Big Mouth Strikes Again - Charles compares Putin to Hitler
Discussion
Thorodin said:
Your direct approach to discussion seems to lack a certain finesse. Your 'censored' nouns mean the thrust of your point is lost and your choice of language doesn't exactly confer credibility. All in all, you seem to confuse subtlety, tact and diplomacy with something else. If you would care to be more lucid there may be the chance to advance the argument and an opportunity might arise for you to understand just a bit more about diplomacy.
Alas and alack for the advocates of the Nice but Dim approach Im right and you are wrong. XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
We are globally famous for subtlety and measured diplomacy.
We are what???? V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
We are globally famous for subtlety and measured diplomacy.
We are what???? As for WW1 the costs both financial and in lives were in a different league and arguably wrecked the country's fortunes for decades after and probably to date.Especially when the costs of WW2,which directly resulted from the implications of WW1,are taken into account.All that to meet our 'obligations' to our Russian 'allies' in 1914.
'Brightness' in this case is more a case of how,or how not,to turn ( what would/could have been )a superpower into a financial wreck and pay in lives for the privilege.
Which then brings us back to the subject of the topic in a typical out of touch establishment high up now provoking the Russians when we should be leaving them well alone unless they look like they intend to invade us.Which is highly unlikely,but in which case Charles can 'then' feel free to press the button that ends it all whenever he wants.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:04
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:06
DJRC said:
Alas and alack for the advocates of the Nice but Dim approach Im right and you are wrong.
Sadly, in one area at least, it is you that errs. I am not in the least bit nice. It is a front, where a degree of tact may disguise a level of diplomacy beyond, apparently, your detection. Your petulant assertion that you are right confirms that. On topic, your exchanges with me underline my impression of the political damage a clumsy oaf like Charles can inflict on a precarious situation that has already caused the death of many people. To some of us, that matters.
Having shot himself in the foot on previous occasions, he then places foot in mouth and aims again.
Royal, maybe. Regal, not.
XJ Flyer said:
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
We are globally famous for subtlety and measured diplomacy.
We are what???? As for WW1 the costs both financial and in lives were in a different league and arguably wrecked the country's fortunes for decades after and probably to date.Especially when the costs of WW2,which directly resulted from the implications of WW1,are taken into account.All that to meet our 'obligations' to our Russian 'allies' in 1914.
'Brightness' in this case is more a case of how,or how not,to turn ( what would/could have been )a superpower into a financial wreck and pay in lives for the privilege.
Which then brings us back to the subject of the topic in a typical out of touch establishment high up now provoking the Russians when we should be leaving them well alone unless they look like they intend to invade us.Which is highly unlikely,but in which case Charles can 'then' feel free to press the button that ends it all whenever he wants.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:04
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:06
What British treaty with Russia are you referring to? Don't get confused with the Triple Entente. Britain's entry into WW1 was triggered by the Treaty of London 1839 (to defend Belgium), not a rather tenuous support for Russia.
If no treaties existed, Britain would have still declared war on Germany as soon as the German troops marched into Belgium.
WW1 did indeed undermine the UK as a world power, but WW1 was always going to happen following the Congress Of Vienna, the rise of nationalism in Europe and the unification of Germany, irrespective of the "brightness" of British leaders. Perhaps the only game changer would have been support for France in 1870.
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
We are globally famous for subtlety and measured diplomacy.
We are what???? As for WW1 the costs both financial and in lives were in a different league and arguably wrecked the country's fortunes for decades after and probably to date.Especially when the costs of WW2,which directly resulted from the implications of WW1,are taken into account.All that to meet our 'obligations' to our Russian 'allies' in 1914.
'Brightness' in this case is more a case of how,or how not,to turn ( what would/could have been )a superpower into a financial wreck and pay in lives for the privilege.
