|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32466 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Lawrie L"what policy do BNP actually have?'"
Type BNP into google and have a look at their web site, their manifesto from the last election is on there - go on, have a laugh, it was written on the back of a beer mat during a late night lock-in at their local. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert"Very good example of revisionism. Most people fought in WW2 because they were conscripted and had no choice - not for any grand notion of defending freedom.
Which is interesting relative to Nick Griffin's claims in the BNP broadcast that was clearly aimed at semi senile pensioners claiming that war graves had British names on because it was British that did the bulk of the fighting liberating Europe.
Leaving aside the small contributions made by Uncles Sam and Joe, most of the 'British' troops weren't British - they were Poles, Czechs, French, Greeks etc as well as white commonwealth troops and principally nasty darkie types who'd actually volunteered to fight for the mother country. The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in Norway and France - in every campaign after that Johnny Foreigner from occupied territories, colonial types and swarthy looking volunteers made up the bulk of the troops.'" The point I was making actually was that WWII was not really about protecting L4L's right to vote.
What about the Battle of Britain? A seminal moment in WWII and a crucial victory achieved, against all odds, by the very British, very white RAF pilots and thank goodness it was.
Your post is as guilty of racism as any, criminally disparaging the role played by Caucasian British troops who were, remember, involved right from the outset.
How dare you Mr Aubert. How very dare you. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 35189 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2023 | Jun 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="McLaren_Field"Type BNP into google and have a look at their web site, their manifesto from the last election is on there - go on, have a laugh, it was written on the back of a beer mat during a late night lock-in at their local.'"
Just looked
dear god  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"The point I was making actually was that WWII was not really about protecting L4L's right to vote.
What about the Battle of Britain? A seminal moment in WWII and a crucial victory achieved, against all odds, by the very British, very white RAF pilots and thank goodness it was.
Your post is as guilty of racism as any, criminally disparaging the role played by Caucasian British troops who were, remember, involved right from the outset.
How dare you Mr Aubert. How very dare you.'"
Ah, the Battle of Britain.
You've got me there. All done by white British pilots.
With just a smidgeon of help from the Polish, Czech, French, Canadian, Kiwi, Aussie, Jamaican, Belgian, South African, Rhodesian, American volunteer, Irish volunteer, Palestinian and Indian airman that also fought. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert"Ah, the Battle of Britain.
You've got me there. All done by white British pilots.
With just a smidgeon of help from the Polish, Czech, French, Canadian, Kiwi, Aussie, Jamaican, Belgian, South African, Rhodesian, American volunteer, Irish volunteer, Palestinian and Indian airman that also fought.'" [urlhttp://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/header.gif[/url
Quote 'The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain. Each flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940. 544 lost their lives during the period of the Battle, and these are marked by an asterisk. A further 791 were killed in action or died in the course of their duties before the wars end, which is also noted.'"
You took issue that it was the the British that "did the Bulk of the fighting". I mentioned a specific battle. In that battle 2353 British men fought and 574 other nationalities. Is that not the "Bulk"?
You were as guilty as Griffin with your misinformation. Your statements that "most of the 'British' troops weren't British" and "The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in Norway and France" were woefully inn accurate in relation to the one battle that immidietly sprang to my mind without researching the proposition. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert" The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in Norway'" What's your source fir this?
Some quick research found this
[urlhttp://www.worldwar2database.com/html/norway.htm[/url
Quote The French and the British, both reeling form the defeat at Norway, pledged not make a separate peace with Germany. This agreement would have serious implications two months later after the Germans invaded France.'" |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert" The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in ..... France'" Again, what's your basis for this?
[urlhttp://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/francedefeat.htm[/url
Quote It took only six weeks for France to capitulate to the German invaders. A stunning defeat - particularly since before the war the French army was considered the most powerful in Europe.
France's vaunted Maginot Line failed to hold back the Nazi onslaught and the German Blitzkrieg poured into France.'"
[urlhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/3.htm[/url
Quote Ultimately, the French defeat in the 1940 Campaign is attributed to her ill-conceived strategy which was based on fallacious assumptions, her poorly-led military forces, and her obsolete tactical and operational-level doctrines which were inadequate for the mobile war Germany thrust upon her in 1940.'"
[urlhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3IeGuqVcUGIC&dq=The+1940+defeat+in+France&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=-fIuStWUJqKZjAew4_CbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11[/url
Read the final 2 paragraphs on page 10.
I might add. I have no indepth knowledge of these subject but thougt your claims strange so did some very brief research.
If you could highlight the source material that supports your claims and refutes the material I have accessed over the last half an hour I would be grateful. Unless, of course, you made a baseless sweeping statement dressed up as fact. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32466 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Pull up a chair and bring a good book everyone.
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"[urlhttp://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/header.gif[/url
You took issue that it was the the British that "did the Bulk of the fighting". I mentioned a specific battle. In that battle 2353 British men fought and 574 other nationalities. Is that not the "Bulk"?
You were as guilty as Griffin with your misinformation. Your statements that "most of the 'British' troops weren't British" and "The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in Norway and France" were woefully inn accurate in relation to the one battle that immidietly sprang to my mind without researching the proposition.'"
Whilst you are correct in your maths in your rush to bolster your hero's claims you've misunderstood the fundamental words in my statement a little.
The two key words are 'troops' (indicating ground units) and, rather more pertinently, 'campaigns'. The Battle of Britain was not a campaign; it was, as it's name rather gives away, a battle. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4482 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2015 | Feb 2010 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="McLaren_Field"Pull up a chair and bring a good book everyone.'"
Will it keep me awake? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="G1"Again, what's your basis for this?
[urlhttp://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/francedefeat.htm[/url
[urlhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/3.htm[/url
[urlhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3IeGuqVcUGIC&dq=The+1940+defeat+in+France&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=-fIuStWUJqKZjAew4_CbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11[/url
Read the final 2 paragraphs on page 10.
I might add. I have no indepth knowledge of these subject but thougt your claims strange so did some very brief research.
If you could highlight the source material that supports your claims and refutes the material I have accessed over the last half an hour I would be grateful. Unless, of course, you made a baseless sweeping statement dressed up as fact.'"
I'm not really sure what you're trying to show here.
It may be that your haste has been your undoing again. I do hope you are not employed in a position where comprehension of the English language and diligence are desireable characteristics.
In both campaigns the bulk of the troops [iunder British command [/iwere indeed British, just as I previously stated. The fact that in Norway there were French (and Polish too) doesn't alter the validity of my statement. In France in 1940 British troops may have been significantly in a minority but the only troops under British command were, again, British.
If, however, you wish to have a discussion on the reasons for the defeat in France in 1940 I would be pleased to enlighten.
In terms of source material I'd recommend this for an interesting analysis of the British Army's performance during world war two:
www.amazon.co.uk/We-Shall-Shock- ... 543&sr=8-1 |
|
Quote ="G1"Again, what's your basis for this?
[urlhttp://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/francedefeat.htm[/url
[urlhttp://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_1/3.htm[/url
[urlhttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3IeGuqVcUGIC&dq=The+1940+defeat+in+France&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=-fIuStWUJqKZjAew4_CbCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11[/url
Read the final 2 paragraphs on page 10.
I might add. I have no indepth knowledge of these subject but thougt your claims strange so did some very brief research.
If you could highlight the source material that supports your claims and refutes the material I have accessed over the last half an hour I would be grateful. Unless, of course, you made a baseless sweeping statement dressed up as fact.'"
I'm not really sure what you're trying to show here.
It may be that your haste has been your undoing again. I do hope you are not employed in a position where comprehension of the English language and diligence are desireable characteristics.
In both campaigns the bulk of the troops [iunder British command [/iwere indeed British, just as I previously stated. The fact that in Norway there were French (and Polish too) doesn't alter the validity of my statement. In France in 1940 British troops may have been significantly in a minority but the only troops under British command were, again, British.
If, however, you wish to have a discussion on the reasons for the defeat in France in 1940 I would be pleased to enlighten.
In terms of source material I'd recommend this for an interesting analysis of the British Army's performance during world war two:
www.amazon.co.uk/We-Shall-Shock- ... 543&sr=8-1 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32466 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ouzo"Will it keep me awake?'"
