Female Dr Who?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Female Dr Who?

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 15 of 23 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Stirlingsays 19 Jul 17 10.35pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Yeah, I'd rate him just behind Joe Stalin. In general terms of how the UK would have been treated....Hitler would have treated us better than Stalin....though obviously not if you were Jewish. Hitler had pan European elements to his future thinking ...Second class citizens to a German idealised 'Sparta' state. Stalin....I have no idea what he would have done if he'd gained world hegemony.....Soviet Poland is perhaps an example. Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Jul 2017 10.35pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

19 Jul 17 10.35pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Yeah, I'd rate him just behind Joe Stalin.

In general terms of how the UK would have been treated....Hitler would have treated us better than Stalin....though obviously not if you were Jewish.

Hitler had pan European elements to his future thinking ...Second class citizens to a German idealised 'Sparta' state.

Stalin....I have no idea what he would have done if he'd gained world hegemony.....Soviet Poland is perhaps an example.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Jul 2017 10.35pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Jul 17 7.54am
I thought this thread was supposed to be about Dr.Who, has turned into Dr.No. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 20 Jul 17 7.54am

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Dr.Who, has turned into Dr.No.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 10.23am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Again, this is not taking into account the effort required by Germany to fight on several fronts. Were the Allies not in the War, Russia would not have been on the offensive at all. America could have won the War alone against both Germany and Japan but the time frame for that is obviously unknown. It is certainly conceivable that Japan could have occupied Australia and New Zealand within that time. It can't be proved or disproved. In 1941 There Germans weren't not really. They were fighting in Africa, but the Africa Korp weren't likely to be committed to the Eastern Front as they would have needed to be entirely re-equipped, and had been committed to North Africa long before the Germans planned and launched Operation Barbarossa. The UK and US war effort in support of Russia was purely the provision of logistics until the invasion of Sicily, by which time the German Eastern Front was in retreat and the German offensive at Kursk was smashed - By that point the German army on the Eastern Front was beaten. Of course they did have to occupy Europe, but the UK was in no way ready to launch an invasion of Mainland Europe until 1944. The second front, with the invasion of Normandy sped up the end of the war, as did the invasion of Sicily (which prevented forces being redeployed to the Eastern Front). Similarly, the Japanese forces were engaged with and fighting the British in the far East, before the attack on the US and Pearl Harbour. If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, then yes, its conceivable the Japanese could have targeted Australia - But once it committed to fighting the US, it lacked sufficient naval capacity to both defend against the US and to launch a land invasion across that kind of distance. The Japanese fleet could not have provided air cover from its fleet for both an invasion of Australia and the battle of the Pacific fleets. Had they tried to invade Australia, without naval protection, their ships would have been decimated by the Australian and New Zealand airforce long before they got close to landing. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 10.23am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Again, this is not taking into account the effort required by Germany to fight on several fronts.

Were the Allies not in the War, Russia would not have been on the offensive at all.

America could have won the War alone against both Germany and Japan but the time frame for that is obviously unknown. It is certainly conceivable that Japan could have occupied Australia and New Zealand within that time. It can't be proved or disproved.

In 1941

There Germans weren't not really. They were fighting in Africa, but the Africa Korp weren't likely to be committed to the Eastern Front as they would have needed to be entirely re-equipped, and had been committed to North Africa long before the Germans planned and launched Operation Barbarossa.

The UK and US war effort in support of Russia was purely the provision of logistics until the invasion of Sicily, by which time the German Eastern Front was in retreat and the German offensive at Kursk was smashed - By that point the German army on the Eastern Front was beaten.

Of course they did have to occupy Europe, but the UK was in no way ready to launch an invasion of Mainland Europe until 1944.

The second front, with the invasion of Normandy sped up the end of the war, as did the invasion of Sicily (which prevented forces being redeployed to the Eastern Front).

Similarly, the Japanese forces were engaged with and fighting the British in the far East, before the attack on the US and Pearl Harbour. If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, then yes, its conceivable the Japanese could have targeted Australia - But once it committed to fighting the US, it lacked sufficient naval capacity to both defend against the US and to launch a land invasion across that kind of distance.