Which then brings us back to the subject of the topic in a typical out of touch establishment high up now provoking the Russians when we should be leaving them well alone unless they look like they intend to invade us.Which is highly unlikely,but in which case Charles can 'then' feel free to press the button that ends it all whenever he wants.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:04
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:06
What British treaty with Russia are you referring to? Don't get confused with the Triple Entente. Britain's entry into WW1 was triggered by the Treaty of London 1839 (to defend Belgium), not a rather tenuous support for Russia.
If no treaties existed, Britain would have still declared war on Germany as soon as the German troops marched into Belgium.
WW1 did indeed undermine the UK as a world power, but WW1 was always going to happen following the Congress Of Vienna, the rise of nationalism in Europe and the unification of Germany, irrespective of the "brightness" of British leaders. Perhaps the only game changer would have been support for France in 1870.
The real game changer would have been if both France and us had stayed neutral or at least we had entered the war on the side of Germany.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 26th May 13:44
lamboman100 said:
^ Britain joined WW1 and WW2 to halt the rise of the German Empire and Japanese Empire.
It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
The stupid idea that we'd have been more of a power,after getting involved in a war with Germany,than if we'd have stayed neutral thereby suffering no financial or military losses,says everything about the 'brightness' of our leaders.IE the way to stay ahead of Germany was never going to be by making ourselves poorer and weaker by fighting with the place.It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
The History books seem to think that if the expansionist (at any cost) mood of early 20c Germany had been allowed to flourish without retaliation, GB would have been rather worse off in terms of autonomy and 'power' than if GB had objected to the destruction of so much. It's conjecture of course, but I'm pretty sure the right course was taken. Subsequent events seem to bear that out now that Germany has finally succeeded by relatively peaceful means.
Thorodin said:
The History books seem to think that if the expansionist (at any cost) mood of early 20c Germany had been allowed to flourish without retaliation, GB would have been rather worse off in terms of autonomy and 'power' than if GB had objected to the destruction of so much. It's conjecture of course, but I'm pretty sure the right course was taken. Subsequent events seem to bear that out now that Germany has finally succeeded by relatively peaceful means.
Where is the evidence that Germany had any 'expansionist' intentions whatsoever up to and even after the events between Serbia and Austria which kicked things off.The facts are that Austria got into a very similar argument as the one between us and Ireland at the time resulting in similar actions by Austria against Serbia.Everything which happened after that was a case of Germany acting defensively against the aggressive actions of the alliance of Russia,France and us acting in support of Serbia.As for us being supposedly 'better off' having fought WW1 and WW2 which resulted from it's aftermath what actually happened was that we kicked off a war of aggression against Germany in 1914.Which made the difference between us being an economic super power as opposed to a ( comparatively ) economic wreck during the post WW1 and then post WW2 years.
As for the history books that truth is probably too inconvenient for the establishment.Including of course Charles' ancestors.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 26th May 15:41
lamboman100 said:
Britain joined WW1 and WW2 to halt the rise of the German Empire and Japanese Empire.
Which were rising mainly because the rest of the world was sick to death of being dominated by the British Empire.lamboman100 said:
It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
To be honest I think that's putting it mildly. Within 20 years after WW2 the sorry remains of Britain and its former Empire had crumbled disastrously. UK was on the back foot until Thatcher and the 1980s. Then the Blair/Brown axis did its best to throw it all away. Con/Lib pact has been getting things back on the rails. Let's hope Farage and his bunch of clowns don't spoil it all.lamboman100 said:
^ Britain joined WW1 and WW2 to halt the rise of the German Empire and Japanese Empire.
It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
You've used a broad brush!It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
The Japanese were allies of the British in WW1. Germany's fate in WW1 was sealed before meaningful resource from the US arrived in European battlefields.
The British fought the Japanese in WW2 because the Japanese initiated war on the British Empire by attacking Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong. Were the British supposed to just let it lie?
Bailed out by the US in Asia in WW2? No, the US fought the Japanese because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, the US would have continued to fight the Japanese irrespective of any British involvement in Asia.
Bailed out by the US in Europe/Africa in WW2? No, the Germans declared war on the US, following which the US provided substantial resource to the war in Europe. The US would have continued to fight the Germans irrespective of any British involvement, although that would have been more difficult without the large aircraft carrier in the Eastern Atlantic.
