France's economy minister tells Britain - 'We want our money back'

[Richard W]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Until Brexit at least, British citizens are EEA nationals. (I say 'Until Brexit at least' because who knows whether or not the UK will remain within the EEA after we leave the EU, or whether or not the UK will also leave the EEA yet agree to remain covered of the FoM post Brexit?)

 

So, what is your point?

In the terminology of the Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2016,  "“EEA national” means a national of an EEA State who is not also a British citizen".

 

I sometimes get the impression of hordes forming relationships with EEA nationals just in order to get into the UK.  The number of 10,000 a year provides an upper bound of the number.  We don't normally see a figure for how many non-EEA people immigrate under the EEA regulations.  Of course, 'non-EEA' also includes Australians.

[chezy86]

Do you believe that one country is better than another country?
Just because you were born there? I sure hope you were not born in North Korea.
 

Your contradicting yourself you must believe North Korea is inferior then??


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[chezy86]

Here's the short history of WWII in Europe: the only two Western nations that had positive GDP growth rates in the 30's, Germany and the USSR, fought a war.  The US waited on the sidelines until the eleventh hour when the Soviet victory was assured and then rushed in to seize "the greatest material prize in history", the Mid-East oil, from... the British. 
 
You may however prefer to get your understanding of history from insightful Hollywood movies of the period.

The question was " what war did you fight in to give you the right to belittle others who did?". I don't need a history lesson I also know that Russia sided with Hitler and invaded Poland at the beginning of the war. So what your saying then is the Italy landings the Normandy landings, operation market garden were insignificant?. BS Stalin pleaded with the allies to open a second front as he knew they couldn't win on their own. Where did Russia get a lot of its equipment from?. Oh yes Allied merchantmen braved Arctic seas and u boats to take them it. Of course Russia played a major part and lost heavily,they are a huge country and Hitler turned on them so they had little choice.Wars are fought for money and power I know that but let's not discredit the sacrifices of any nation in conflict who's armed forces paid the ultimate price.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

33 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Your contradicting yourself you must believe North Korea is inferior then??


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I am not contradicting myself.

I only pointed out that you seem to think that the country that you are born in, is better than other countries. Just because you were born there.

I am sure the North Koreans think the same as you.

PS: N Korea is not  an inferior country, only it has inferior leaders.

[chezy86]

I am not contradicting myself.
I only pointed out that you seem to think that the country that you are born in, is better than other countries. Just because you were born there.
I am sure the North Koreans think the same as you.
PS: N Korea is not  an inferior country, only it has inferior leaders.

Where have I said that my country is better than any other?? You don't even know where I was born. All I said was "2 great nations" not "2 superior nations". So stop trying to give your interpretation of what you think I'm trying to say. Thanks in advance.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[vogie]

31 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

I am not contradicting myself.

I only pointed out that you seem to think that the country that you are born in, is better than other countries. Just because you were born there.

I am sure the North Koreans think the same as you.

PS: N Korea is not  an inferior country, only it has inferior leaders.

Same with ThaiVisa, it isn't an inferior forum, it only has inferior posters.

[oldhippy]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Same with ThaiVisa, it isn't an inferior forum, it only has inferior posters.

Well put!

[chrissables]

16 hours ago, oldhippy said:

You are the person who brought up my age, 55 in fact.

No, you did.

In reply to me being stupid, i suppose it depends on how you look at what a person has achieved in life. Managing to retire at 42 would show that i am neither stupid or lazy. 

Clever at 42, does not make you clever now about other subjects. And I won't ask how you managed to retire at 42 - just lucky  I assume?

You of course may think otherwise, trust me it won't give me sleepless nights.

We agree on that, good night.

Just lucky I assume?

 

Had a business actually. Decided i wanted to enjoy life, walked away from the lot, no employees to worry about, none of the bureaucracy to deal with. Good luck that through my hard work i could make the choice. Don't regret it at all.

[oldhippy]

4 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Just lucky I assume?

 

Had a business actually. Decided i wanted to enjoy life, walked away from the lot, no employees to worry about, none of the bureaucracy to deal with. Good luck that through my hard work i could make the choice. Don't regret it at all.

Good for you - I mean that.

Of course you had a head start by being born in the right country....

 

[oldhippy]

All this Brexit stuff makes me nostalgic for the old days.

When cities were independent, with city walls & gates, and intercity wars.

When a city citizen did not have to obey rules made by non city citizens.

