying isn’t true is in the movie… including his claim he’d capture Monty on day one. You seem confused between the movie and reality. And how do you know in a military environment he didn’t say he’d capture Monty on day one…given military hubris I’d bet he said something like that at some point, even if he had serious doubts about the campaign.

Regardless that’s the movie depiction.

All of Northern Europe united you say. So that included, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Demark and Iceland right? And why are you limiting to Northern Europe, what about Greece and the Balkan's, Spain and Portugal. All of them did the same thing as Ireland did (hell Spain was pro Axis) as did America.

Spain was fascist before WW2, you do recall the Spanish civil war?But by 1942 most of those other countries had been attacked and resistance movements were in place. And Ireland, like it or not, had strong historical links with America and Britain. Do you doubt if Hitler had won the war Ireland would have been subjugated? It was saved from that fate because others did your fighting for you.

Seems the best explanation is that Hitler thought Japan would do the dirty on him and sign a peace deal with the American's . As in Hitler though it a realistic prospect that given the drubbing the American's had taken at Peal Harbour the American's might be willing to come to peace arrangement with Japan and if that happened it would free up the US to focus entirely on helping Britain out

He thought that in the 4 days since the Japanese attack and not before? Even though there were diplomatic exchanges going on with the USA before Pearl Harbor? That America was likely to captitulate on one front where it had been attacked, but then open up a full scale war in another theater where it hadn’t been attacked? Not even Hitler could be that deluded. Here’s the explanation that makes most sense given the timing:

Hitler preferred to frame the war on his own terms:

1. As Germany standing with Japan
2. As retaliation against U.S. aggression in the Atlantic
3. As a move that would unite the German public

He feared waiting for a U.S. declaration would look reactive and defensive.

Given the tone of Roosevelt’s remarks and the changing opinion after PH that makes the most sense and fits the timeline.

Where is this caliphate going to magically emerge from? I assume you just mindlessly agreed with him without actually checking the numbers right?

Nope, I just opened my eyes to what is actually happening in the UK right now, something which you need to do ..... you have blinkers on and you are too ignorant or scared to voice an opinion in case you get labelled something, because that's what you do to anyone who has a say about this and if it does not align with your opinion on this topic, they are bigots.

Guys like you will defend what is happening all over the UK, but will then bitch and complain about it later and call them all extreme right supporters when people start to rise up and protest what is happening because it is affecting their safety and livelihood,

So yes I'm aware of rising anti-asylum sentiment in Ireland and while I mostly don't agree with it

Why, are you prepared to just keep letting them in, in the thousands

Did you guys miss the recent arson attack on hotel housing asylum seekers here. 5 people including a baby were almost killed. Thankfully the two suspects were arrested later, if found guilty I hope they get very long sentence for 5 counts of attempted murder. But in case you missed that, members of another far right group was arrested here the other day for planning to bomb a mosque and other targets in Ireland.

These are despicable acts of cowardice, and they should face the full brunt of the law, but your government also needs to start realising that acts like this will start increasing around the country because the general population are sick and tired of governments not listening to their aggravations, frustrations and outright safety concerns with the influx of these migrants, whether it be legal or illegal.

It really says it all that you can find yourself agreeing Beeno

He may be wrong about a lot of things that I don't agree with at all, but he is absolutely spot on about you.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels the same way

At least I don't wake up every day dreaming of how to kill White people over and over again in the most disgusting and vile ways possible.....

The fact that you even admitted this to a forum of random people just shows how disgusting you are, with no shame..... you know..... the same White people that saved your family and provided you with the life that you currently have.

Take..... take ...... take........ then ........ kill.......kill........kill

And you want to know why you are so openly known as the board coward.

Nope, I just opened my eyes to what is actually happening in the UK right now, something which you need to do ..... you have blinkers on and you are too ignorant or scared to voice an opinion in case you get labelled something,

Why have you switched back to the UK here. Beeno was talking about Ireland.

What have I blinkers on and am I'm ignorant of, I'm the one who can produce facts and figures. Beeno was talking about the possibility of an Islamic Caliphate in Ireland. I pointed out how ludicrous that was as an idea based on the very low population of Muslims in Ireland. It's nothing more than pure Islamophobia.

because that's what you do to anyone who has a say about this and if it does not align with your opinion on this topic, they are bigots.