Bailed out by the USSR in Africa in WW2? I'm not aware of any Red Army actions in Africa.
Bailed out by the USSR in Europe in WW2? The Red Army didn't fight with the purpose of assisting the UK, the USSR fought the Germans because the Germans attacked the USSR in 1941. The USSR would have fought the Germans irrespective of the British position.
XJ Flyer said:
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
DJRC said:
Thorodin said:
We are globally famous for subtlety and measured diplomacy.
We are what???? As for WW1 the costs both financial and in lives were in a different league and arguably wrecked the country's fortunes for decades after and probably to date.Especially when the costs of WW2,which directly resulted from the implications of WW1,are taken into account.All that to meet our 'obligations' to our Russian 'allies' in 1914.
'Brightness' in this case is more a case of how,or how not,to turn ( what would/could have been )a superpower into a financial wreck and pay in lives for the privilege.
Which then brings us back to the subject of the topic in a typical out of touch establishment high up now provoking the Russians when we should be leaving them well alone unless they look like they intend to invade us.Which is highly unlikely,but in which case Charles can 'then' feel free to press the button that ends it all whenever he wants.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:04
Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 25th May 13:06
What British treaty with Russia are you referring to? Don't get confused with the Triple Entente. Britain's entry into WW1 was triggered by the Treaty of London 1839 (to defend Belgium), not a rather tenuous support for Russia.
If no treaties existed, Britain would have still declared war on Germany as soon as the German troops marched into Belgium.
WW1 did indeed undermine the UK as a world power, but WW1 was always going to happen following the Congress Of Vienna, the rise of nationalism in Europe and the unification of Germany, irrespective of the "brightness" of British leaders. Perhaps the only game changer would have been support for France in 1870.
The real game changer would have been if both France and us had stayed neutral or at least we had entered the war on the side of Germany.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 26th May 13:44
France has to align with Russia to ensure that Germany faces a war on two fronts, to do otherwise would have been foolhardy in light of 1870.
XJ Flyer said:
lamboman100 said:
^ Britain joined WW1 and WW2 to halt the rise of the German Empire and Japanese Empire.
It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
The stupid idea that we'd have been more of a power,after getting involved in a war with Germany,than if we'd have stayed neutral thereby suffering no financial or military losses,says everything about the 'brightness' of our leaders.IE the way to stay ahead of Germany was never going to be by making ourselves poorer and weaker by fighting with the place.It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
XJ Flyer said:
Thorodin said:
The History books seem to think that if the expansionist (at any cost) mood of early 20c Germany had been allowed to flourish without retaliation, GB would have been rather worse off in terms of autonomy and 'power' than if GB had objected to the destruction of so much. It's conjecture of course, but I'm pretty sure the right course was taken. Subsequent events seem to bear that out now that Germany has finally succeeded by relatively peaceful means.
Where is the evidence that Germany had any 'expansionist' intentions whatsoever up to and even after the events between Serbia and Austria which kicked things off.The facts are that Austria got into a very similar argument as the one between us and Ireland at the time resulting in similar actions by Austria against Serbia.Everything which happened after that was a case of Germany acting defensively against the aggressive actions of the alliance of Russia,France and us acting in support of Serbia.As for us being supposedly 'better off' having fought WW1 and WW2 which resulted from it's aftermath what actually happened was that we kicked off a war of aggression against Germany in 1914.Which made the difference between us being an economic super power as opposed to a ( comparatively ) economic wreck during the post WW1 and then post WW2 years.
As for the history books that truth is probably too inconvenient for the establishment.Including of course Charles' ancestors.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 26th May 15:41
We "kicked off" a war of aggression with Germany in 1914??!! No, the Germans invaded Belgium, so the British honoured treaty obligations with Belgium and declared war on Germany. If the Treaty of London had not been in place then the British would still have declared war on Germany to prevent the German High Seas fleet gaining ports close to the English Channel.