Yes, it is time to reverse history!

[CaptHaddock]

24 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

The question was " what war did you fight in to give you the right to belittle others who did?". I don't need a history lesson I also know that Russia sided with Hitler and invaded Poland at the beginning of the war. So what your saying then is the Italy landings the Normandy landings, operation market garden were insignificant?. BS Stalin pleaded with the allies to open a second front as he knew they couldn't win on their own. Where did Russia get a lot of its equipment from?. Oh yes Allied merchantmen braved Arctic seas and u boats to take them it. Of course Russia played a major part and lost heavily,they are a huge country and Hitler turned on them so they had little choice.Wars are fought for money and power I know that but let's not discredit the sacrifices of any nation in conflict who's armed forces paid the ultimate price.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

It's hard to respond to a post that is so profoundly confused on many levels.  You have a very emotional response, but many of us find it's easier to understand the course of events with a cold eye.

 

1.  The right to criticize governments and armies is not reserved to soldiers or veterans.

2.  The morality of governments, although an appropriate subject, is not the topic here.  We are discussing the policy decisions of the US government on the conduct of the war and the extent to which they belied both government statements at the time and the public understanding from popular media and propaganda.

3.  You do indeed need a history lesson since you apparently haven't read any. 

4.  All nations fighting WWII made sacrifices and nearly all the combatants in all the major armies fought bravely.  Neither fact, however, ennobles otherwise deplorable war aims or excuses atrocities.  So, that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

5.  The decisive battles of WWI in Europe were Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which the Soviets won.  It's true the the food and Ford trucks (but not the inferior American tanks) contributed by the Americans helped the Red Army.  So, did the Allied invasion of Sicily since it forced Hitler to call off his last offensive in the East in order to divert troops to assist the Italians.  The distinction between a decisive battle and a diversion is nevertheless a fundamental one in military history.

6.  By the time of the Normandy Invasion, in the East the Red Army was rolling up the Wehrmacht which was never again to go on the offensive.  The Invasion itself and even before the Invasion, the threat of an Atlantic invasion forced the Germans to divert troops which could otherwise have been used against the Soviets.  Nevertheless, in war scale matters.  The total Allied casualties of the Normandy Landings were on the order of about 10,000 while the Soviet casualties in Stalingrad are estimated to have been 1.1 million. 

7.  Some Allied army had to take huge casualties to defeat the Germans.  The American and British leadership made sure it wasn't them.  The British leadership undoubtedly recognized that the British Army was no match at all for the Wehrmacht at any time during the war.  As far as I can see, the BA won one battle during the war, El Alamein, although Montgomery subsequently failed unaccountably to destroy the Afrika Corps even though he was in possession of accurate intelligence as to their much reduced tank strength.

 

The American position was articulated by the undistinguished senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, in 1941 as:   "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ."   So, on May 30, 1942 Gen. George Marshall promised Molotov that the US would open a second front in 1942.  The US reneged on that promise.  In the summer of 1942, Churchill went to Moscow and promised the opening of a second front in 1943.  Britain and the US reneged again.  US official policy was "Europe First", but in the event, the actual policy was "the Pacific First", which is understandable since that is where US interests actually lay.  The US and Britain eventually opened the long-delayed second front in 1944 probably just to stop the Red Army from going all the way to the Atlantic.

 

World War II was always going to be decided by troops, not trucks.  The US and Britain, either cowardly or shrewdly depending on your point of view, outsourced the fighting to the Soviet Union who suffered the greatest losses in history, but won the war against Germany.  At this point in time it behooves us to see clearly by judging the participants on their actions not their promises or propaganda.

[chezy86]

It's hard to respond to a post that is so profoundly confused on many levels.  You have a very emotional response, but many of us find it's easier to understand the course of events with a cold eye.
 
