Big Mouth Strikes Again - Charles compares Putin to Hitler

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

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.

No leader thought that WW1 would grind on for 4 years, many thought that it would have been over by Christmas 1914 (a land war of movement as per 1870). If we (the British) had stayed neutral, how long do you think we would have lasted with a victorious and imperialistic Germany occupying French naval bases on the Channel and Atlantic coasts?

Where is the link between Germany and the French naval bases when Germany had showed no intention of attacking France.The argument was all about Serbia and Austria with the support of Germany the next move being one of Russia threatening Austria Germany on the side of Serbia.At that point there was no reason whatsoever for any action by France or Britain against Germany and that they did take action was all about aggression against Germany in support of Russia.

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.

Germany showed no intention of attacking France? There were German patrols on French territory July 29th 1914, that looks like intention to me. Serbia/Austria was the spark, but it could have just as easily been on the French/German borders, see Congress of Vienna and the rise of nationalism in Europe. WW1 was a certainty by the start of the 20th Century, the only unknowns were when and the result.

[XJ Flyer]

Thorodin said:

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

That's exactly my point.Charles is just another typical product of the same type of establishment which took us into a needles pointless fight with a ( very ) powerful opponent in WW1.While if he really had to insult an unpredictable powerful Russian nationalist he couldn't have chosen a worse person to use for the comparison from the Russian point of view.As I said our leaders have never been the brightest lot.

Except for Farage who's again showed his class in that regard by comparison.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

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.

The primary advantage to Germany in starting a war with France is the element of surprise and efficient mobilisation, hence Schlieffen Plan.

I don't see the link to the current situation in the Ukraine. NATO aren't in the Ukraine.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

No leader thought that WW1 would grind on for 4 years, many thought that it would have been over by Christmas 1914 (a land war of movement as per 1870). If we (the British) had stayed neutral, how long do you think we would have lasted with a victorious and imperialistic Germany occupying French naval bases on the Channel and Atlantic coasts?

Where is the link between Germany and the French naval bases when Germany had showed no intention of attacking France.The argument was all about Serbia and Austria with the support of Germany the next move being one of Russia threatening Austria Germany on the side of Serbia.At that point there was no reason whatsoever for any action by France or Britain against Germany and that they did take action was all about aggression against Germany in support of Russia.

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.

Germany showed no intention of attacking France? There were German patrols on French territory July 29th 1914, that looks like intention to me. Serbia/Austria was the spark, but it could have just as easily been on the French/German borders, see Congress of Vienna and the rise of nationalism in Europe. WW1 was a certainty by the start of the 20th Century, the only unknowns were when and the result.

July 21 . The French president warns Austria that the Russian people are very warm friends ( slav unity ) of the Serbians and France is Russia's ally.

July 25.The French begin secret military preperations.

So what was meant by the French 'warning' and why the need for secret military preparations.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

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.

The primary advantage to Germany in starting a war with France is the element of surprise and efficient mobilisation, hence Schlieffen Plan.

I don't see the link to the current situation in the Ukraine. NATO aren't in the Ukraine.

Yes Germany started a war of mobilisation against France but it wasn't one of Germany's choosing it was a defensive one of necessity.France having previously made it's position clear regarding support of Russia in any conflict between Russia and Germany.The last thing that Germany wanted was a war on two fronts in an argument which just involved it and Russia.

As for Ukraine Russia is trying to pre empt an obvious documented US/EU plan to extend the EU and NATO into Ukraine.Personally if I was Putin I'd have committed my forces by now to take as much Ukrainian territory as possible and then wait for an EU response.The fact that he hasn't might be something more serious in that he's holding back while deciding wether to forget the idea or go for something bigger.In which case Charles' provocation isn't going to help.

[mybrainhurts]

Some very common people on this thread...

[ninja-lewis]

XJ Flyer said:

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.

Neither France nor Russia were strong enough to fight Germany alone - both knew that if the other was knocked out, Germany would be able to focus her undivided attention on them with a secure rear. The Germans knew this too. They also knew that it in any conflict it would take the Russians several weeks to fully mobilise. Hence the German war plan called for Germany to exploit that delay and her own interior lines to deliver a quick knock blow against France, as in 1870, before focusing on the Eastern Front.

Thus any German war with Russia inevitably required Germany to attack France. What she needed most was certainty and that meant eliminating the French military as a credible threat - the German ambassador to France was instructed to demand the cession of Toul and Verdun fortresses (core parts of the French defences) as a guarantee of French neutrality. Effectively France was to be asked to hand over the keys to country and enable the Germans to walk in if and whenever they saw fit. Once Russia began mobilisation, Germany had a very tight timetable that effectively committed her to war: she had to defeat France and pivot east before the Russians were ready; she could not pursue diplomacy indefinitely.

