EU to integrate military forces

[LV-426]

4 hours ago, Black Monk said:

That's not true. The RAF's victory in the Battle of Britain, as well as the Channel and the Royal Navy ships patrolling it, paid heed to Germany's invasion plans.

Sorry BM, but it's bad form not to recognize the contribution allies played in the Battle of Britain:

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

The RAF Roll of Honour recognises 574 pilots, from countries other than the United Kingdom, as flying at least one authorized, operational sortie with an eligible unit during the period between 10 July to 31 October 1940, alongside 2,353 British pilots. The numbers differ slightly from the participants whose names are engraved on the Battle of Britain Monument in London, unveiled on 18 September 2005.

All pilots, regardless of nationality, who flew with British units during the Battle are known collectively, after a phrase coined by Winston Churchill, as "The Few".

Pilots from Poland, New Zealand, Canada and Czechoslovakia, amongst others, all played a significant role.

[Space Commander Travis]

10 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Sorry BM, but it's bad form not to recognize the contribution allies played in the Battle of Britain:

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

The RAF Roll of Honour recognises 574 pilots, from countries other than the United Kingdom, as flying at least one authorized, operational sortie with an eligible unit during the period between 10 July to 31 October 1940, alongside 2,353 British pilots. The numbers differ slightly from the participants whose names are engraved on the Battle of Britain Monument in London, unveiled on 18 September 2005.

All pilots, regardless of nationality, who flew with British units during the Battle are known collectively, after a phrase coined by Winston Churchill, as "The Few".

Pilots from Poland, New Zealand, Canada and Czechoslovakia, amongst others, all played a significant role.

Very true, but they were part of the RAF. The RCAF later contributed squadrons of its own, but during the BoB they flew as part of the RAF .

[Unusual Tournament]

10 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Russia is no problem at all, and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has just visited Moscow in a spirit of friendship.

As we all know, the real problematic power in Europe today is the EU, whose expanisionist empire-building started the conflict in Ukraine.

i don't think that Russia is as neutral as you believe and to be fair neither is the EU or USA. everything that has happened in Ukraine lies squarely at the feet of Ukraine and their short sighted politicians. EU, Russia and the U.S. did what was in their interests. i especially find interesting the way that British foreign police is adjusting to the new realities that post brexit will bring. May in Poland providing support to anti-EU forces and Boris in Russia trying to put a foot in both camps, trying to still be relevant in Europe. 

I strongly believe that without the EU and possibly a downgraded NATO Britain will loss much foreign policy clout. relegated to second division. 

[Space Commander Travis]

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Boris in Russia trying to put a foot in both camps,

"Telling them to lay off cyber attacks". That's a guaranteed way to encourage friendly relations. And considering Ms. May's rant the other week about how the Russkies undermine Freedom and Democracy and all the rest of it every chance they get, I expect the welcome he'd have got would have been polite but chilly. 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[stevewinn]

12 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i don't think that Russia is as neutral as you believe and to be fair neither is the EU or USA. everything that has happened in Ukraine lies squarely at the feet of Ukraine and their short sighted politicians. EU, Russia and the U.S. did what was in their interests. i especially find interesting the way that British foreign police is adjusting to the new realities that post brexit will bring. May in Poland providing support to anti-EU forces and Boris in Russia trying to put a foot in both camps, trying to still be relevant in Europe. 

I strongly believe that without the EU and possibly a downgraded NATO Britain will loss much foreign policy clout. relegated to second division. 

Thankfully what you believe and what reality is are worlds apart. Brexit allows the UK to regain its independent seat at the WTO table which will influence future reform on a global scale this adding to our many voices at the UN (permanent seat/veto) the OECD, the G7, G8, G20. and the Commonwealth. When it comes to NATO, The combination of the Anglo-American alliance cannot and will not be rivalled by anyone let alone any new EU defence force. So there worries not. 

As for British foreign policy, you can see by decisions taken as far back as 2008 the UK plans on being a world player to the end of this century. opening of a Naval base in the middle east (Bahrain) giving on station access to the Indian ocean and the refurbishment of the repair facility in Singapore. Two carriers and the renewal of our nuclear deterrent highlight these facts.

You somehow make is the mistake to think that we cannot totter about the world as a independent country without the EU. But leaving the EU allows Britain to return to what we have done for all our existence for what is in our national DNA.The oceans of the world are the life blood of this nation. The 27 members of the EU as important as they are, are not the entire world, - we have also not ignored the fact that outside the EU there is 7.1 Billion people across another five continents. - the great continents North America, Latin America, Africa, & Asia - Australasia. We should recall the fact that our horizon and the concerns we have in the world as a country and as a people are not limited to just 27 nations and 400million people in Europe but to the 7.6Billion people and the 195 nations that exist in the world today, and the policies that we pursue as a government the causes we follow as a people the concerns we have are not confined and limited to this narrow area across the channel for this to happen to Britain is a contraction and a reduction to which we have been concerned. It is the world that we belong to and it is mankind of which we are apart. 