1.  The right to criticize governments and armies is not reserved to soldiers or veterans.
2.  The morality of governments, although an appropriate subject, is not the topic here.  We are discussing the policy decisions of the US government on the conduct of the war and the extent to which they belied both government statements at the time and the public understanding from popular media and propaganda.
3.  You do indeed need a history lesson since you apparently haven't read any. 
4.  All nations fighting WWII made sacrifices and nearly all the combatants in all the major armies fought bravely.  Neither fact, however, ennobles otherwise deplorable war aims or excuses atrocities.  So, that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.
5.  The decisive battles of WWI in Europe were Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which the Soviets won.  It's true the the food and Ford trucks (but not the inferior American tanks) contributed by the Americans helped the Red Army.  So, did the Allied invasion of Sicily since it forced Hitler to call off his last offensive in the East in order to divert troops to assist the Italians.  The distinction between a decisive battle and a diversion is nevertheless a fundamental one in military history.
6.  By the time of the Normandy Invasion, in the East the Red Army was rolling up the Wehrmacht which was never again to go on the offensive.  The Invasion itself and even before the Invasion, the threat of an Atlantic invasion forced the Germans to divert troops which could otherwise have been used against the Soviets.  Nevertheless, in war scale matters.  The total Allied casualties of the Normandy Landings were on the order of about 10,000 while the Soviet casualties in Stalingrad are estimated to have been 1.1 million. 
7.  Some Allied army had to take huge casualties to defeat the Germans.  The American and British leadership made sure it wasn't them.  The British leadership undoubtedly recognized that the British Army was no match at all for the Wehrmacht at any time during the war.  As far as I can see, the BA won one battle during the war, El Alamein, although Montgomery subsequently failed unaccountably to destroy the Afrika Corps even though he was in possession of accurate intelligence as to their much reduced tank strength.
 
The American position was articulated by the undistinguished senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, in 1941 as:   "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ."   So, on May 30, 1942 Gen. George Marshall promised Molotov that the US would open a second front in 1942.  The US reneged on that promise.  In the summer of 1942, Churchill went to Moscow and promised the opening of a second front in 1943.  Britain and the US reneged again.  US official policy was "Europe First", but in the event, the actual policy was "the Pacific First", which is understandable since that is where US interests actually lay.  The US and Britain eventually opened the long-delayed second front in 1944 probably just to stop the Red Army from going all the way to the Atlantic.
 
World War II was always going to be decided by troops, not trucks.  The US and Britain, either cowardly or shrewdly depending on your point of view, outsourced the fighting to the Soviet Union who suffered the greatest losses in history, but won the war against Germany.  At this point in time it behooves us to see clearly by judging the participants on their actions not their promises or propaganda.

Are you a politician? can't even be bothered to read all your reply because again you have not answered my question when you do I will read it


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[CaptHaddock]

10 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Are you a politician? can't even be bothered to read all your reply because again you have not answered my question when you do I will read it


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Never mind.  I am sure it was above your paygrade anyway.

[oldhippy]

14 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

It's hard to respond to a post that is so profoundly confused on many levels.  You have a very emotional response, but many of us find it's easier to understand the course of events with a cold eye.

 

1.  The right to criticize governments and armies is not reserved to soldiers or veterans.

2.  The morality of governments, although an appropriate subject, is not the topic here.  We are discussing the policy decisions of the US government on the conduct of the war and the extent to which they belied both government statements at the time and the public understanding from popular media and propaganda.

3.  You do indeed need a history lesson since you apparently haven't read any. 

4.  All nations fighting WWII made sacrifices and nearly all the combatants in all the major armies fought bravely.  Neither fact, however, ennobles otherwise deplorable war aims or excuses atrocities.  So, that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

5.  The decisive battles of WWI in Europe were Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which the Soviets won.  It's true the the food and Ford trucks (but not the inferior American tanks) contributed by the Americans helped the Red Army.  So, did the Allied invasion of Sicily since it forced Hitler to call off his last offensive in the East in order to divert troops to assist the Italians.  The distinction between a decisive battle and a diversion is nevertheless a fundamental one in military history.

6.  By the time of the Normandy Invasion, in the East the Red Army was rolling up the Wehrmacht which was never again to go on the offensive.  The Invasion itself and even before the Invasion, the threat of an Atlantic invasion forced the Germans to divert troops which could otherwise have been used against the Soviets.  Nevertheless, in war scale matters.  The total Allied casualties of the Normandy Landings were on the order of about 10,000 while the Soviet casualties in Stalingrad are estimated to have been 1.1 million. 

7.  Some Allied army had to take huge casualties to defeat the Germans.  The American and British leadership made sure it wasn't them.  The British leadership undoubtedly recognized that the British Army was no match at all for the Wehrmacht at any time during the war.  As far as I can see, the BA won one battle during the war, El Alamein, although Montgomery subsequently failed unaccountably to destroy the Afrika Corps even though he was in possession of accurate intelligence as to their much reduced tank strength.