Guys like you will defend what is happening all over the UK, but will then bitch and complain about it later and call them all extreme right supporters

I've literally posted in this very thread "So yes I'm aware of rising anti-asylum sentiment in Ireland and while I mostly don't agree with it, there is genuine concerns that many have that are not driven by racism the government need to address and be open about."

And that is not the first time I've said something similar.

This is what the extremists on the anti immigration side does, it accuses the other side of calling everyone with migration concerns bigots and racists. That's a lie, we don't.

They also have a complete denial that racism is driving a large amount of the discourse anti immigration debate. That's because some people who are racists genuinely don't believe they are and others know they are and are hiding it and what they are trying to do is push their extreme views into the mainstream.

when people start to rise up and protest what is happening because it is affecting their safety and livelihood,

That's the thing, its not affecting their safety or the livelihood in any significant manor.

Why, are you prepared to just keep letting them in, in the thousands

Multiple reasons.

1. We have to under international law. Every one has the right to claim asylum and it doesn't matter the means of how a person gets to a country too claim asylum.
2. I'd operate on the principal of treat people how you would like to be treated yourself if I was in a similar situation. I thought that was a Christian belief, but I'm not a Christian so what would I know.
3. Following on from the second point, Irish people have historically going back hundreds of years right up to the late 1980's used immigration as a mean's of achieving a better life, because up till that point Ireland was a poor impoverished country. For a lot of that period Irish immigrants were treated like trash, the lowest dregs of society of the countries they moved too. I would like to think Ireland would treat those looking for a better life different than how we were treated historically.
4. From all my research on the topic, there is no data that indicate Asylum seekers commit crimes at notably higher rates than the native born population.
5. Solidarity with other European countries. Ireland because of its geographical position has historical not had to take in that many Asylum seekers. It's only right that we take in our fair share.
6. Most research into Asylum seekers, indicate the majority of them do have a genuine claim to Asylum. I have no issue with deporting those who fail their asylum application.
7. Compared to regular immigration, asylum seekers are just a small percentage of overall immigration coming into Ireland. If you have concerns about shifting demography getting rid of Asylum seekers doesn't significantly slow the rate of demographic change.
8. The rate of demographic change in Ireland is not that high. Assuming present rates or immigration, native Irish will remain the majority in Ireland until the year 2200.

but your government also needs to start realising that acts like this will start increasing around the country because the general population are sick and tired of governments not listening to their aggravations, frustrations and outright safety concerns with the influx of these migrants, whether it be legal or illegal.

I understand the general anger of the population but at the same time that government just can't make asylum seekers disappear. It's all very well just saying send them back, but its much more complicated than that. The general population are not going to commit arson attacks and try to kill people regardless of their anger. It's the hoodlum fringe that are being incited online by the far right spreading lies about immigrants and asylum seekers. And the government can't give into them because they would simply be allowing a countries political environment to be determined violence.

Lets just say for argument, Ireland was able to overnight get rid of all its Asylum seekers. Lets say it all done in a humane way, no issue with human rights, some random country agreed to take them all on our behalf.

What does that fix in Ireland?. Does it fix our number one issue, the housing crisis. No, it slightly improves it down the road by removing asylum seekers that are granted asylum from the rental market and those that applied for social housing (very small numbers).

Does it fix Ireland's shortage with Doctors and GP's. Again it helps marginally be removing the small number of Asylum seekers who need medical services such as GP appointments. It does not fundamentally change the shortage of doctors and GP's in Ireland.

Would it lower Irelands crime rate?. Well Irelands crime rate has been lowering for the last few years even with an influx of Aslyum seekers, so I don't think it would make much difference?

Yes getting rid of the Aslyum system would save Ireland hundreds of millions a year and that could be used for other things, but what's a few hundred million in a modern economy worth half a trillion.

Would it plicate the far right, no they would just move their targeting to regular migration.

He may be wrong about a lot of things that I don't agree with at all, but he is absolutely spot on about you.

You really need to look in the mirror if you find yourself agreeing with Beeno.