Once France was threatened, Britain was threatened. We had a treaty with France to defend her channel ports while the French Navy looked after the Mediterranean. The loss of the latter would place the Royal Navy's pre-eminence at risk and jeopardise our shipping routes to the Empire.

Britain could no more allow the continent to be dominated by a single power in 1914 than in 1815 or 1939. Compared to the continental powers, our ability to militarily influence matters on the continent was limited (due both the Channel and a far smaller army). We depended on keeping the continent sufficiently divided such that no single power could challenge our dominance and that there would always be at least one other Great Power able to assist us.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

Thorodin said:

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

That's exactly my point.Charles is just another typical product of the same type of establishment which took us into a needles pointless fight with a ( very ) powerful opponent in WW1.While if he really had to insult an unpredictable powerful Russian nationalist he couldn't have chosen a worse person to use for the comparison from the Russian point of view.As I said our leaders have never been the brightest lot.

Except for Farage who's again showed his class in that regard by comparison.

Needless? Pointless? Probably covered here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-25/was-brit...

The bit that Ferguson gets badly wrong is

">
If Britain had stayed out and Germany had defeated France and Russia, it would have made no sense to make territorial claims (eg against Belgium) that might have caused the British to change their minds.
<"

If France has fallen then there is little that Britain can do to stop the High Seas Fleet being based on the other side of the Channel or on the Atlantic Coast (and why confine a large, powerful navy to the Baltic when you can substantially increase its effectiveness in projecting power by using readily available bases?)

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

Thorodin said:

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

That's exactly my point.Charles is just another typical product of the same type of establishment which took us into a needles pointless fight with a ( very ) powerful opponent in WW1.While if he really had to insult an unpredictable powerful Russian nationalist he couldn't have chosen a worse person to use for the comparison from the Russian point of view.As I said our leaders have never been the brightest lot.

Except for Farage who's again showed his class in that regard by comparison.

Needless? Pointless? Probably covered here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-25/was-brit...

The bit that Ferguson gets badly wrong is

">
If Britain had stayed out and Germany had defeated France and Russia, it would have made no sense to make territorial claims (eg against Belgium) that might have caused the British to change their minds.
<"

If France has fallen then there is little that Britain can do to stop the High Seas Fleet being based on the other side of the Channel or on the Atlantic Coast (and why confine a large, powerful navy to the Baltic when you can substantially increase its effectiveness in projecting power by using readily available bases?)

It's obvious that France would have had no option but to stay out assuming that we'd have given them the ultimatum either we both stay out of it or Britain will join on the side of Germany.Likewise under that deal there would have been nothing stopping us and France attacking Germany 'if' Germany had renaged on the deal to keep the war a localised one between it and Russia.In which case the result would have been a just as strong,increasingly stronger,France and Britain slightly weaker Germany and a defeated Russia.What's not to like.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

XJ Flyer said:

Thorodin said:

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

That's exactly my point.Charles is just another typical product of the same type of establishment which took us into a needles pointless fight with a ( very ) powerful opponent in WW1.While if he really had to insult an unpredictable powerful Russian nationalist he couldn't have chosen a worse person to use for the comparison from the Russian point of view.As I said our leaders have never been the brightest lot.

Except for Farage who's again showed his class in that regard by comparison.

Needless? Pointless? Probably covered here:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-25/was-brit...

The bit that Ferguson gets badly wrong is

">
If Britain had stayed out and Germany had defeated France and Russia, it would have made no sense to make territorial claims (eg against Belgium) that might have caused the British to change their minds.
<"

If France has fallen then there is little that Britain can do to stop the High Seas Fleet being based on the other side of the Channel or on the Atlantic Coast (and why confine a large, powerful navy to the Baltic when you can substantially increase its effectiveness in projecting power by using readily available bases?)

It's obvious that France would have had no option but to stay out assuming that we'd have given them the ultimatum either we both stay out of it or Britain will join on the side of Germany. Likewise under that deal there would have been nothing stopping us and France attacking Germany 'if' Germany had renaged on the deal to keep the war a localised one between it and Russia.In which case the result would have been a just as strong,increasingly stronger,France and Britain slightly weaker Germany and a defeated Russia.What's not to like.

Britain attacks France in 1914? The biggest threat to the UK in 1914 was Germany, the greatest ally for the UK against the German threat was France (by virtue of location and military capability).