The Japanese fleet could not have provided air cover from its fleet for both an invasion of Australia and the battle of the Pacific fleets. Had they tried to invade Australia, without naval protection, their ships would have been decimated by the Australian and New Zealand airforce long before they got close to landing.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 10.27am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays In general terms of how the UK would have been treated....Hitler would have treated us better than Stalin....though obviously not if you were Jewish. I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular. The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 10.27am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

In general terms of how the UK would have been treated....Hitler would have treated us better than Stalin....though obviously not if you were Jewish.

I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular.

The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Jul 17 10.49am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In 1941 There Germans weren't not really. They were fighting in Africa, but the Africa Korp weren't likely to be committed to the Eastern Front as they would have needed to be entirely re-equipped, and had been committed to North Africa long before the Germans planned and launched Operation Barbarossa. The UK and US war effort in support of Russia was purely the provision of logistics until the invasion of Sicily, by which time the German Eastern Front was in retreat and the German offensive at Kursk was smashed - By that point the German army on the Eastern Front was beaten. Of course they did have to occupy Europe, but the UK was in no way ready to launch an invasion of Mainland Europe until 1944. The second front, with the invasion of Normandy sped up the end of the war, as did the invasion of Sicily (which prevented forces being redeployed to the Eastern Front). Similarly, the Japanese forces were engaged with and fighting the British in the far East, before the attack on the US and Pearl Harbour. If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour, then yes, its conceivable the Japanese could have targeted Australia - But once it committed to fighting the US, it lacked sufficient naval capacity to both defend against the US and to launch a land invasion across that kind of distance. The Japanese fleet could not have provided air cover from its fleet for both an invasion of Australia and the battle of the Pacific fleets. Had they tried to invade Australia, without naval protection, their ships would have been decimated by the Australian and New Zealand airforce long before they got close to landing. I don't think it is possible to predict the outcome of a German/Russian war without allied involvement. It changes the whole picture. We would have to assume no European invasion by Germany, no fighting in Africa and only guess at the timing and deployment for a German offensive in Russia. Had Japan not attacked America and just expanded in the local region then Australia and New Zealand might have been targeted. There are too many to variables when dealing with human decisions and of course, none of this would have happened without triggering action by other nations at some stage.

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Jul 17 10.49am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

In 1941

Of course they did have to occupy Europe, but the UK was in no way ready to launch an invasion of Mainland Europe until 1944.

The second front, with the invasion of Normandy sped up the end of the war, as did the invasion of Sicily (which prevented forces being redeployed to the Eastern Front).

I don't think it is possible to predict the outcome of a German/Russian war without allied involvement. It changes the whole picture. We would have to assume no European invasion by Germany, no fighting in Africa and only guess at the timing and deployment for a German offensive in Russia.

Had Japan not attacked America and just expanded in the local region then Australia and New Zealand might have been targeted. There are too many to variables when dealing with human decisions and of course, none of this would have happened without triggering action by other nations at some stage.

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Jul 17 11.01am
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular. The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front. If I could go back in time I would not want to just kill Hitler. I would want to kick him repeatedly in the bollock and explain to him what a negative effect his stupidness would have in Europe for people of my fathers generation and mine and the effect it would have on politics for the foreseeable future where loony left wingers could support the ruin of our countries via mass immigration to line the pockets of corporations and prop up government short termism using his murder of the Jews as reference to justify just about anything.

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Jul 17 11.01am

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular.

The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front.

If I could go back in time I would not want to just kill Hitler. I would want to kick him repeatedly in the bollock and explain to him what a negative effect his stupidness would have in Europe for people of my fathers generation and mine and the effect it would have on politics for the foreseeable future where loony left wingers could support the ruin of our countries via mass immigration to line the pockets of corporations and prop up government short termism using his murder of the Jews as reference to justify just about anything.