I know nothing about the pull out of Gallipoli, you are thinking about the pull out from Vietnam. The point I probably made about Gallipoli is that it was a Churchillian disaster, where Australian and NZ troops were supposed to die in a lost cause under British generals.

You specifically compared the Afghanistan withdrawal to Gallipoli campaign in the past. I know why you made it and it wasn't in the way your now implying. You made it because everyone knows Gallipoli was a disaster, but that's about as far your superficial knowledge of history goes, you know the headline story but not the details behind it. Gallipoli was a disaster of a military campaign but the evacuation/withdrawal was meticulously planed and despite predictions of up to 30,000 casualties during the evacuation only 1 person was killed in an accident.

Afghanistan was the virtual opposite, where the American's won all the military engagements (or close to it) but the evacuation was completely botched.

The primary reason the initial campaign failed was the winter, it slowed down the German advance which still got to Moscow’s outskirts despite the Kiev encirclement. There was no military victory by the Russians which stopped the German advance, it was a combination of weather and supplies.

It’s doubtful they could ultimately have successfully occupied Russia, it’s simply too vast. The whole Russian campaign relied on a quick decapitation of the Russian regime. Taking Moscow might have precipitated a fall in the government and a peace agreement somewhat like the Vichy government. In a protracted war German resources would have been depleted.

So in that sense the Winter took away Germany’s slim chance of good result in Russia.

It was secondary to the breakdown of logistics and the been worn down by Soviet resistance. It served to make everything worse. And while was there no military victory by the Soviets, there was a military failure by the Germans. Operation Typhoon had stalled as the German literally ran out of strength to advance by early December 1941. Even if the weather had held from mid November 1941 when things started to really get cold and the Germans where able to advance the additional 30KM to Moscow, there is no guarantee that they would of been able to take city before the Soviet Counter Offensive of December 5th started where 1.1 million fresh Soviet troops attacked the Germans.

We are talking about a movie here….you claimed Monty wasn’t in the movie in person. My response is he was referenced enough times to create the image his major protagonist held. And everything you are saying isn’t true is in the movie… including his claim he’d capture Monty on day one. You seem confused between the movie and reality. And how do you know in a military environment he didn’t say he’d capture Monty on day one…given military hubris I’d bet he said something like that at some point, even if he had serious doubts about the campaign.

Yes a movie here. Which should not be used to form one's view of history. I know Monty didn't say that because there is no record of him having said that. Had he said something like that it would well known.

Did you know that Mason portrayed Rommel for a second time two years later in 1953 movie the Desert Rats. And while he wasn't the central character in the movie he portrayed Rommel far less sympathetically than in the Desert Fox, and he even spoke German in it. My point is movies are not a good basis for historical judgement.

Spain was fascist before WW2, you do recall the Spanish civil war?But by 1942 most of those other countries had been attacked and resistance movements were in place. And Ireland, like it or not, had strong historical links with America and Britain. Do you doubt if Hitler had won the war Ireland would have been subjugated? It was saved from that fate because others did your fighting for you.

Yes the key phrase their being had been attacked. Of course Switzerland and Sweden where never attacked so like Ireland stayed neutral.

I've no idea, if Germany would of gone after Ireland they had they won the war. Hitler seemed to have little interest in Ireland. The German's did draw up Case Green which was an invasion plan for Ireland that would possibly occur along side an invasion of Britain but it was generally viewed more as a diversion than a serious enterprise.

He thought that in the 4 days since the Japanese attack and not before? Even though there were diplomatic exchanges going on with the USA before Pearl Harbor? That America was likely to captitulate on one front where it had been attacked, but then open up a full scale war in another theater where it hadn’t been attacked? Not even Hitler could be that deluded. Here’s the explanation that makes most sense given the timing:

You're guessing. I'm basing my view off the work of Dr Klaus Schmider a military historian who specializes in German military operation and strategies as well as Axis Alliances and resistance movements and who is also a senior lecturer at Royal Military Academy of Sandhurst. He quite literally wrote the book on why Hitler declared war on the US (its called Hitlers Fatal Miscalculation).

