Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by The Alpha Bro, Jun 11, 2020.
Have at it lads! Feed me information.
Some time ago there was a big bang, things happened therefore Trump.
British Irish Lions
The First World War was called the Great War and was commenced in the summer of 1914. It was supposed to be over by Xmas but instead they played a football match on Xmas day and
and it ended up dragging on and didn’t end until 11am on 11 November 1918. This was supposed to be the war to end all wars.
Alas how the Allies treated Germany following their defeat and the fall out from the Great Depression, which gave rise to the Nazis and eventually World War II, which lasted from 1939 and ended in Europe on VE Day 8 May 1945. But the war against Japan didn’t end until 15 August 1945 after the dropping of two Atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Once upon a time Ulster were very good. The best of the 4 provinces. It didn't matter that on the world stage the best of the 4 provinces were muck 'cos we were the best.
Then in the late 90s a bunch of upstart kids in Dublin started becoming quite good. Even though the European Cup found its rightful place in 99 there were signs afoot at the dastardly free-stater west brit pale bolloxes preparing to usurp our position.
Soon enough, this started to happen. Typified by some wee brat called O'Driscoll. Then fekkin munster got in on the act too.
We became shít. We became unshit around 2011 but found our shitness again soon after. We're still there. Every other province has won something far more recently than us.
Despite our shitness... we are still good enough to hump Leicester any time they come to town - but that's hardly a high barometer of how good a team you are.
There is no happy ending. No cheesy romance in the middle of this story that works out with the geek getting the girl. Instead we're still trudging through the tunnel with no sight of light at the end.
You're all ********
And your point is?
Sorry spent the evening fishing. Will post tomorrow
I just thought some people might like some light reading.
Ok @Amiga500 you are wrong on Churchill and the contribution to defeating Nazi Germany on a number of points and they are:
Had Churchill not been PM after the fall of France, a Government headed by Halifax would have accepted Hitlers peace terms. This would have meant a government headed up or at least including Oswold Mosley (which should be reason enough to thank Churchill), no Battle of Britain which wiped off a 3rd of the Luftwaffe's strength (which it failed to replace before Barbarossa) and no campaign in the Western Desert but we will come onto that later.
With the British empire still in the war at the end of 1940 Nazi Germany decided to starve them into submission and started the longest campaign of the war: The battle of the Atlantic. Now why was this important and why was Churchill key to it? Well because his cousin happened to be the President of the United States and it was this campaign and Churchill's relationship with Roosevelt that brought America into the war with Germany from a material perspective even before Pearl Harbour which would be possibly the deciding factor of the whole war. Before Pearl Harbour the US navy was engaging the Kriegsmarine in the Atlantic, was supplying the Royal Navy with destroyers and providing air cover from Greenland to the Eastern sea board. None of this would have been possible had it not been Churchill's ability to persuade the President of a very isolationist country to effectively go to war. Yes some Americans like Henry Ford also supplied the Nazi's but Churchill was key to bringing the industrial might of the US into the war, something that would save the Soviet Union from defeat in the coming years.
June 1941 and Nazi Germany invade the Soviet Union and start the biggest, most destructive war in the history of mankind. Now what is often forgotten is the state of the Wehrmacht prior to this invasion. It was short of aircraft (thanks to the Battle of Britain) and its Panzer arm was short of fuel and its tanks were worn out having fought a brief but logistically tough campaign in the Balkans and Greece. This was not a campaign that the Nazi's had wanted to fight but because the pro Nazi government in Yugoslavia had been toppled by a British intelligence led coup (who would not be involved had Britain not still been in the war) and given the strategic importance of the this area Hitler had to intervene also Italy had bungled its invasion of Greece and Commonwealth troops were sent their to assist the Greeks so the Germans had to intervene again. Now both campaigns were over quickly and the performance of the Commonwealth troops were not the best but it delayed the start of Barbarossa and ate up fuel and spare parts that were to make all the difference in the coming months.
In the first 2 months of Barbarossa the Germans inflict a number of cataclysmic defeats on the Red Army. Now Stalin is as much to blame for that as the Germans but even with these losses the Germans are still no closer to defeating the Soviet Union than they were in June. Yes they had captured millions of prisoners and lots of land but the Red Army was still able to field formations so the goal of Barbarossa: the destruction of the red army was still a long way off. Now for all the German success they are starting to have some real problems: They are running out of infantry, casualties are close to 200k which represents 30% of the total infantry numbers ( 3 million Germans invaded the USSR but most of these soldiers would be in support units) this was down to the Red Army so no credit to Mr Churchill there, they had also run out of fuel which you can credit to the earlier campaigns in 1941. Many think that the capture of Moscow would have ended the war in 1941 (Im not one of those people but..) the Germans were not able to do this because by December 1941 the Wehrmacht was in such a poor state in terms of men and materials that the Soviet counter attack outside Moscow almost defeated the Germans in 1941. Now they would have been in a much better position had they had more men (thanks to the red army) more fuel and vehicles (thanks to all the 1941 campaigns not just Babarossa), more aircraft (thanks to the RAF) and the very capable Panzer Division currently tied up in the Western desert.
So the war is into its second year and already the seeds for the Nazi's defeat have been sown. Had the British Empire agreed peace terms with the Nazis then then Hitler would have had a much larger air force, more resources to put towards Barbarossa as they wouldn't have been fighting the Battle of the Atlantic against 2 naval powers and a much fresher and well supplied army to invade the Soviet Union.