This is now in fantasy land.

[XJ Flyer]

V8 Fettler said:

Britain attacks France in 1914? The biggest threat to the UK in 1914 was Germany, the greatest ally for the UK against the German threat was France (by virtue of location and military capability).

This is now in fantasy land.

That's at least obviously what Churchill made the government think.Whereas the reality was that Germany faced attack by Russia for it's support of Austria against Serbia.Nothing more nothing less.

As for attacking France joining Germany in this case would have been nothing more than a deal for us to guarantee Germany's defence against France 'if' France attacked Germany in support of Russia.At which point all bets would have been off and France would have been mad to not join us in staying out of it.Therefore no need for Germany to start hostilities on the western front which the evidence says was a defensive move not an offensive one.The real unbelievable fantasy land is what France and Britain actually decided to do in enlarging a localised war between Germany and Russia into a massive European one.

[V8 Fettler]

XJ Flyer said:

July 21 . The French president warns Austria that the Russian people are very warm friends ( slav unity ) of the Serbians and France is Russia's ally.

July 25.The French begin secret military preperations.

So what was meant by the French 'warning' and why the need for secret military preparations.

I'm sure there were many secret preparations by many parties prior to WW1. Not really in the same league as military patrols on foreign soil though. Word re: warm friends? Statement of fact. Words re: France = Russia's ally? Statement of fact. Again, not in the same league as military patrols on foreign soil, that is aggressive.

XJ Flyer said:

V8 Fettler said:

Britain attacks France in 1914? The biggest threat to the UK in 1914 was Germany, the greatest ally for the UK against the German threat was France (by virtue of location and military capability).

This is now in fantasy land.

That's at least obviously what Churchill made the government think.Whereas the reality was that Germany faced attack by Russia for it's support of Austria against Serbia.Nothing more nothing less.

As for attacking France joining Germany in this case would have been nothing more than a deal for us to guarantee Germany's defence against France 'if' France attacked Germany in support of Russia.At which point all bets would have been off and France would have been mad to not join us in staying out of it.Therefore no need for Germany to start hostilities on the western front which the evidence says was a defensive move not an offensive one.The real unbelievable fantasy land is what France and Britain actually decided to do in enlarging a localised war between Germany and Russia into a massive European one.

As I said, fantasy land. WW1 became inevitable long before Churchill held power, see usual causes. Britain does not want a hostile France, Britain will create a hostile France by threatening her with war, additionally this will create a situation where France perceives that her only option for survival is to attack Germany and hold Britain on the Channel coast, hence leading to stronger ties between France and Russia.

If you want to go off down the fantasy route, then re-write the Congress of Vienna and eliminate Bismarck at an early age.

I don't understand the "real unbelievable fantasy" comment. WW1 became inevitable (see usual causes) and very real.

[7mike]

MarshPhantom said:

Prince Charles compares Vlad Putin to Hitler, will this guy ever learn.

[smegmore]

7mike said:

If Big Ears keeps on sticking his head above the parapet like this, one day somebody'll shoot it off.

Idiot.

[greygoose]

smegmore said:

7mike said:

If Big Ears keeps on sticking his head above the parapet like this, one day somebody'll shoot it off.

Idiot.

Don't worry public figures telling the truth will never catch on.

[JMGS4]

smegmore said:

7mike said:

If Big Ears keeps on sticking his head above the parapet like this, one day somebody'll shoot it off.
Idiot.

And he hasn't learnt the lesson from his previous 2 namesakes, 1 got his head chopped off, one died in disgrace......and Jug Ears isn't even kingy yet!!!!

[RegMolehusband]

7mike said:

I think 7Mike may be suggesting that there could be an element of truth in the statement given recent events.

[7mike]

RegMolehusband said:

7mike said:

I think 7Mike may be suggesting that there could be an element of truth in the statement given recent events.

May be "Big Mouth / Big Ears" had a point all along.

[Thorodin]

7mike said:

May be "Big Mouth / Big Ears" had a point all along.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I'm sure he has access to all kinds of info that most don't and that such info might be hopelessly biased (I'm sure it must inevitably be).

The point is he is not in a position to ponder his musings in public. He cannot be privy to all the diplomatic and political imperatives that attach to every event yet he continually makes his views public. His commentaries are seen here as largely irrelevant and somehow Lilliputian, but around the world he is seen as representing the crown and ought to be aware that is a highly charged position.

[s3fella]

What Charles said is fairly offensive. Then again, Hitler's been dead a few years, he probably doesn't mind.