You specifically compared the Afghanistan withdrawal to Gallipoli campaign in the past. I know why you made it and it wasn't in the way your now implying. You made it because everyone knows Gallipoli was a disaster, but that's about as far your superficial knowledge of history goes, you know the headline story but not the details behind it. Gallipoli was a disaster of a military campaign but the evacuation/withdrawal was meticulously planed and despite predictions of up to 30,000 casualties during the evacuation only 1 person was killed in an accident.

Afghanistan was the virtual opposite, where the American's won all the military engagements (or close to it) but the evacuation was completely botched

Find the post, I know nothing about the Gallipoli evacuation I wouldn’t have commented on it….you have your wires crossed.

It was secondary to the breakdown of logistics and the been worn down by Soviet resistance. It served to make everything worse. And while was there no military victory by the Soviets, there was a military failure by the Germans. Operation Typhoon had stalled as the German literally ran out of strength to advance by early December 1941. Even if the weather had held from mid November 1941 when things started to really get cold and the Germans where able to advance the additional 30KM to Moscow, there is no guarantee that they would of been able to take city before the Soviet Counter Offensive of December 5th started where 1.1 million fresh Soviet troops attacked the Germans.

The Imperial War museum summary:

Once again the initial assault was a success. The panzer divisions stormed ahead and over 600,000 Russian soldiers were captured in two more huge encirclements near the cities of Bryansk and Vyazma. The Russians were down to about 90,000 men. But as they reached the approaches to Moscow, the German formations slowed to a crawl. Autumn rains had turned the dirt roads into rivers of mud. It was the Rasputitsa - the 'quagmire season' - and wheeled and horse-drawn transport became hopelessly stuck. The Germans chose to temporarily halt operations.

Sometimes going to a credible source is better than just using Chat, keep that in mind. Here’s more:

In mid-November, with the temperature dropping and the ground now frozen hard, the panzers attempted a final pincer attack around Moscow itself. The delay had given the Soviets time to bring in further reinforcements, including reservists and troops from Siberia and the eastern borders. The northern German pincer was the most successful and got within 12 miles of the city. German officers could see the Kremlin buildings through their field glasses. The Germans also tried attacking in the centre, along the Minsk-Moscow road. On 2 December a reconnaissance unit got within 5 miles of Moscow. Though tantalisingly close, this was the limit of the entire advance. The depleted German units were exhausted and frozen into inactivity in the deep snow.

….

Yes a movie here. Which should not be used to form one's view of history. I know Monty didn't say that because there is no record of him having said that. Had he said something like that it would well known.

No Monty didn’t say that you moron, the movie showed Rommel did…and we don’t know if it’s true or not. If you are a professional fact checker, you really are a gormless one.

I've no idea, if Germany would of gone after Ireland they had they won the war. Hitler seemed to have little interest in Ireland. The German's did draw up Case Green which was an invasion plan for Ireland that would possibly occur along side an invasion of Britain but it was generally viewed more as a diversion than a serious enterprise.

If you seriously think Hitler was going to leave Ireland out of his domain you really are naive. It’s an irrelevant little country, but you’d have been mopped up along with everybody else

You're guessing. I'm basing my view off the work of Dr Klaus Schmider a military historian who specializes in German military operation and strategies as well as Axis Alliances and resistance movements and who is also a senior lecturer at Royal Military Academy of Sandhurst. He quite literally wrote the book on why Hitler declared war on the US (its called Hitlers Fatal Miscalculation).

Yes and I’m going to the source. The Germans encouraged Japan to attack the USA and made commitments never to sign a separate peace. In the light of those commitments Hitler preempting a US declaration of war is entirely understandable. So once Roosevelt made his talk, Hitler acted. Read and learn:

’Less than two weeks before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister, met with Hiroshi ?shima, Japan’s ambassador in Berlin, to discuss the two countries’ respective diplomatic and military situations. According to a German account of their conversation, Ribbentrop told the Japanese envoy that a showdown with the United States was inevitable. “One should not hesitate tackling the Americans right now,” Ribbentrop said, because “it seemed better at any rate to bring a problem to a head at the right moment than to keep on putting it off.”[8]

According to a Japanese account of the meeting that was later intercepted by the Americans, Ribbentrop went even further, telling ?shima that “should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States, Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is absolutely no possibility of Germany’s entering into a separate peace with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is determined on that point.”[9]

Find the post, I know nothing about the Gallipoli evacuation I wouldn’t have commented on it….you have your wires crossed.