V8 Fettler said:
You're ignoring Belgium. Irrespective of any treaties or understandings, the UK would go to war to defend Belgium to prevent the Germans from gaining naval bases close enough to the UK to close the Channel.
France has to align with Russia to ensure that Germany faces a war on two fronts, to do otherwise would have been foolhardy in light of 1870.
Firstly the only reason why Germany fought any war in the west was because of the aggressive actions of France.Without that French aggression Germany had no reason to fight a war on the western front and showed no intention of doing so.To the point of withdrawing and reversing it's original advance through the Benelux when it 'thought' that it had a guarantee of both us and France staying out of the argument between Austria and Serbia and Russia's aggression against Germany as part of that argument.The fact is it wasn't 1870 and France had no reason to make the aggressive move against Germany which it did let alone us then joining that aggression.France has to align with Russia to ensure that Germany faces a war on two fronts, to do otherwise would have been foolhardy in light of 1870.
V8 Fettler said:
XJ Flyer said:
lamboman100 said:
^ Britain joined WW1 and WW2 to halt the rise of the German Empire and Japanese Empire.
It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
The stupid idea that we'd have been more of a power,after getting involved in a war with Germany,than if we'd have stayed neutral thereby suffering no financial or military losses,says everything about the 'brightness' of our leaders.IE the way to stay ahead of Germany was never going to be by making ourselves poorer and weaker by fighting with the place.It nearly lost and had to be bailed out by the Americans in Asia and by the Americans and Russians in Europe / Africa.
As for a 'victorious' Germany over Russia how would that have made the slightest difference to our situation being that our strength would still have been the same and growing.Unlike the inevitable results of fighting a war with a power like Germany when we didn't need to.
Having some difficulty with the words "French" and "aggression" in the same sentence. Lessons had been learned some 100 years before. Seems somewhat revisionist?
You can't just ignore treaties that were signed because it's no longer convenient. Which brings us back to topic. International diplomacy cannot be run as if you are an armchair general living in a fantasy land. Reputations are all and to insult an angry and powerful hard man with a bigger angry and powerful politburo behind him is plain stupid. Charles, having been given his head and no longer having to play the waiting game, is now in the home straight and glimpsed the winning post. He has shown he is a liability-in-waiting.
You can't just ignore treaties that were signed because it's no longer convenient. Which brings us back to topic. International diplomacy cannot be run as if you are an armchair general living in a fantasy land. Reputations are all and to insult an angry and powerful hard man with a bigger angry and powerful politburo behind him is plain stupid. Charles, having been given his head and no longer having to play the waiting game, is now in the home straight and glimpsed the winning post. He has shown he is a liability-in-waiting.
Edited by Thorodin on Monday 26th May 19:37
Thorodin said:
Having some difficulty with the words "French" and "aggression" in the same sentence. Lessons had been learned some 100 years before. Seems somewhat revisionist?
The fact is there was no advantage to Germany in starting a war with us and France when it was in an argument with Russia with Russian forces preparing to attack it.As for 'events before' supposedly justifying France's actions against Germany in support of Russia then surely Russia could use the same justification regarding the threat,as it sees it,from NATO.
XJ Flyer said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're ignoring Belgium. Irrespective of any treaties or understandings, the UK would go to war to defend Belgium to prevent the Germans from gaining naval bases close enough to the UK to close the Channel.
France has to align with Russia to ensure that Germany faces a war on two fronts, to do otherwise would have been foolhardy in light of 1870.
Firstly the only reason why Germany fought any war in the west was because of the aggressive actions of France.Without that French aggression Germany had no reason to fight a war on the western front and showed no intention of doing so.To the point of withdrawing and reversing it's original advance through the Benelux when it 'thought' that it had a guarantee of both us and France staying out of the argument between Austria and Serbia and Russia's aggression against Germany as part of that argument.The fact is it wasn't 1870 and France had no reason to make the aggressive move against Germany which it did let alone us then joining that aggression.France has to align with Russia to ensure that Germany faces a war on two fronts, to do otherwise would have been foolhardy in light of 1870.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff