Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

maryishere · 16-01-2017 10:33PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You stole someone else's knowledge.

Its not someone elses knowledge, its a shortened history lesson of Norways ties to the UK, during WW2 and since WW2. I was wrong about something though, as I was relying on my memory...I said " Ever since 1945, the Norwegian governments presents the UK with a massive tall Christmas tree each year, which is displayed in Leicester Sq, London"

Actually "The Trafalgar Square Christmas tree is a Christmas tree donated to the people of Britain by the city of Oslo, Norway each year since 1947."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Square_Christmas_tree

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2017 10:36PM

maryishere wrote: »

Its not someone elses knowledge, its a shortened history lesson of Norways ties to the UK, during WW2 and since WW2. I was wrong about something though, as I was relying on my memory...I said " Ever since 1945, the Norwegian governments presents the UK with a massive tall Christmas tree each year, which is displayed in Leicester Sq, London"

Actually "The Trafalgar Square Christmas tree is a Christmas tree donated to the people of Britain by the city of Oslo, Norway each year since 1947."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Square_Christmas_tree

You are denying you copied from that site now?
Jaysus. Good luck.

maryishere · 16-01-2017 10:38PM

You would be better off trying to learn a little bit of history....maybe one day you will. You fail to appreciate that lots of neutral countries were invaded by the Nazis during WW2. As I said before, if it was not for the British Army we would be speaking German now, our jews,disabled, homosexual, gypsies/travellers etc would have been sent to extermination camps and the rest of our menfolk would have got work on the autobahn to the far east. Hopefully conditions would have been better that the conditions for foreign slave workers in Germany in ww2.

FrancieBrady · 16-01-2017 11:47PM

maryishere wrote: »

You would be better off trying to learn a little bit of history....maybe one day you will. You fail to appreciate that lots of neutral countries were invaded by the Nazis during WW2. As I said before, if it was not for the British Army we would be speaking German now, our jews,disabled, homosexual, gypsies/travellers etc would have been sent to extermination camps and the rest of our menfolk would have got work on the autobahn to the far east. Hopefully conditions would have been better that the conditions for foreign slave workers in Germany in ww2.

And maybe we would have turfed them out like the last batch of expansionists and plunderers?
Or maybe America would have come to our rescue too?

Sure it only costs a Christmas Tree.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 12:25AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And maybe we would have turfed them out like the last batch of expansionists and plunderers?

The Nazi killed millions from countries it invaded, a point lost on you.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or maybe America would have come to our rescue too?

The Americans were not impressed we would not even allow use of a port / airport to help them defend their ships crossing the Atlantic from the U - boat menace: according to Wiki, between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships (totalling 14.5 million gross tons) and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure it only costs a Christmas Tree.

even a 200 ft one.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:33AM

maryishere wrote: »

The Nazi killed millions from countries it invaded, a point lost on you.

And the British didn't on their numerous imperial jaunts? How many did Churchill account for before he got the career saving chance to bathe in glory? (When it was America that did the saving? Which cost the British a bit more than a Christmas tree since)

he Americans were not impressed we would not even allow use of a port / airport to help them defend their ships crossing the Atlantic from the U - boat menace: according to Wiki, between 1939 and 1945, 3,500 Allied merchant ships (totalling 14.5 million gross tons) and 175 Allied warships were sunk and some 72,200 Allied naval and merchant seamen lost their lives.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

The yanks got over it quick enough.
Are you telling us they would have liberated Europe and left a German enclave here????
Your sycophantic rubbish has hit a brick wall of basic logic again.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 12:44AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you telling us me they would have liberated Europe and left a German enclave here????

I'm telling you that if it was not for the British (who you clearly detest) standing up to Hitler during the second world war, the Nazis would have secured western Europe and the most likely outcome in such a scenario would be it sueing for peace with the USA, who would have been unable to launch a beach-head in western Europe on their own anyway.

You do realise the Nazis invaded neutral countries, carted off its minorities to extermination camps etc?

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 12:52AM

maryishere wrote: »

I'm telling you that if it was not for the British (who you clearly detest) standing up to Hitler during the second world war, the Nazis would have secured western Europe and the most likely outcome in such a scenario would be it sueing for peace with the USA, who would have been unable to launch a beach-head in western Europe on their own anyway.

You do realise the Nazis invaded neutral countries, carted off its minorities to extermination camps etc?

What ifs, Mary. They didn't for multitudes of reasons. One of them being, the people of Europe standing up to them.
And if some people stand up for long enough they will throw off any oppressor, Roman, Greek, British and German.
Fact- history proves it.

Germany didn't have any need to invade us and didn't again for many reasons.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 01:11AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Germany didn't have any need to invade us and didn't again for many reasons.

I did not say Germany had a reason to invade us, as the UK was in the way. However, if it invaded the UK (inc N. Ireland), -it had plans to do so - then it would also almost certainly also have occupied the 26 counties, for obvious reasons.