But the real key in the early years was getting the material assistance from the Americans who were very very reluctant to get involved in a European war. This was key to the outcome of WWII because without the tanks, materials and in particular the trucks supplied to the Soviet Union then Germany would have not been defeated and the key person in getting that assistance was Churchill. Also keeping Britain in the war meant that the second most important factor in defeating Germany was realised: The breaking of the Enigma code.
Look Churchill was like your least favourite, racist uncle who comes over at christmas, has too much to drink and ****** everyone off but despite all that can be said about him ( and there is much) to say he wasn't a key reason for the defeat of Nazi Germany is wrong and doesn't look at the whole picture in regards the reasons for Hitlers defeat.
Now I would go into the mid and later war years including the stopping of Stalin's plan to execute hundreds of thousands of Germans out of revenge but I am at work so that will have to wait for another time.
Needs to be pointed out FDR and Churchill were 7 cousins once removed. So very, very distantly related and doubt that would have any effect on FDR bringing USA into the war as opposed to a certain Pearl Harbour incident.
As I said, before Pearl Harbour the US Navy was openly engaging German Uboats. Also the US was providing a great deal of material to the British war effort breaking its neutrality. Churchill's personal relationship with FDR was the major factor in this as has been proven by both men's diaries so doubt all you want but FDR was taking a massive gamble supplying the British Empire with war materials. It was something that was deeply unpopular in the US who had no axe to grind with Nazi Germany.
I don’t doubt any of that but just wanted to clarify your point about being cousins and their personal relationship as a result.
We just need to look at George V and his family connection with his cousin the Tsar of Russia how he fecked him and the Romanovs over by not bringing them over to the UK before they got shot by the Bolsheviks. All down to protecting the British Royal family’s position and not being tainted by Bolshevism, spreading through Russia at the time, and bringing it to the UK.
The fact they were actually related did help with the friendship
i would personally dispute that. But hey ho that is history for you. All up to discussion which is what I am after.
ah it wasn't the taint of Bolshevism it was the threat that communists in the UK (and Ireland) wouldn't take kindly to the UK saving Tsar Nick who was a totalitarian ruler (although he was a bit naive and weak and was really only a figurehead for the ruling classes) and there was a real fear in Parliament of revolution here in the UK.
Bolshevism being used interchangeably with Communism. But I think we both made the same point.
I'm really pushed for time right now, so this is not exactly the detailed reply I would like.
Sending John Bryans to Germany to undermine Hitler?
Anyway, even if we take that rather large leap and assume that parliament bowed to one man and swung from a policy of appeasement to war to the death....
The Western Desert was a sideshow - was there ever more than ten divisions deployed in the field?
The Battle of Britain is a point worth debating - the problem with your reasoning is that the Luftwaffe had no trouble obtaining air superiority over the Soviet Airforce in the early days of Barbarossa, and very few ground attack aircraft were committed to attacking England after early sorties showed how vulnerable they were.
Most of the US supplied equipment was unsuitable for use in the Russian climate. About the most valuable thing supplied were jeeps/trucks IIRC.
Everything else is pretty much irrelevant apart from bolded. Was that pivotal? Could the wehrmacht have captured Moscow before the winter of '41 otherwise? Possibly. Would it have mattered in the end? Probably not.
I think you are not grasping the scale of the deployment into Russia (and the Soviet deployment against). The Germans deployed over 130 divisions into Russia at the start of Barbarossa.
Ah look. If army A is ten times bigger than army B, then in a week it will use 10 times the material.
Greece/Yugoslavia lasted about what, 4 weeks? (ignore Crete, its the sideshow of a sideshow) - so judging solely by deployment size - the Germans would have saved themselves approximately 6 days of fuel. Of course, in the cold weather fuel use would be much heavier, not to mention the additional needed due to operating off the end of a single rail spur. So that 6 days is probably more like 3.
The Germans had expected to use ~2.6 million gallons of fuel per day, but found they were actually using 3.4 million gallons per day. I'll say that again. 3.4 million gallons of fuel per day.
To put that in perspective, the largest possible Luftwaffe formations fielded over England was 15th Sept.
Splitting the bombers 50:50 and taking the full fuel capacity of every plane, that adds up to 611,800 gallons... and that was the busiest day of the BoB. Take the average sorties over the duration of BoB and, your likely looking at maybe 10 days additional fuel use in Russia!
I generally don't find History that fun to debate despite it being my field.
But do find this point rather interesting.
Like the fuel, Ammo, Planes, Tanks, Radios, Boots and Food made no difference lol.
I feel like how Russia's effort was underappreciated at schools originally, the internet has now vastly underestimated the allies help with the
History was my favourite subject at school. I didn’t choose to do it at A-level but really enjoyed GCSE and WW1 and understanding the origins of WW2.
I would say growing up in this country I noticed how bloody obsessed this country is with it’s history. You only have to look at papers like the daily fail which glorifies our past/royal family and wishes we still live in the 1950s. I think this kind of mentality was borne out of losing the British empire and not having a proper identity, which is partly why we are where we are today.
It’s ironic that countries like Germany and Japan have progressed where they are today despite their horrific history instead of being stuck in the past like Britain has IMO.
It’s always harder too look back at history when you are not the so called “winners” especially with the global attention WW2 got.
Hence why a lot of the allies tend to be stuck on it whereas the Axis/More neutral governments.
Also got to remember that Britain especially got hit hard after the war, the government used it as propaganda to try and keep the masses content to some extent and it’s basically stuck since then.
Thought this was an interesting read and the documentary should be worth a watch.
Separate names with a comma.