 

The American position was articulated by the undistinguished senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, in 1941 as:   "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ."   So, on May 30, 1942 Gen. George Marshall promised Molotov that the US would open a second front in 1942.  The US reneged on that promise.  In the summer of 1942, Churchill went to Moscow and promised the opening of a second front in 1943.  Britain and the US reneged again.  US official policy was "Europe First", but in the event, the actual policy was "the Pacific First", which is understandable since that is where US interests actually lay.  The US and Britain eventually opened the long-delayed second front in 1944 probably just to stop the Red Army from going all the way to the Atlantic.

 

World War II was always going to be decided by troops, not trucks.  The US and Britain, either cowardly or shrewdly depending on your point of view, outsourced the fighting to the Soviet Union who suffered the greatest losses in history, but won the war against Germany.  At this point in time it behooves us to see clearly by judging the participants on their actions not their promises or propaganda.

Are you saying that all those heroic Hollywood movies are just that: fiction movies?

Not examples of well documented historical research?

Some posters' world may collapse after reading this.

 

 

[oldhippy]

14 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Are you a politician? can't even be bothered to read all your reply because again you have not answered my question when you do I will read it


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Please do remind us of what your question was?

Lots of white noise here.

[chezy86]

Please do remind us of what your question was?
Lots of white noise here.

I think some people on here have got a superiority complex well crack on with it keyboard warriors I've enjoyed winding you all up.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

And just to clarify things:

Do you believe that WW1 was between the good guys and the bad guys?

 

[chezy86]

And just to clarify things:

Do you believe that WW1 was between the good guys and the bad guys?

 

Just to clarify things are you on LSD ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

5 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

I think some people on here have got a superiority complex well crack on with it keyboard warriors I've enjoyed winding you all up.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Superiorty complex towards who and that statement is based on what exactly? Please explain.

Winding me up? Noooooo I am having a good laugh. Thanks.

[oldhippy]

3 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Just to clarify things are you on LCD?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

LCD (liquid crystal display) is the technology used for displays in notebook and other smaller computers. Like light-emitting diode (LED) and gas-plasma technologies, LCDs allow displays to be much thinner than cathode ray tube (CRT) technology.

 

Not sure what I am on, I am not a computer freak - I use a laptop now, I am just a user.

Why do you ask?

 

[chezy86]

Superiorty complex towards who and that statement is based on what exactly? Please explain.
Winding me up? Noooooo I am having a good laugh. Thanks.

Good because I've enjoyed it too love a good debate me thanks very much.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

1 minute ago, chezy86 said:

Good because I've enjoyed it too love a good debate me thanks very much.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Actually, I love this debate with you for it's high Python content.

 

 

 

[rockingrobin]

20 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Exactly!

 

The UK has few (any?) legal obligations after it leaves - and so both the UK and  EU rely on getting the best deal possible in the circumstances, to minimise the damage to both sides.

 

And yet the topic headline is the French finance minister saying 'we want our money back'.....  As if the UK hasn't already been a main contributor towards the EU.....

The UK have already acknowledged that obligations exist

Edited July 26, 2017 by rockingrobin

[chezy86]

Same with ThaiVisa, it isn't an inferior forum, it only has inferior posters.

Can't answer so makes derogatory superior remarks "sad" haha


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Khun Han]

And this is what happens when some posters get a free run on a thread! If the posters asked had properly tried to answer the question about what, specifically, the French policician is demanding "back", instead of just trolling away, the thread wouldn't have been completely trashed.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

It's hard to respond to a post that is so profoundly confused on many levels.  You have a very emotional response, but many of us find it's easier to understand the course of events with a cold eye.

 

1.  The right to criticize governments and armies is not reserved to soldiers or veterans.

2.  The morality of governments, although an appropriate subject, is not the topic here.  We are discussing the policy decisions of the US government on the conduct of the war and the extent to which they belied both government statements at the time and the public understanding from popular media and propaganda.

3.  You do indeed need a history lesson since you apparently haven't read any. 

4.  All nations fighting WWII made sacrifices and nearly all the combatants in all the major armies fought bravely.  Neither fact, however, ennobles otherwise deplorable war aims or excuses atrocities.  So, that's pretty much irrelevant to this discussion.

5.  The decisive battles of WWI in Europe were Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which the Soviets won.  It's true the the food and Ford trucks (but not the inferior American tanks) contributed by the Americans helped the Red Army.  So, did the Allied invasion of Sicily since it forced Hitler to call off his last offensive in the East in order to divert troops to assist the Italians.  The distinction between a decisive battle and a diversion is nevertheless a fundamental one in military history.

