NationStates Jolt Archive

Documents marked "Top Secret, UK eyes only" show the Labour government engulfed in a furious row over the inadequacy of the nation's defences. The Prime Minister and his defense secretary, describe the country's defenses as "outweighed", "outnumbered" and "insufficient".

The damning assessment came after Mr Callaghan ordered a defense analysis. In reply, Mr Mulley wrote: "The picture the Chiefs of Staff set out is a sobering one."

"Air defences would be outweighed because aircraft would be outnumbered and stocks of air defence munitions would sustain operations for only two or three days.

"The Army would be able to counter during the initial stages of war but, lacking supporting arms and logistic support, it would be inadequate to deal with any significant threat.

"In the case of nuclear attack by ballistic missiles there would be no defensive capability, save the indirect defence of our nuclear forces." In the air, the UK would be forced to confront an estimated 200 bombers with 98 fighters, resulting in destruction to the UK many times worse than that delivered by the German Luftwaffe.

At sea, the country's force of minesweepers and mine hunters numbered "only 32" considered "obsolete".

Mr Callaghan was furious. He described the lack of air munitions in particular as a "scandal" and said "one or two people should be sacked", although he did not include Mr Mulley.

The documents are scrawled with his exasperated comments. At one point he writes: "Heaven help us if there is a war!"

At another: "I take it someone has worked out whether we can defend ourselves!"

The assessment also had implications that reached beyond the fate of Britain.

Mr Mulley wrote: "It is unlikely that the UK defences could prevent the loss of a substantial proportion of Nato's forces based in the UK, including important US assets.

This would, he said, "significantly reduce Nato's ability to sustain conventional operations successfully in Europe, in the eastern Atlantic and in the Channel areas".

One letter to the prime minister reads: "The problem is made worse by the rate at which the offensive capability which the Russians might use against the United Kingdom is growing. We shall have to run hard to stand still.

"Though the secretary of state for defence's report on the United Kingdom's direct defences is a worrying one, we should continue to rely on the collective deterrence offered by the Alliance as the main source of our security."

As the Cold War ended, the emphasis on fighting a nuclear war with a major European opponent declined. The UK's nuclear capacity is now limited to submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles - Trident - and the military's focus has moved towards a much more global commitment.

The British military is spread more thinly across a variety of different conflicts and operations - a force that has to be both more mobile and multi-tasking.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7795497.stm)

I'd just like to say that at current estimates we wouldn't even by able to defend our small Atlantic islands from 3rd world powers...much less so as our projection forces such as carriers will be non-existent in 5 years time.

There's no way the US would let anything happen to Airstrip One.

There's no way the US would let anything happen to Airstrip One.

looking at the report you would be kind of fucked as far as immediate forces in the area go :(

Realistically:

1. I don't see any European nations attacking the UK.
2. If Russia wanted to attack, there's the whole NATO thing, plus all the nukes, so I don't see it happening.
3. Ditto the Airstrip One comment.
4. Diego Garcia is safe, because the US thinks it's Airstrip Two.
5. Maybe you'll lose the Falklands this time around.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7795497.stm)

I'd just like to say that at current estimates we wouldn't even by able to defend our small Atlantic islands from 3rd world powers...much less so as our projection forces such as carriers will be non-existent in 5 years time.

errr, they're building new ones, or hadn't you heard?

This is nothing new. We couldn't defend ourselves in WW2 either (but then neither could the rest of Europe). Peacetime defence budgets don't account for full scale invasion at any time, generally speaking.

errr, they're building new ones, or hadn't you heard?

This is nothing new. We couldn't defend ourselves in WW2 either (but then neither could the rest of Europe). Peacetime defence budgets don't account for full scale invasion at any time, generally speaking.

Ours does, but then we outspend every other nation in the world both per capita and in real dollars. All of them combined.

Please post the time frame! The memo was from 70s. You know, the exact same time that MI6 concluded that the Soviets had no intention of attacking NATO.

errr, they're building new ones, or hadn't you heard?

This is nothing new. We couldn't defend ourselves in WW2 either (but then neither could the rest of Europe). Peacetime defence budgets don't account for full scale invasion at any time, generally speaking.

They don't account for full scale thermonuclear attack, either.

Oh. If Britain's forces are that bad, what kind of defense possibilities the FDF has?

This seems like only yesterday.

I remember sunny jim. Though I was very young at the time.

This was written before the falklands.

Good thing things are different now, rather than stuck in the same 1978 situation. The Falklands saved the navy, that's fact. I wonder how much of the military that war saved now too.

errr, they're building new ones, or hadn't you heard?

Two huge new ones, similar in size to the US carriers. Plus we are keeping HMS Ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

I don't think the Royal Navy is going to lose its status as one of the only blue water navies just yet.

(Tonnage wise, isn't the Royal Navy the worlds 2nd largest? I think I read it somewhere.)

What people are forgetting is that we in the UK have one of the best skilled trained armies in the world. Also even back then the UK is a political power house. It holds a lot of weight politically. The UK dose indeed have a small army compared to others, but it is also one of the most well armed.