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 12.07pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger If I could go back in time I would not want to just kill Hitler. I would want to kick him repeatedly in the bollock and explain to him what a negative effect his stupidness would have in Europe for people of my fathers generation and mine and the effect it would have on politics for the foreseeable future where loony left wingers could support the ruin of our countries via mass immigration to line the pockets of corporations and prop up government short termism using his murder of the Jews as reference to justify just about anything. I'd probably make a stop off for Stalin, Lennin and Trotters just to get the full set, probably a bit of Mao as well. I'd be curious though, what would have happened if Hitler wasn't born or died before becoming the leader of the National Socialist party of Germany. Would it avert the war, would the outcome of the war have been different? Could we be speaking German if the Military command had been answering less to a political idealist, than a pragmatist. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 12.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I'd probably make a stop off for Stalin, Lennin and Trotters just to get the full set, probably a bit of Mao as well.

I'd be curious though, what would have happened if Hitler wasn't born or died before becoming the leader of the National Socialist party of Germany. Would it avert the war, would the outcome of the war have been different? Could we be speaking German if the Military command had been answering less to a political idealist, than a pragmatist.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 12.15pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I don't think it is possible to predict the outcome of a German/Russian war without allied involvement. It changes the whole picture. We would have to assume no European invasion by Germany, no fighting in Africa and only guess at the timing and deployment for a German offensive in Russia. Had Japan not attacked America and just expanded in the local region then Australia and New Zealand might have been targeted. There are too many to variables when dealing with human decisions and of course, none of this would have happened without triggering action by other nations at some stage. I think its reasonable to say that had the Germans not attacked Russia, then the Africa campaign and Eurpoean Campaign of the allies would have been very different, given the sheer amount of German military resources that were destroyed on the Eastern Front - and these would have been deployable sufficiently to reinforce Northern France and Italy, as well as balancing out air superiority. Ultimately, I suspect that the US and UK with Commonwealth would have prevailed against Japan and Germany, but it would have either have been a much longer war or a negotiated peace. The Normandy Landings were tight as it was. Throw in the kind of resources Germany used up on the Eastern Front, maybe Germany forces a stalemate or retreat. Certainly, the invasion of Sicily and Italy, with those kinds of additional resources is a much harder offensive. I don't see a reasonable scenario where by the actions of the allies prevented the defeat of the Soviet in such a significant way. By the end of 1941 its really about how far the Soviet Red armys are going to 'liberate' Europe. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 12.15pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I think its reasonable to say that had the Germans not attacked Russia, then the Africa campaign and Eurpoean Campaign of the allies would have been very different, given the sheer amount of German military resources that were destroyed on the Eastern Front - and these would have been deployable sufficiently to reinforce Northern France and Italy, as well as balancing out air superiority.

Ultimately, I suspect that the US and UK with Commonwealth would have prevailed against Japan and Germany, but it would have either have been a much longer war or a negotiated peace.

The Normandy Landings were tight as it was. Throw in the kind of resources Germany used up on the Eastern Front, maybe Germany forces a stalemate or retreat. Certainly, the invasion of Sicily and Italy, with those kinds of additional resources is a much harder offensive.

I don't see a reasonable scenario where by the actions of the allies prevented the defeat of the Soviet in such a significant way.

By the end of 1941 its really about how far the Soviet Red armys are going to 'liberate' Europe.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Jul 17 12.34pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I'd probably make a stop off for Stalin, Lennin and Trotters just to get the full set, probably a bit of Mao as well. I'd be curious though, what would have happened if Hitler wasn't born or died before becoming the leader of the National Socialist party of Germany. Would it avert the war, would the outcome of the war have been different? Could we be speaking German if the Military command had been answering less to a political idealist, than a pragmatist. Good questions. I suppose it depends if you think that individuals are the driving force in history or the wider circumstances. Probably both. If the same set of variables were played out 100 times we might get 100 different results. The other consideration when deciding to kill historical figures would be if a short term postponement of war or genocide might ultimately lead to a bigger disaster. Does any of it matter in terms of an existential conundrum given that planet Earth is doomed anyway? I'm sure Germany could have occupied Britain and changed the course of the war with better leadership. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Jul 2017 12.36pm)

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Jul 17 12.34pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I'd probably make a stop off for Stalin, Lennin and Trotters just to get the full set, probably a bit of Mao as well.

Good questions.