6.  By the time of the Normandy Invasion, in the East the Red Army was rolling up the Wehrmacht which was never again to go on the offensive.  The Invasion itself and even before the Invasion, the threat of an Atlantic invasion forced the Germans to divert troops which could otherwise have been used against the Soviets.  Nevertheless, in war scale matters.  The total Allied casualties of the Normandy Landings were on the order of about 10,000 while the Soviet casualties in Stalingrad are estimated to have been 1.1 million. 

7.  Some Allied army had to take huge casualties to defeat the Germans.  The American and British leadership made sure it wasn't them.  The British leadership undoubtedly recognized that the British Army was no match at all for the Wehrmacht at any time during the war.  As far as I can see, the BA won one battle during the war, El Alamein, although Montgomery subsequently failed unaccountably to destroy the Afrika Corps even though he was in possession of accurate intelligence as to their much reduced tank strength.

 

The American position was articulated by the undistinguished senator from Missouri, Harry Truman, in 1941 as:   "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ."   So, on May 30, 1942 Gen. George Marshall promised Molotov that the US would open a second front in 1942.  The US reneged on that promise.  In the summer of 1942, Churchill went to Moscow and promised the opening of a second front in 1943.  Britain and the US reneged again.  US official policy was "Europe First", but in the event, the actual policy was "the Pacific First", which is understandable since that is where US interests actually lay.  The US and Britain eventually opened the long-delayed second front in 1944 probably just to stop the Red Army from going all the way to the Atlantic.

 

World War II was always going to be decided by troops, not trucks.  The US and Britain, either cowardly or shrewdly depending on your point of view, outsourced the fighting to the Soviet Union who suffered the greatest losses in history, but won the war against Germany.  At this point in time it behooves us to see clearly by judging the participants on their actions not their promises or propaganda.

Dear Captain,

 

Although your account of the WW2 defeat is somewhat valid, and that I am sure Roosevelt and Churchill were happy that the Germans were happy to see the Germans heavily occupied on their eastern front, there are several points that need to be revised or included.

 

1. That for D Day to be successful only 2.5 years after the Americans entered the war is amazing in itself.

2. The logistical task for (1) was immense and geographically challenging. 

3. The British were occupied in N. Africa or regrouping at home and the Americans were initially rather busy with the Japanese in the Pacific!!

4. But still by 1943 the Allies had commenced the invasion of Italy - enough of a distraction for the Germans to be considered as a second front.

5. The Battle of the Atlantic was not won until 1943. Before that it was too dangerous to transport large quantities of men and materiel to Britain.

6. Several months of training was required for the allied forces in preparation for D-Day, which was not feasible through the winter months 1943/4.

7. Extra time and resources were required during preparation to try to foil the increased number of German spies in the UK.

8. The allies had to wait for good weather (summer months of 1944) to avoid a completely wasteful disaster.

9. By May 1944 the Germans had 58 divisions in northern France, not 10 as you claim.

10. Many of the poor buggers at the German eastern front were killed by freezing cold and hunger - not bullets - and this was Hitler's biggest cock-up.      

[chezy86]

LCD (liquid crystal display) is the technology used for displays in notebook and other smaller computers. Like light-emitting diode (LED) and gas-plasma technologies, LCDs allow displays to be much thinner than cathode ray tube (CRT) technology.
 
Not sure what I am on, I am not a computer freak - I use a laptop now, I am just a user.
Why do you ask?
 

Are you and captain pillock a tag team or are you in a relationship?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

51 minutes ago, chezy86 said:

Are you and captain pillock a tag team or are you in a relationship?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

huh?

 

[CaptHaddock]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Dear Captain,

 

Although your account of the WW2 defeat is somewhat valid, and that I am sure Roosevelt and Churchill were happy that the Germans were happy to see the Germans heavily occupied on their eastern front, there are several points that need to be revised or included.

 

1. That for D Day to be successful only 2.5 years after the Americans entered the war is amazing in itself.

2. The logistical task for (1) was immense and geographically challenging. 

3. The British were occupied in N. Africa or regrouping at home and the Americans were initially rather busy with the Japanese in the Pacific!!

4. But still by 1943 the Allies had commenced the invasion of Italy - enough of a distraction for the Germans to be considered as a second front.