 

 

 

[Black Monk]

19 hours ago, LV-426 said:

Sorry BM, but it's bad form not to recognize the contribution allies played in the Battle of Britain:

Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain

The RAF Roll of Honour recognises 574 pilots, from countries other than the United Kingdom, as flying at least one authorized, operational sortie with an eligible unit during the period between 10 July to 31 October 1940, alongside 2,353 British pilots. The numbers differ slightly from the participants whose names are engraved on the Battle of Britain Monument in London, unveiled on 18 September 2005.

All pilots, regardless of nationality, who flew with British units during the Battle are known collectively, after a phrase coined by Winston Churchill, as "The Few".

Pilots from Poland, New Zealand, Canada and Czechoslovakia, amongst others, all played a significant role.

How does saying the truth - that the RAF prevented a German invasion of Britain by defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain - not recognise the contribution played by allies?

However, it was a small contribution - around 19.5% according to my maths.

[Black Monk]

14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

I strongly believe that without the EU and possibly a downgraded NATO Britain will loss much foreign policy clout. relegated to second division. 

[stevewinn]

2 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

How does saying the truth - that the RAF prevented a German invasion of Britain by defeating the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain - not recognise the contribution played by allies?

However, it was a small contribution - around 19.5% according to my maths.

many of them displaced from their occupied homeland.

[godnodog]

21 hours ago, Black Monk said:

So? Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Doesnt mean you'ree correct either ehehe

[bmk1245]

If Brits wouldn't been living on island, Germans would have crushed them in few days. Thats a fact. Period.

[stevewinn]

8 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

If Brits wouldn't been living on island, Germans would have crushed them in few days. Thats a fact. Period.

Its not fact because it didn't happen. But if your going down that road of what ifs buts and maybes what about the fact Herr Hitler offered Britain on three occasions stay neutral and Germany would guarantee Britain and her colonies would not be attacked. what if we'd have accepted that offer? That would have denied Britain being the unsinkable "carrier" from which to assault Europe and liberate Europe. ponder that. But as we know Britain declined. now that's FACT. what also is FACT is Britain once again showing that it always does the right thing even when its not the easy option.

 

[bmk1245]

12 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Its not fact because it didn't happen. But if your going down that road of what ifs buts and maybes what about the fact Herr Hitler offered Britain on three occasions stay neutral and Germany would guarantee Britain and her colonies would not be attacked. what if we'd have accepted that offer? That would have denied Britain being the unsinkable "carrier" from which to assault Europe and liberate Europe. ponder that. But as we know Britain declined. now that's FACT. what also is FACT is Britain once again showing that it always does the right thing even when its not the easy option.

 

Sorry, but Germans managed to crush far superior forces (than all Britain had) in the east. If not cannon meat from USSR (you can throw kindergartners against MMA champion, and at some point that dude will be beaten to death) we would be sprechen nowadays. Thats a fact. Period.

[stevewinn]

5 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Sorry, but Germans managed to crush far superior forces (than all Britain had) in the east. If not cannon meat from USSR (you can throw kindergartners against MMA champion, and at some point that dude will be beaten to death) we would be sprechen nowadays. Thats a fact. Period.

For all their superior forces they were still unable to launch a seaborne invasion, you'd think it would have been easy for such a force especially as Britain stood alone in Europe in 1940 as America had not entered the war. - according to you we should have been a pushover. so maybe your a little wrong in your assessment or revision of History. English channel a formidable obstacle But Operation Sealion was lost in the air.

 

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

For all their superior forces they were still unable to launch a seaborne invasion, you'd think it would have been easy for such a force especially as Britain stood alone in Europe in 1940 as America had not entered the war. - according to you we should have been a pushover. so maybe your a little wrong in your assessment or revision of History. English channel a formidable obstacle But Operation Sealion was lost in the air.

 

Chanel is what saved you. Given the land access, Germans would had rolled over the Britain faster than they did that over the Poland (with the help of USSR, btw).

[stevewinn]

33 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Chanel is what saved you. Given the land access, Germans would had rolled over the Britain faster than they did that over the Poland (with the help of USSR, btw).

That's speculation on your part and either way you cant prove it. So it'll forever remain an unknown as to exactly what would've happened.