I suppose it depends if you think that individuals are the driving force in history or the wider circumstances. Probably both.
If the same set of variables were played out 100 times we might get 100 different results.
The other consideration when deciding to kill historical figures would be if a short term postponement of war or genocide might ultimately lead to a bigger disaster. Does any of it matter in terms of an existential conundrum given that planet Earth is doomed anyway?
I'm sure Germany could have occupied Britain and changed the course of the war with better leadership.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Jul 2017 12.36pm)

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 2.19pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Good questions. I suppose it depends if you think that individuals are the driving force in history or the wider circumstances. Probably both. If the same set of variables were played out 100 times we might get 100 different results. The other consideration when deciding to kill historical figures would be if a short term postponement of war or genocide might ultimately lead to a bigger disaster. Does any of it matter in terms of an existential conundrum given that planet Earth is doomed anyway? I'm sure Germany could have occupied Britain and changed the course of the war with better leadership. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Jul 2017 12.36pm) In order for the Germans to invade the UK they needed to win the Battle of Britain - The German navy wasn't sufficient to protect an invasion force from the British Navy - In order to defeat the British Navy they needed to be able to eliminate their presence from the air. It had to destroy the air cover the UK could provide the Navy. Apart from the German U-boat fleet, the German navy was insignificant by comparison to the British Fleet. Of course they could have risked a 'surprise invasion' but given the numbers, the risk of being caught by the Navy and airforce is just too high. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 2.19pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Good questions.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (20 Jul 2017 12.36pm)

In order for the Germans to invade the UK they needed to win the Battle of Britain - The German navy wasn't sufficient to protect an invasion force from the British Navy - In order to defeat the British Navy they needed to be able to eliminate their presence from the air. It had to destroy the air cover the UK could provide the Navy.

Apart from the German U-boat fleet, the German navy was insignificant by comparison to the British Fleet.

Of course they could have risked a 'surprise invasion' but given the numbers, the risk of being caught by the Navy and airforce is just too high.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Stirlingsays 20 Jul 17 2.22pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 I thought this thread was supposed to be about Dr.Who, has turned into Dr.No. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

20 Jul 17 2.22pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I thought this thread was supposed to be about Dr.Who, has turned into Dr.No.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays 20 Jul 17 2.38pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular. Really? Hitler had spoken of his admiration for certain British institutions. While everyone was subservient to Germany it wouldn't have been as bad as for the slavic nations for example. Originally posted by jamiemartin721 The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front. As opposed to Stalin who wasn't particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out??? You could actually debate with Hitler if you were apart of his inner circle and he didn't regard you as a threat....Hitler complained about generals complaining all the time....Stalin just murdered them. Stalin was brutal and paranoid. You had more chance of being executed if you were actually good at your job.....unless that job was being his murderer...and even that wouldn't save you if you hung around long enough. They were both brutal and horrendous examples of inhumanity....but they had subtly different modes of operation. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

20 Jul 17 2.38pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

I dunno about that, I'd say the difference really between the two, is that Hitler probably was less inclined to have you murdered if you were good at your job and popular.

Really?

Hitler had spoken of his admiration for certain British institutions. While everyone was subservient to Germany it wouldn't have been as bad as for the slavic nations for example.

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

The Nazi's were particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out. They executed Sophie Scholl and her brother for distributing an accurate account of what was happening on the Eastern Front.

As opposed to Stalin who wasn't particularly brutal with anyone who spoke out???

You could actually debate with Hitler if you were apart of his inner circle and he didn't regard you as a threat....Hitler complained about generals complaining all the time....Stalin just murdered them.

Stalin was brutal and paranoid. You had more chance of being executed if you were actually good at your job.....unless that job was being his murderer...and even that wouldn't save you if you hung around long enough.

They were both brutal and horrendous examples of inhumanity....but they had subtly different modes of operation.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays 20 Jul 17 2.46pm
Without Hitler I don't see the war having happened at all. He enabled events that other men simply wouldn't have had the influence to enable. It truly was an example of one man making all the difference....but in a truly terrible way. Any sensible leader wouldn't have taken on France and the expeditionary force...which amounted to an equal force and have stopped after taking the Sudetenlands and Austria. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

20 Jul 17 2.46pm

Without Hitler I don't see the war having happened at all. He enabled events that other men simply wouldn't have had the influence to enable.