5. The Battle of the Atlantic was not won until 1943. Before that it was too dangerous to transport large quantities of men and materiel to Britain.

6. Several months of training was required for the allied forces in preparation for D-Day, which was not feasible through the winter months 1943/4.

7. Extra time and resources were required during preparation to try to foil the increased number of German spies in the UK.

8. The allies had to wait for good weather (summer months of 1944) to avoid a completely wasteful disaster.

9. By May 1944 the Germans had 58 divisions in northern France, not 10 as you claim.

10. Many of the poor buggers at the German eastern front were killed by freezing cold and hunger - not bullets - and this was Hitler's biggest cock-up.      

Your loyalty is more acute than your insight.

 

1.  If you find it impressive that the Americans were finally able to mount an offensive against the Wehrmacht 2.5 years after entering the war, you must be truly in awe of the Red Army's defensive success in the Battle of Moscow followed by their first successful offensive campaign that pushed back the Germans and nearly succeeded in surrounding three German armies in November, 1941, less that six months after being invaded by the 3.8 million man Axis force and after having already suffered losses of more than one million men by that point, more than double US losses for the entire war in both theaters.  So, really your point is laughable.

 

2.  Yes, D-Day was a large and well-executed amphibious landing, the largest in history, in fact.  But Normandy didn't decide the war, Kursk and Stalingrad did.  Had the Americans failed in the Normandy Landings there is little doubt the Soviets would have won.  And they would probably have only stopped at La Rochelle.

 

3.  The British fought in North Africa to keep control of Suez which was vital for their Empire.  So, it was a rational diversion for them, but Europe was never going to be freed from the Nazis by whatever happened in North Africa.  The British Army was well-advised to stay well away from the main force of the Wehrmacht which would have shredded them.  Gen. George Marshall and other American military leaders considered both North Africa and Italy as sideshows.

 

Despite announcing a "Europe First" strategy, the Americans delayed fighting in Europe for 2.5 years, while they were on the offensive in the Pacific by February, 1942.  The decisive battle in the Pacific was fought in June, 1942.  The reason for the difference is obvious: the US had considerable (colonial) interests in the Pacific.  The Phillippines, Hawaii, Guam, and other islands were outright colonies.  There was a substantial US Pacific Fleet in support of American interests in Asia.  By contrast, prior to World War II the number of US troops in Europe was zero.  So, the US government aggressively pursued its self-interest in sharp violation of their stated position.  Have you never noticed the discrepancy?

 

4.  Italy was at all times a net negative for the German war machine.  It was not the "soft under-belly of Europe" as Churchill claimed since even a successful Allied force was not about to climb over the Alps to get to Germany.  The numbers tell the story: the Red Army was facing 200 German divisions while the Brits and Americans were never facing more than 10 in Italy.  Be serious.

 

5.  The ongoing battle of the Atlantic did not prevent the Americans from sending large convoys to supply the British or, indeed, to support the Soviets in Murmansk which must have been a lot of materiel since the price tag for it ultimately reach $10 billion, more than the cost of Normandy I believe.  It beggars belief that those convoys could not have furnished an invasion force of at least the 170,000 that composed the Normandy Landings.

 

6.   Yadda, yadda, yadda.  Fortunately, the Red Army did not wait for sunny weather to mount an offensive campaign against the Wehrmacht.

 

7.  There were no German spies in Britain during WWII.  MI6 or MI5 or some other MI rounded them all up at the start of the war.  The proof of which is that the Germans never figured out that the real invasion was at Normandy until the second day.

 

8.  Good weather again, eh?

 

9.  The 10 divisions was for German strength in Italy, I believe. 

 

10.  Yes, in the German Armies in the East had substantial non-combat losses.  Your point is what?  That defeating the Soviet defeat of the Nazis was therefore mostly due to weather?  Please.

 

Your arguments are those of someone determined at whatever cost to believe that the US was the main victor in the European war in the face of the huge facts that argue against it.  I would mention that if you care to listen to US military lecturers covering various aspects of WWII online they are quite frank about the Soviets being the ones who defeated Germany.  It's only the average, poorly educated American who clings to the movie images of the forties.

 

The facts are inescapable: the Western democracies, i.e. Britain and France, were saved from Nazi totalitarianism by the heroism and sacrifice of the communists to whom they owe eternal gratitude.

 

 

 

 

[KNJ]

1 minute ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

 

8.  Good weather again, eh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

English summer, ....