A Lawyer vs a History Professor
What do you think  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 4482 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jul 2006 | 19 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2015 | Feb 2010 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="McLaren_Field"A Lawyer vs a History Professor
What do you think
'"
Zzzzzzzzzzz. Eh....Wassat.......burrp......fart.......Zzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ouzo"Zzzzzzzzzzz. Eh....Wassat.......burrp......fart.......Zzzzzzzzzzzzz'"
Oaf. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert"Whilst you are correct in your maths in your rush to bolster your hero's claims you've misunderstood the fundamental words in my statement a little.
'" Rather emotive and defensive language for such a debate?
Quote
The two key words are 'troops' (indicating ground units) and, rather more pertinently, 'campaigns'. The Battle of Britain was not a campaign; it was, as it's name rather gives away, a battle.'" Ah, I see.
Do you think the French surrender that took six weeks was a campaign or a battle? The Battle of Britain lasted 3 and a half months.
BTW, the french surrender of 1940 is described as a battle [url=http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/5/14/55627/2665here[/url.
I don't really think I misunderstood what you were saying however we debate the meaning of "troops" of "campaign". Noticeably, your initial response to my Battle of Britain example was not to take issue with the terminology but to point out that non British troops also fought. When I point out the numbers involved you adopt the DISA method diverting the discussion to definitions of Battles and Troops. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Puig-Aubert"I'm not really sure what you're trying to show here.
'" I am not trying to show anything. You made some statements which I found rather surprising. I simply wanted to check their validity. I do some very brief research which cast a little doubt upon your statements. All I did was ask you for your sources.
Quote It may be that your haste has been your undoing again. I do hope you are not employed in a position where comprehension of the English language and diligence are desireable characteristics.'" Another emotive and irrelevant sentence. Am I having a discussion with Bywater here?
Quote In both campaigns the bulk of the troops [iunder British command [/iwere indeed British, just as I previously stated. The fact that in Norway there were French (and Polish too) doesn't alter the validity of my statement. In France in 1940 British troops may have been significantly in a minority but the only troops under British command were, again, British.'" Yes. But that was only part of a paragraph. This bit preceded it.
Quote most of the 'British' troops weren't British - they were Poles, Czechs, French, Greeks etc as well as white commonwealth troops and principally nasty darkie types who'd actually volunteered to fight for the mother country. '" Again, I'd ask you for your source material for the statement that "most of the British troops weren't British".
Quote If, however, you wish to have a discussion on the reasons for the defeat in France in 1940 I would be pleased to enlighten.'" I'd love to at some point. I'd like to first get better accquainted with the back-ground material. After all, there's nothing worse than perceiving yourself as some kind of expert only to be undone by someone prwpared to do the smallest bit of research.
Thanks. I might watch some films instead. Some good ones [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_propaganda_films_of_World_War_IIhere[/url. |
|
Quote ="Puig-Aubert"I'm not really sure what you're trying to show here.
'" I am not trying to show anything. You made some statements which I found rather surprising. I simply wanted to check their validity. I do some very brief research which cast a little doubt upon your statements. All I did was ask you for your sources.
Quote It may be that your haste has been your undoing again. I do hope you are not employed in a position where comprehension of the English language and diligence are desireable characteristics.'" Another emotive and irrelevant sentence. Am I having a discussion with Bywater here?
Quote In both campaigns the bulk of the troops [iunder British command [/iwere indeed British, just as I previously stated. The fact that in Norway there were French (and Polish too) doesn't alter the validity of my statement. In France in 1940 British troops may have been significantly in a minority but the only troops under British command were, again, British.'" Yes. But that was only part of a paragraph. This bit preceded it.
Quote most of the 'British' troops weren't British - they were Poles, Czechs, French, Greeks etc as well as white commonwealth troops and principally nasty darkie types who'd actually volunteered to fight for the mother country. '" Again, I'd ask you for your source material for the statement that "most of the British troops weren't British".
Quote If, however, you wish to have a discussion on the reasons for the defeat in France in 1940 I would be pleased to enlighten.'" I'd love to at some point. I'd like to first get better accquainted with the back-ground material. After all, there's nothing worse than perceiving yourself as some kind of expert only to be undone by someone prwpared to do the smallest bit of research.