As said before, and i quote"Several countries suffered invasions in spite of their efforts to be neutral. These included Nazi Germany's invasion of Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940—then Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940". Nazi Germany was no observer of neutrality, and carted off jews, disabled, gays, gypsies etc from those countries to its extermination camps. And used others as slave labour. I wonder how long you - have you been of suitable age then- would have lasted as a slave labourer on its autobahn to the far east?

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 01:19AM

I didn't even read that. The war is over. If you are still indulging in 'what if's' in honour of your heroes, I'm sure you can find a thread to do that with somebody who gives a damn what you think might have happened.

The world has moved on, big bad America is over it's huff about ports and so is the UK, in fact they were over it long before I and probably you were born.
Save for youself and a few hacks nobody thinks of it as anything more than a minor storm in a very brutal war in which we sacrificed much and would have sacrificed much more if we hadn't had a leader playing a blinder for once in his career.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 01:22AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't even read that. The war is over. If you are still indulging in 'what if's' in honour of your heroes, I'm sure you can find a thread to do that with somebody who gives a damn what you think might have happened.

The world has moved on, big bad America is over it's huff about ports and so is the UK, in fact they were over it long before I and probably you were born.
Save for youself and a few hacks nobody thinks of it as anything more than a minor storm in a very brutal war in which we sacrificed much and would have sacrificed much more if we hadn't had a leader playing a blinder for once in his career.

I didn't even read that. Find someone to cry in to your cup that Sean Russell was a great IRA lad and them nice Nazi fellows ( who he tried to callaborate with) would have got rid of the Brits for us.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 01:31AM

maryishere wrote: »

I didn't even read that. Find someone to cry in to your cup that Sean Russell was a great IRA lad and them nice Nazi fellows ( who he tried to callaborate with) would have got rid of the Brits for us.

When you get a minute have a look at some of the most tyrannical regimes and leaders your heroes have worked with over the years. Or the personal friendships PM's had.
See if you can stay on that horse.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 01:38AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you get a minute have a look at some of the most tyrannical regimes and leaders your heroes have worked with over the years. Or the personal friendships PM's had.
See if you can stay on that horse.

What "heroes" or leaders are you on about? What countries even? Norway, Australia, Canada, UK, Ireland...and what leaders do you mean? No country ever was perfect, far from it. All leaders also had their good points and bad points. I feel sorry for you.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 01:48AM

maryishere wrote: »

What "heroes" or leaders are you on about? What countries even? Norway, Australia, Canada, UK, Ireland...and what leaders do you mean? No country ever was perfect, far from it. All leaders also had their good points and bad points. I feel sorry for you.

Oh, you don't like being reminded of some of Britain's friends do you?

No country is entirely bad, but the history of expansionist imperialistic ones are worse than others, which, makes me wonder how somebody from a country that was trampled on by an empire can go fight for a country which still likes to control and profit from other areas of the globe and will kill to achieve that.

maryishere · 17-01-2017 01:56AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Oh, you don't like being reminded of some of Britain's friends do you?

Makes no difference if you remind me of Britain's friends, or Japan's friends, or Russia's friends, or Germany's friends, or France's friends etc.

All big countries have friends.
All little countries like ours have them as well - it was the UK, EU and IMF which rescued us financially when the country was bust a few years ago.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No country is entirely bad, but the history of expansionist imperialistic ones are worse than others, which, makes me wonder how somebody from a country that was trampled on by an empire can go fight for a country which still likes to control and profit from other areas of the globe and will kill to achieve that.

Who was going to go and fight and kill to achieve that? lol.
Them nasty expansionist imperialistic countries, attracting "mercenaries" as you call them. Your idol IRA man Sean Russell done the right thing in trying to collaborate with Nazi Germany.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 02:00AM

That

maryishere wrote: »

Makes no difference if you remind me of Britain's friends, or Japan's friends, or Russia's friends, or Germany's friends, or France's friends etc.

All big countries have friends.
All little countries like ours have them as well - it was the UK, EU and IMF which rescued us financially when the country was bust a few years ago.

Who was going to go and fight and kill to achieve that? lol.
Them nasty expansionist imperialistic countries, attracting "mercenaries" as you call them. Your idol IRA man Sean Russell done the right thing in trying to collaborate with Nazi Germany.

Sean Russell took advantage of the enemy of his enemy. Big deal.

Sean Russell is dead, the war is over. Frankly I don't give a hoot what he did or you think he did.

PS that is the first time I typed his name on this thread, so how you know he is my 'idol' I have no idea. That scattergun you use on enemies of de realm needs a service!

maryishere · 17-01-2017 02:18AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sean Russell took advantage of the enemy of his enemy. Big deal.