 

[bmk1245]

2 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

That's speculation on your part and either way you cant prove it. So it'll forever remain an unknown as to exactly what would've happened.

 

You can call it speculation, but it is a fact. USSR military power was way superior to that of British, so, for landlocked Britain assault would have been quick and swift.

[+and-then]

On 12/23/2017 at 1:47 AM, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

If anyone could come up with any rational suggestions as to why he might want to, beyond that "he's mad/evil/a dictator, and invading Poland is what they always do" the old bogey of Big Bad Vlad might have a bit more plausibility. 

And I'm sorry? The US remained aloof from the operation to bring Freedom to the oppressed people of Libya by turning it into a terrorist breeding ground? 

Didn't mean to step on your toes there, Manny.  Just because you may feel Putin is justified in whatever actions he decides to take doesn't mean that others don't think he's a threat.  FWIW, I don't imagine he'd decide to roll into Poland but he might well have decided to reacquire the smaller Baltic states if he thought he could.  I don't care what he does in his own backyard.  I agree with you that the whole Libyan operation was a foolish tragedy waiting to happen.  Hell, even Barry 'O had to be convinced by the three witches to sign on in a limited way.  I seem to recall that it was the UK and France that ramrodded that particular cluster...

[Grey Area]

32 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

You can call it speculation, but it is a fact. USSR military power was way superior to that of British, so, for landlocked Britain assault would have been quick and swift.

Your point is... Pointless.  By the rules of your imaginary universe, then if the UK would have been a land locked country then all of the resources pumped into the navy would have been diverted elsewhere, like lots of tanks, therefore the outcome would not be as it is in your strange alternate universe.

[Space Commander Travis]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

Just because you may feel Putin is justified in whatever actions he decides to take doesn't mean that others don't think he's a threat. 

"Just because you may feel Putin is justified in whatever actions he decides to take doesn't mean that others don't think he's a threat. "? What, altogether, has he done? "He invaded plucky little Ukraine!! That's proof that he would like nothing more than to gobble up Eastern Europe, because that's what tyrants always do!" Yes, and plucky little Ukraine had nothing whatsoever to do with anything Obama's State Deportment and CIA may have done, was it. No.  He assisted the tyrant Assad in defeating, er, Islamic fundamentalist extremism that was described not so long ago by the former Obama adminisnration as the greatest threat we face? 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker

[stevewinn]

33 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

You can call it speculation, but it is a fact. USSR military power was way superior to that of British, so, for landlocked Britain assault would have been quick and swift.

It is still pure speculation as to what would've happened. - to take your logic Germany had a far superior air force did they win the air war over Britain. No. so your rather simplistic assumptions as to what would happen are just that assumptions and like i said you can put forward many scenarios, speculating on what would have happened. 

[bmk1245]

2 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

Your point is... Pointless.  By the rules of your imaginary universe, then if the UK would have been a land locked country then all of the resources pumped into the navy would have been diverted elsewhere, like lots of tanks, therefore the outcome would not be as it is in your strange alternate universe.

Tell that to Poles, obnoxious shmuck.

[Space Commander Travis]

4 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Tell that to Poles, obnoxious shmuck.

Sorry? Not sure that makes sense. Did Poland have a much stronger army than Germany? 

[bmk1245]

1 minute ago, stevewinn said:

It is still pure speculation as to what would've happened. - to take your logic Germany had a far superior air force did they win the air war over Britain. No. so your rather simplistic assumptions as to what would happen are just that assumptions and like i said you can put forward many scenarios, speculating on what would have happened. 

Not just simplistic assumptions, but from the facts of how fast Germans rolled over France, Poland, and large swaths of USSR. You can gloat whatever you want, but the fact remains - Britain was saved by the water channel.

[bmk1245]

2 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Sorry? Not sure that makes sense. Did Poland have a much stronger army than Germany? 

Much? No, Stronger? No. But they put good fight against advancing Germans and Russkies.

[Space Commander Travis]

9 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Not just simplistic assumptions, but from the facts of how fast Germans rolled over France, Poland, and large swaths of USSR. You can gloat whatever you want, but the fact remains - Britain was saved by the water channel.

It is a good question whether Britain would have been able to stand a land invasion even before nearly all their armour and vehicles were lost at Dunkirk. I suspect not; It's superior tactics (if not superior equipment, which it wasn't particularly) will win out over old fashioned organisation and command structures, which the British army was certainly in comparison. Sorry to sound a pessimist .  Question though was the cold war era USSR superior in tactics and equipment as well as numbers? Debatable. Although it would probably have been a moot question as any land assault would almost certainly have been accompanied by tactical nukes, which tend to even out subtle distinctions.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Manfred von Dreidecker