It truly was an example of one man making all the difference....but in a truly terrible way.

Any sensible leader wouldn't have taken on France and the expeditionary force...which amounted to an equal force and have stopped after taking the Sudetenlands and Austria.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 20 Jul 17 2.53pm
Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet. Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 20 Jul 17 2.53pm

Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet.

Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

Stirlingsays 20 Jul 17 2.58pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet. Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English? It depends upon your war aims and ours was to win the war...Hitler's was different and more expansive than that....Have you read his book? I doubt it.....Too busy reading your countless blogs on 'I'm right.com'. Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jul 2017 2.59pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

20 Jul 17 2.58pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet.

Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

It depends upon your war aims and ours was to win the war...Hitler's was different and more expansive than that....Have you read his book?

I doubt it.....Too busy reading your countless blogs on 'I'm right.com'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Jul 2017 2.59pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Jul 17 2.59pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In order for the Germans to invade the UK they needed to win the Battle of Britain - The German navy wasn't sufficient to protect an invasion force from the British Navy - In order to defeat the British Navy they needed to be able to eliminate their presence from the air. It had to destroy the air cover the UK could provide the Navy. Apart from the German U-boat fleet, the German navy was insignificant by comparison to the British Fleet. Of course they could have risked a 'surprise invasion' but given the numbers, the risk of being caught by the Navy and airforce is just too high. As I understand it, Goring had an opportunity to finish of British air resistance but chose to start bombing London instead after an accidental bombing of London started a tit for tat. If he'd stuck to bombing airfields and the war of attrition we would have run out of planes and pilots.

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Jul 17 2.59pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Apart from the German U-boat fleet, the German navy was insignificant by comparison to the British Fleet.

Of course they could have risked a 'surprise invasion' but given the numbers, the risk of being caught by the Navy and airforce is just too high.

As I understand it, Goring had an opportunity to finish of British air resistance but chose to start bombing London instead after an accidental bombing of London started a tit for tat.
If he'd stuck to bombing airfields and the war of attrition we would have run out of planes and pilots.

Hrolf The Ganger 20 Jul 17 3.01pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet. Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English? Give it time comrade.

Hrolf The Ganger

20 Jul 17 3.01pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet.

Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

Give it time comrade.

hedgehog50 Croydon 20 Jul 17 3.07pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet. Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English? They have ways of making people talk ... We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 20 Jul 17 3.07pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet.

Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

They have ways of making people talk ...

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Ray in Houston Houston 20 Jul 17 3.17pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet. Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English? They speak both. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Ray in Houston

Houston 20 Jul 17 3.17pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Im amazed any of the usual suspects haven't come out with, ' if it was left to your sort we'd all be speaking German' or suchlike yet.

Thinking about it, if losing a war meant you had to speak the victors language, why aren't the German's speaking English?

They speak both.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

jamiemartin721 Reading 20 Jul 17 4.53pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger As I understand it, Goring had an opportunity to finish of British air resistance but chose to start bombing London instead after an accidental bombing of London started a tit for tat. If he'd stuck to bombing airfields and the war of attrition we would have run out of planes and pilots. Pretty much, although the German air force losses were also a factor, the provision of fighter support was decreasing and the decision to switch to the Blitz was partially influenced by resources and the experience of the Spanish civil war. This wasn't specifically limited to London though, the Germans were bombing most British cities that were in range. Without fighter escorts targeting British airfields was increasingly dangerous (Especially given the use of Radar which was effective in allowing British Fighters to intercept German aircraft). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 20 Jul 17 4.53pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Pretty much, although the German air force losses were also a factor, the provision of fighter support was decreasing and the decision to switch to the Blitz was partially influenced by resources and the experience of the Spanish civil war. This wasn't specifically limited to London though, the Germans were bombing most British cities that were in range.

Without fighter escorts targeting British airfields was increasingly dangerous (Especially given the use of Radar which was effective in allowing British Fighters to intercept German aircraft).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Page 15 of 23 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Female Dr Who?

Site Map