Thanks. I might watch some films instead. Some good ones [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_propaganda_films_of_World_War_IIhere[/url. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 12106 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2015 | Oct 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert"Whilst you are correct in your maths in your rush to bolster your hero's claims you've misunderstood the fundamental words in my statement a little.
The two key words are 'troops' (indicating ground units) and, rather more pertinently, 'campaigns'. The Battle of Britain was not a campaign; it was, as it's name rather gives away, a battle.'"
Out of interest, I have read a few things describinbg the Battle of Britain as a campaign. Given it's duration (between 4 and 10 months, depending on who you ask) where does the distinction between a battle and a campaign lie? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="El Diablo"Out of interest, I have read a few things describinbg the Battle of Britain as a campaign. Given it's duration (between 4 and 10 months, depending on who you ask) where does the distinction between a battle and a campaign lie?'" A very pertinent point given he describes the significantly shorter French surrender in 1940 as a campaign. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 50026 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="G1"A very pertinent point given he describes the significantly shorter French surrender in 1940 as a campaign.'"
And what is surprising about a quick French surrender? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"Rather emotive and defensive language for such a debate?
Ah, I see.
Do you think the French surrender that took six weeks was a campaign or a battle? The Battle of Britain lasted 3 and a half months.
BTW, the french surrender of 1940 is described as a battle [url=http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/5/14/55627/2665here[/url.
I don't really think I misunderstood what you were saying however we debate the meaning of "troops" of "campaign". Noticeably, your initial response to my Battle of Britain example was not to take issue with the terminology but to point out that non British troops also fought. When I point out the numbers involved you adopt the DISA method diverting the discussion to definitions of Battles and Troops.'"
France was undoubtedly a campaign - war had been declared at the beginning of September the previous year and victory was of strategic importance - and I'd see the Battle of Britain as logically forming part of that campaign.
In little more than a year Germany had avoided a war on two fronts as the allies had failed to attack during the Polish campaign; had defeated and occupied France, Belgium and Holland; had pretty much removed any immediate threat from Britain by defeating her army and driving her from the continent but crucially was unable to force Britain to seek peace.
Incidentally, the article you provide gives a reasonable summary albeit with some common errors. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 32049 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
The Soviets won WW2, we just played a minor role in comparison.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 872 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2009 | 16 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2010 | Jan 1970 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"No he didn't.'"
actually he did! |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"I am not trying to show anything. You made some statements which I found rather surprising. I simply wanted to check their validity. I do some very brief research which cast a little doubt upon your statements. All I did was ask you for your sources.
Another emotive and irrelevant sentence. Am I having a discussion with Bywater here?
Yes. But that was only part of a paragraph. This bit preceded it.
Again, I'd ask you for your source material for the statement that "most of the British troops weren't British".
I'd love to at some point. I'd like to first get better accquainted with the back-ground material. After all, there's nothing worse than perceiving yourself as some kind of expert only to be undone by someone prwpared to do the smallest bit of research.
Thanks. I might watch some films instead. Some good ones [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_propaganda_films_of_World_War_IIhere[/url.'"
The source material can be found in the book already cited above. I'd recommend it.
Again, I'm still wondering what the presence of French & Polish troops has to do with anything? You still haven't explained the point you're trying to make or even one that you are trying to allude to? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 32302 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Puig-Aubert"The source material can be found in the book already cited above. I'd recommend it.
Again, I'm still wondering what the presence of French & Polish troops has to do with anything? You still haven't explained the point you're trying to make or even one that you are trying to allude to?'" I have already told you I am not making any point. Just trying to establish the accuracy of the point you made. That "most of the 'British' troops weren't British". |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 10757 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2012 | Oct 2012 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="G1"I have already told you I am not making any point. Just trying to establish the accuracy of the point you made. That "most of the 'British' troops weren't British".'"
In which case why mention it at all?
It has no relevance to the accuracy of the point as far as I can see.
Norway & France were specifically excluded from my initial comment - unless you were trying to demonstrate the point also applied to them and were aiming to prove it by pointing out the bulk of the allied force in France was not British either? If that were the case I'd direct you to the initial statement where I referred to those 'under British command'. |
|
|
|
|
|
