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

[SheungWan]

5 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

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.

 

Looks like this thread has mutated into an Old Stalinist fan club.

[oldhippy]

27 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Looks like this thread has mutated into an Old Stalinist fan club.

why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

16 hours ago, Richard W said:

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".

 

Correct; and I'm sure that the terminology of all the other member states' own individual regulations is very similar; although I haven't checked.

 

But I was not posting about the UK's Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, it's predecessors nor the equivalent regulations in any other member state. Which is why I made no mention of them!

 

I was posting about the Freedom of Movement Directive itself; as should have been clear as that is the only document I referred to!

 

As you should know, the regulations of each member state are there to bring the provisions of the directive, as amended by ECJ judgements etc., into that member state's national law. Obviously, whether and how the UK's EEA regulations, which you link to, will be amended, or even removed completely, post Brexit depends upon what agreement over free movement is reached between the UK and EU in the negotiations.

 

But the point of my original post was to show that contrary to the belief of the poster I was responding to, a belief shared by many, the EU has no control nor say over an individual member state's immigration law and policy regarding non EEA nationals; unless, as said, the non EEA national is a qualifying family member of an EEA national.

 

The Schengen Agreement has some say; but, as you know, the UK is not a member of the Schengen Area and a Schengen visa does not allow entry to the UK.

 

The point of my original post being that the myth that EU membership means that the UK has no control at all over it's borders and the entry to the UK of migrants from non EEA countries is just that: a myth.

 

 

[7by7]

Can someone tell me why a topic about Brexit in general, and the UK's financial responsibilities or otherwise towards the EU, contains a lengthy argument about the Second World War?

[oldhippy]

 

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Can someone tell me why a topic about Brexit in general, and the UK's financial responsibilities or otherwise towards the EU, contains a lengthy argument about the Second World War?

Because a poster suggested that the UK owes the EU nothing, since it was the UK that saved Europe from the Nazis.

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

Your loyalty is more acute than your insight. Not a question of loyalty. 

 

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. Laugh all you want. US response impressive, Russian even more so.

 

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. Where did I say that the Normandy landings actually decided the outcome of the war?

 

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. More than a diversion, the British armed forces had to secure oil supplies. The Americans had plenty but shipping it incurred high losses and low supply.

 

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? The Yanks also had to try to contain Japan and mobilize forces in the meantime.

 

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. Ten in Italy in 1943 but had to withdraw enough from the eastern front to boost their French divisions to 58 by 1944.

 

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. A lot of materiel sent, yes, and a lot lost. But they rightly delayed sending most troops across until the U-boats were cleared out.    

 

6.   Yadda, yadda, yadda.  Fortunately, the Red Army did not wait for sunny weather to mount an offensive campaign against the Wehrmacht. The Red army did not have to cross the English Channel and land with enough men left alive to make the invasion workable. You have not considered the maritime aspect at all.

 

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. No spies? Really? Anyway, Operation Bodyguard secured the secret well enough.

 

8.  Good weather again, eh? Of course it was necessary for the best chance of success. Be serious .

 

9.  The 10 divisions was for German strength in Italy, I believe. Yes 10 in Italy but 58 in France pre D-Day, see (4) above .  

 

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. The point is that the weather hugely favoured the Russian Army who could retreat and keep warmer in their Mongolian winter outfits. 

 

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. 

Your summation and opinion of me are wrong and I am not American either.

 

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. Might it not be that the Russian main aim was self-preservation, rather than saving Britain and France ??

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by nauseus

[nauseus]

49 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Can someone tell me why a topic about Brexit in general, and the UK's financial responsibilities or otherwise towards the EU, contains a lengthy argument about the Second World War?

Fair comment. I'll stop. Captain Birdseye started it!

[Retiredandhappyhere]

On 7/20/2017 at 10:35 PM, tomacht8 said:

Understand.

But why it is a dysfunctional marriage?

The UK has nevertheless profited very well in the standard of living. The uk is located at one of the top places of the EU with one of the highest income per inhabitant in the whole EU.

If I were to be offered a position with a great salary and alternatively have the opportunity to be my own boss, I would choose to be my own boss.  That is how the majority of Brits feel....hence the referendum result.   Some people find it incredibly difficult to understand the concept that, sometimes, just sometimes, it is NOT always about money. 

[Grouse]

6 hours 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.      

7. Is not correct

 

You also forgot Bletchley 

[chezy86]

huh?
 

Well you write something and Captain Birdseye likes it then he writes something and you like it so thought you might be a couple of commies in bed together.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[oldhippy]

Just now, chezy86 said:

Well you write something and Captain Birdseye likes it then he writes something and you like it so thought you might be a couple of commies in bed together.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

huh?

 

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

huh?

 

Know anymore palindromes?

[oldhippy]

Just now, vogie said:

Know anymore palindromes?

aha

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.  

[oldhippy]

Until there is a list with items + amounts, all this is just a power game between politicians.

And alas, the sheople take it seriously.

As this thread proves.

 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

7. Is not correct

 

You also forgot Bletchley 

8 1/2 out of 10 then? 

[SheungWan]

8 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

If I were to be offered a position with a great salary and alternatively have the opportunity to be my own boss, I would choose to be my own boss.  That is how the majority of Brits feel....hence the referendum result.   Some people find it incredibly difficult to understand the concept that, sometimes, just sometimes, it is NOT always about money. 

Reads like a losers' convention.

Edited July 26, 2017 by SheungWan

[nontabury]

On July 27, 2017 at 4:30 AM, SheungWan said:

Reads like a losers' convention.

Perhaps it can be interperate as a losers convention, by a loser.

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

Perhaps it can be interperate as a losers convention, by a loser.

Well maybe if you could use 'interperate' as a winning move on Scrabble.

[SheungWan]

On 26/07/2017 at 0:23 PM, 7by7 said:

Can someone tell me why a topic about Brexit in general, and the UK's financial responsibilities or otherwise towards the EU, contains a lengthy argument about the Second World War?

Its called 'deflection'. However there is an underlying resentment from some of those of a certain age of Britain's place and position in the world which can be neatly underlined with ' Two World Wars and One World Cup' which gets triggered whenever the words France or Germany enter a conversation. It is a comfort blanket which holds little attraction for young urbanites: cue further resentment.