Sean Russell is dead, the war is over. Frankly I don't give a hoot what he did

Sean Russell was a senior member and chief of staff of the IRA. He is the first of your beloved IRA men you now say you don't give a hoot what he did.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 02:23AM

maryishere wrote: »

Sean Russell was a senior member and chief of staff of the IRA. He is the first of your beloved IRA men you now say you don't give a hoot what he did.

No, I don't. I don't have any beloved IRA men or FF or FG men either.

But you keep inventing stuff there all you want. You clearly are afraid of the thread topic, so, yet again, I will leave you to deflect on your own.

Junkyard Tom · 17-01-2017 02:34AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.....

maryishere · 17-01-2017 02:37AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't have any beloved IRA men

But you have supported their actions / thought they were great lads and lassies.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 02:46AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yep, about sums it up alright. Want a Christmas tree?

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2017 09:51AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many did Churchill account for before he got the career saving chance to bathe in glory?

give up, how many?

(you have no idea, do you)

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 10:36AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

give up, how many?

(you have no idea, do you)

It will probably take Irish sycophants a few decades to catch up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

maryishere · 17-01-2017 10:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will probably take Irish sycophants a few decades to catch up.

You still have not answered the simple question, how many. You have no idea, have you?

As someone else said, " The inescapable fact is that had it not been for Winston Churchill, Hitler would have turned Europe and perhaps England into his own long killing field. Winston also prevented an early invasion of Europe by the Allies because he foresaw the debacles evidenced by the chaotic beach landings of Operation Torch by an inexperienced American force. Winston was the Hero of the last 100 years, albeit he was steeped in the values of his time. His ability to think laterally was a rare trait then and now."

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 10:55AM

maryishere wrote: »

You still have not answered the simple question, how many. You have no idea, have you?

Does anybody know, all we know is that it was a vast number and that his great regret was probably not getting to use poison gas on somebody, he also advocated it's use in Germany and Europe. But was talked out of it.

As someone else said, " The inescapable fact is that had it not been for Winston Churchill, Hitler would have turned Europe and perhaps England into his own long killing field. Winston also prevented an early invasion of Europe by the Allies because he foresaw the debacles evidenced by the chaotic beach landings of Operation Torch by an inexperienced American force. Winston was the Hero of the last 100 years, albeit he was steeped in the values of his time. His ability to think laterally was a rare trait then and now."

He was a hero?
You have curious hero's.
As I said, he got lucky and saved his career by having a 'good war' overall.

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2017 10:58AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It will probably take Irish sycophants a few decades to catch up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

so he was a soldier.

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2017 11:04AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Does anybody know, all we know is that it was a vast number and that his great regret was probably not getting to use poison gas on somebody, he also advocated it's use in Germany and Europe. But was talked out of it.

Winston Churchill wrote:

Nothing could be more repugnant to our feelings than the use of poison gas, but there is no logic at all behind the argument that it is quite proper in war to lay a man low with high-explosive shell, fragments of which inflict poisonous and festering wounds, and altogether immoral to give him a burn with corrosive gas or make him cough and sneeze or otherwise suffer through his respiratory organs. There is no logical distinction.…The attitude of the British Government has always been to abhor the employment of poison gas. As I understand it, our only procedure is to keep alive such means of studying this subject as shall not put us at a hopeless disadvantage if, by any chance, it were used against us by other people

He wasn't talked out of it, because he only threatened its use in retaliation if it was used first, which it wasn't.

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 11:08AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so he was a soldier.

FOr a while he 'had great fun galloping about' killing 'savages', yes.
But he was Colonial Secretary from the 20's.Harrow and Sandhurst boys rise quickly to the top.

Fratton Fred · 17-01-2017 11:12AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FOr a while he 'had great fun galloping about' killing 'savages', yes.
But he was Colonial Secretary from the 20's.Harrow and Sandhurst boys rise quickly to the top.

and?

FrancieBrady · 17-01-2017 11:20AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He wasn't talked out of it, because he only threatened its use in retaliation if it was used first, which it wasn't.

Seems somebody disputes that one too Fred.

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons

As soon as he gained power in May 1940, Churchill considered using chemical weapons. He changed his mind when informed by military intelligence that Germany was capable of dropping three of four times more chemical bombs than Britain. However, plans were put in place to use gas-warfare if Adolf Hitler ordered an invasion of Britain. On 30th May, 1940, he told the Cabinet "we should not hesitate to contaminate our beaches with gas". By the end of September, with the invasion scare over, he decided against first use of the weapon. He instructed General Hastings Ismay, his Chief of Staff, that stocks should be maintained: "I am deeply anxious that gas warfare should not be adopted at the present time... We should never begin but we must be able to reply."

http://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html

i.e. He changed or had his mind changed.

My last word on your Hero are his own words:

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."

Recruitment for British army soars in Republic of Ireland

Comments