I've no idea what post it was, as I've said threads on this forum go all over the place. I do recall you comparing them.

Once again the initial assault was a success. The panzer divisions stormed ahead and over 600,000 Russian soldiers were captured in two more huge encirclements near the cities of Bryansk and Vyazma. The Russians were down to about 90,000 men. But as they reached the approaches to Moscow, the German formations slowed to a crawl. Autumn rains had turned the dirt roads into rivers of mud. It was the Rasputitsa - the 'quagmire season' - and wheeled and horse-drawn transport became hopelessly stuck. The Germans chose to temporarily halt operations.

LOL you do know their a difference between Autumn and Winter right?

Sometimes going to a credible source is better than just using Chat, keep that in mind. Here’s more:

n mid-November, with the temperature dropping and the ground now frozen hard, the panzers attempted a final pincer attack around Moscow itself. The delay had given the Soviets time to bring in further reinforcements, including reservists and troops from Siberia and the eastern borders. The northern German pincer was the most successful and got within 12 miles of the city. German officers could see the Kremlin buildings through their field glasses. The Germans also tried attacking in the centre, along the Minsk-Moscow road. On 2 December a reconnaissance unit got within 5 miles of Moscow. Though tantalisingly close, this was the limit of the entire advance. The depleted German units were exhausted and frozen into inactivity in the deep snow.

Oh my sweet lord, by all mean's don't rely on chat and use other sources, but it's comical you literally link to a source that has a historical falsehood in it. German offices never saw the Kremlin, its a myth. We know this because the most advanced German units reached a place called Khimki, now there is confusion over the dates when a German unit got their, but the claim is that German officers climbed a high building in Khimki and reported seeing the "gleaming golden spires" of the Kremlin in the distance. The problem with this story was that (A) Khimki had no high rise buildings at the time. (B) there was high rise apartment blocks on the road between Khimki and the Kremlin that would of blocked the view of the Kremlin (C) the Russians had painted the Kremlin in dark colours in an attempt to camouflage from the air.

No Monty didn’t say that you moron, the movie showed Rommel did…and we don’t know if it’s true or not. If you are a professional fact checker, you really are a gormless one.

My bad, I meant to say Rommel. Well if their is no record of Rommel having said it, then there is no reason to believe he said it. I mean we don't know if Rommel didn't utter the words De Allende is the GOAT, I mean you can't prove he didn't say that right?

If you seriously think Hitler was going to leave Ireland out of his domain you really are naive. It’s an irrelevant little country, but you’d have been mopped up along with everybody else

Well you can talk in probabilities but no way of knowing for certain.

Yes and I’m going to the source. The Germans encouraged Japan to attack the USA and made commitments never to sign a separate peace. In the light of those commitments Hitler preempting a US declaration of war is entirely understandable. So once Roosevelt made his talk, Hitler acted. Read and learn

Again you demonstrate your limited understanding of the situation. German policy was to keep America neutral for as long as possible, they didn't encourage Japan to attack the USA, they encouraged them to attack the Soviet Union. Ribbentrop's comments about how Japan should not hesitate to attack the USA came just two weeks before Pearl Harbour at at time when war seemed increasingly likely between the USA and Japan. Of course Japan had already decided on their course of action before this meeting and the German's didn't know about Japan's plan hence Hitlers surprise when he heard about it.

What your missing here is the exasperation the German's felt towards Japan in 1941. As Dr Schimder puts it German efforts in trying to get a formal military alliance and strategy down with Japan was like pulling teeth from a Rottweiler. Pre-war and War time Japan's government was one of the most bizarrely dysfunctional forums of government you could have with various different factions and cliques all doing their own things, you had civilians moderates and doves, hawks, army, navy and industrialists and then some of them having sub faction all fighting for control. This led to behaviour that German's quite rightly considered extremely erratic. The German ambassador would be told one day by a General or someone in the Japanese foreign office, the Japan was mobilizing its army to attack the Soviet Union, 3 days later he be told, Japan would also be attacking the British in Malaysia. Two days after that they would be told no the army isn't doing either of them after all. Couple days later they would be told something similar and on and on. By September 1941 Hitler was like "you know what, I just can't be arsed with this shit anymore, their never going commit to doing anything".

