I have enjoyed robust debates with you in the past about whole manner of things. They’ve been largely fun, you say what you think and do not hide behind mealy mouth weasel words… or at least you used not to. Now I see you have taken to trying to profess your “innocence” when it comes to stupid comments designed to inflame. You’ve tried it here, but rather forgot and let slip your real motivation half way through your post – whoops.
1. You are curious with all the “British lingo”? No you are not, you know exactly what I am saying. Balls are balls whether this side of the Atlantic or your side. And you talk one hell of a lot balls.
2. I see you have learnt the words “Straw and man” recently and put the two together. Well done. They have nothing to do with my posts, but you seem to think by using this new found couple of words you can appear the voice of reason.
3.
I will admit that when it comes to WWII history I have a lot to learn
– correct, and then some.
There is a lot for everyone to learn
- also correct, it is the biggest event in World history, massive, it is so interesting, there are so many facets, its an incredible subject.
For anyone to think they know it all is just crazy
– yep, steady on that’s three sensible things in a row you’ve said. This won’t last.
4.
I admit one of my weakest points in WWII is anything about the CW.
Yes, I think that is quite evident.
So when I make a 12 word one sentence comment at post #2410, its because I notice again a pattern, a personal observation
... Okay, but would it not help to have made a point? A 12 word sentence about the use of Commonwealth troops – then mentioning defeats and tough assignments - when added to the “ass wiping” comment that you so unintelligently put up about Gallipoli makes for one likely conclusion. But as I said above, you see what you are doing? Denying that you meant any offence so that you sound all reasonable like. Now let’s see what’s coming…
perhaps out of ignorance.
No, not really, its more trollish than ignorant as we shall see.
5. More straw man ^&*$.
6. Well you don’t know about Mel Gibson. Allow me to enlighten you. Mel Gibson – a half decent actor but sadly now better known for being a rabid anti-semite and allegedly a woman beater who likes to make crappy “historical” haha films that put the English/British in a bad light. A bit like many of your posts.
7.
don't tell me you thought I was referring to the Canadians as ANZAC. Good grief.
Given your comment about republican Australia pray tell why I would be wrong for thinking that?
8. More pathetic straw man references follow then…..
the British seem to use their CW allies in a reckless way
Now we are getting there. Why waffle on with all that “straw man” rubbish when you later confirm that is exactly what you are meaning? Please see my earlier answer, you seem to have not bothered to read it. a) The British were not free to use Dominion troops in any way they saw fit b) how many divisions do you think the Commonwealth had? You think the British used the Dominion troops recklessly while what? The British troops were sat drinking tea on the beach at Suvla? As Jeffk pointed out – but again you probably didn’t bother reading, the British provided a lot of the armour and motorised units, most of the navy, most of the airforce – and for some operations most/many of the troops. As things panned out historically long before the end of the war the Royal Navy were laying off ships, the Army was amalgamating units because there were not enough replacements. WWII was a life and death struggle. The country was on a total war footing and, unlike the Germans they didn’t have a massive pool of slave labour to use in their factories and down the mines.
9. You want to know percentages? For what purpose? Troops were used as availability and requirements dictated. You think the British were purposely reckless with Commonwealth lives because there was some ulterior motive? And you prove this by quoting episodes that were largely fool-hardy and/or dangerous?? Newsflash - in the first years of the war with the British still trying to get to grips with the war (and stop treating it like bloody amateur hour) practically ALL operations were fool-hardy AND dangerous. We lost men with every sorry retreat. An exception was the defeat of the Italians during Compass (and that didn’t last). But otherwise, Norway, France, Greece, The Western Desert generally, Singapore, Burma – it was one calamity after another. You think the British were reckless with the Greek campaign? Damn right, it was folly – but then so was Norway. The ANZACS were at one and not the other – you see, no pattern. THERE WAS NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE. There is no smoking gun.
10. Then we come to your view of how the Empire worked, where the Monarchy fitted in and, best of all, the fact that the Dominions are now independent republics. I wouldn’t even know where to start with this er… view….so I will move on to save your embarrassment.
11. Now it all gets really silly – you admit once again what you were at such pains to profess your innocence about earlier with
And yes, it is my perception that the British like to "wipe their upper-class bottoms with filthy little colonials".
So you learned a lot from the Gallipoli thread then? Then we come to 1781 and 1814 – oh boy you are really warming to your subject now aren’t you? Shame you don't actually understand the point - much less what those were about. More rubbish follows on the fact you did not see a need for the Dominions to get involved with a war against Hitler. Blah, blah, blah Oh I say, a bit of FDR bashing for good measure. Well done again.
12. Ah and now its WWII Word Search!!!! You brought up Monty! Well done!! 100 points for that one. And wait for it – more straw men. This nonsense is absolutely priceless. Actually its not – its really rather sad.