That's why Hitler felt he needed to tie down the Japanese once and for all with his declaration of war on the USA.

Another interesting thing that Dr Schmider brings up, is that German strategic situation particularly on the eastern front had dramatically changed within days of Hitlers decision to declare war on US and had that happened just days earlier Hitler may not chose the course of action he did.

I do recall you comparing them

And I don’t, backed up by the fact that I have no opinion on the Gallipoli evacuation.

LOL you do know their a difference between Autumn and Winter right

I do and if I inadvertently never mentioned Autumn weather in my discussion of the role of weather…try to make the big leap.

by all mean's don't rely on chat and use other sources, but it's comical you literally link to a source that has a historical falsehood in it

The source is the Imperial War Museum, which I suspect would correct any proven errors. But even it was true, which I have no means of knowing, that’s not the main point…which is the Germans had to call a weather halt on their advance allowing Russia valuable time to bring up fresh troops…time was crucial

Rommel didn't utter the words De Allende is the GOAT, I mean you can't prove he didn't say that right?

Sure I can Dud Allende wasn’t born in 1944 (schplotsky)

Well you can talk in probabilities but no way of knowing for certain.

What probability would be high enough to have convinced Ireland it should have fought fascism?

Again you demonstrate your limited understanding of the situation. German policy was to keep America neutral for as long as possible, they didn't encourage Japan to attack the USA, they encouraged them to attack the Soviet Union

Once again you are logically confused. It doesn’t matter if Germany wanted to keep the USA out of the war for a long time….before the declaration of war they were documented encouraging Japan to attack. And having done that they needed to react forcefully to Roosevelt’s speech.

Another interesting thing that Dr Schmider brings up, is that German strategic situation particularly on the eastern front had dramatically changed within days of Hitlers decision to declare war on US and had that happened just days earlier Hitler may not chose the course of action he did.

So on the one hand the good Dr is arguing that Hitler declared war on America to prevent Japan settling with the USA, and thereby releasing US troops into Europe…..and now that things were worse for Hitler in Europe, he wouldn’t declare war, a course that according to the good Dr’s logic increases the chance of US troops being released into Europe?? Things are worse in Europe and Germsny would react by making them even worse?? You can’t be serious. Is this what passes for logic in the TaX Haven.

Stav seriously, perhaps you should avoid these middle of the night debates….or better yet take the advice of Rhonda your gimp, and just stay down.

Why have you switched back to the UK here. Beeno was talking about Ireland.

Probably because unless you live under a rock, these are similar isues affecting all over

This is what the extremists on the anti immigration side does, it accuses the other side of calling everyone with migration concerns bigots and racists. That's a lie, we don't.

You do and always have, hence why you also always accuse people of being far right if they speak out about issues like this.....you just can't help yourself.

That's because some people who are racists genuinely don't believe they are

LMAO, much like someone exactly like you who genuinely does not believe that they are being naive and ignorant, whilst they clearly are ... if the shoe fits.

That's the thing, its not affecting their safety or the livelihood in any significant manor

What absolute bollocks .... complete and utter shyte

What does that fix in Ireland?

Well, to start off with, probably reducing the strain on housing and renting and also lowering the pressure on all public services

but what's a few hundred million in a modern economy worth half a trillion.

Tell that to someone who could seriously benefit from that

You really need to look in the mirror if you find yourself agreeing with Beeno.

I see, so according to you, Beeno has been wrong on every single thing that he has posted on this forum......

You see.....that is how you operate, and it's also exactly why you call everything as extreme far right when someone brings up certain issues or topics..... you just can't differentiate between them at all

I see, so according to you, Beeno has been wrong on every single thing that he has posted on this forum......

Ipso facto, yep, Beanshit sinks to that low level of despicability ... he's lower than sharkshit.

Ipso facto, yep, Beanshit sinks to that low level of despicability ... he's lower than sharkshit.

Ok Bob