2. If Russia wanted to attack, there's the whole NATO thing, plus all the nukes, so I don't see it happening.

yes we do have nuclear holocaust on our side but this report shows just how badly the UK would fair in the opening scenes which may full well put western Europe under Russian control before the deployment of nuclear weapons

errr, they're building new ones, or hadn't you heard?

and what aircraft will we have to use? it is alleged even current prototypes are sub-sonic which will be useless in any pitched air battle

This is nothing new. We couldn't defend ourselves in WW2 either (but then neither could the rest of Europe). Peacetime defence budgets don't account for full scale invasion at any time, generally speaking.

however we now live in the age of fast moving battlefields and as the report shows without adequate air defense assets we could lose key assets for any counter attack (even with the nuclear option!)

and what aircraft will we have to use? it is alleged even current prototypes are sub-sonic which will be useless in any pitched air battle

F35s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F35)

Edit: Hang on, are you half RPing a 1970 UK defence scenario?

Good to know. *takes notes*

SNIP

SNIP

shhhh I'm experimenting to see who will click on links

Oh. If Britain's forces are that bad, what kind of defense possibilities the FDF has?

I figure you might have a chance as long as you keep hidden and let Russian air power have free reign (essentially hoping for the top bitch position:tongue:)

The Falklands saved the navy, that's fact. I wonder how much of the military that war saved now too.

pfft I seem to remember the royal navy is now in the buisiness of borrowing US command ships

Two huge new ones, similar in size to the US carriers. Plus we are keeping HMS Ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

too bad we have decommissioned our harriers which leaves our navy rather toothless

What people are forgetting is that we in the UK have one of the best skilled trained armies in the world. Also even back then the UK is a political power house. It holds a lot of weight politically. The UK dose indeed have a small army compared to others, but it is also one of the most well armed.

thats why we spent enough money fixing our SA-80's to buy 4 M-4's for every soldier which has nothing at all to do with being stubborn... (not that I would want an M-4 its a POS imho)

F35s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F35)

its not 2011 :p

shhhh I'm experimenting to see who will click on links




too bad we have decommissioned our harriers which leaves our navy rather toothless

The RAF Harriers are being used by the Navy until either the F-35 or the Sea Eurofighter come into service. The Harriers in the RAF I believe have already been replaced by the Eurofighter.



thats why we spent enough money fixing our SA-80's to buy 4 M-4's for every soldier which has nothing at all to do with being stubborn... (not that I would want an M-4 its a POS imho)




Because the SA80 is a good weapon now they have been fixed. No really despite the negative press, they are actually world class rifles these days. The G36 is also in circulation.

too bad we have decommissioned our harriers which leaves our navy rather toothless

its not 2011 :p

It has shut down the Sea Harriers. It's currently flying GR7/GR9s.

Doesn't matter it's not 2011, the Queen Libby class carriers won't be ready until ~2015.

Many of the US ships are based off UK ships. The difference being the cost of man power to build these ships some times over takes price. In the long run, it is sufficiently cheaper to buy ships from a county with larger manpower. The only reason the UK is not buying from other countries is that the US ships are the closest resemblance to our own.

Because the SA80 is a good weapon now they have been fixed. No really despite the negative press, they are actually world class rifles these days. The G36 is also in circulation.

The SA80 sucks. Experience not press.

The SA80 sucks. Experience not press.

The A1 yes, the A2, there's 100,000 soldiers who would beg to differ. Its Standard for a reason.

Of course, there always will be some people who still class it as a hunk of junk.

The SA80 is one of the most advanced and well built guns in the world. It was designed by several manufactures that too the best bits from all to create it. I will not say its pure gold thoe. It has its faults, the first model was terrible, but that was then and this is now. The only problem with the new one is that sand can cause the weapon to faulty. Experience.

The A1 yes, the A2, there's 100,000 soldiers who would beg to differ. Its Standard for a reason.

Of course, there always will be some people who still class it as a hunk of junk.

I used both. The upgrade sorted a lot of the jamming issues but I don't think anything short of just replacing it would make it less of a time consuming bitch to keep in good working order.

Also, the kick up and left in auto is a nightmare.

Fair point about the kick up. Thats why people are tought to fire it in short bursts along with must other automatic guns.

The Masada is a much better weapon.
http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf

Also, the EOTech or almost any of the Armson sights are better than the unit that sits on the SA80.

And you had to hire Germans to get it right...

I used both. The upgrade sorted a lot of the jamming issues but I don't think anything short of just replacing it would make it less of a time consuming bitch to keep in good working order.

Also, the kick up and left in auto is a nightmare.

True, however.

British soldiers are encourage to use single shots. Where the rifle excels.

Accuracy has always been a priority with the British, so the problems the rifle faces in full auto aren't majorly important, but matter nonetheless.

Typically at the kind of ranges where a section is required to use full auto, accuracy isn't a major problem either.

Maintaining any western rifle is a necessary evil.

Fair point about the kick up. Thats why people are tought to fire it in short bursts along with must other automatic guns.

3 round burst initial aim point in the stomach will miss with the third round at 100m.

The Masada is a much better weapon.
http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf

Also, the EOTech or almost any of the Armson sights are better than the unit that sits on the SA80.

And you had to hire Germans to get it right...

And a lot ofM16's are manufactured by FN Herstal, so your point?

And you had to hire Germans to get it right...

"Slightly better" not "right".

And a lot ofM16's are manufactured by FN Herstal, so your point?

FN didn't have to make any product improvements - we thought of those all by ourselves. The SA80 was largely sorted by German engineers.

If you hit an enemy twice in the stomach, the third isn't that much of a problem.

FN didn't have to make any product improvements - we thought of those all by ourselves. The SA80 was largely sorted by German engineers.

In 2000, Heckler & Koch, at that time owned by Royal Ordnance, were contracted to upgrade the SA80 family of weapons.

British owned German engineers.

The RAF Harriers are being used by the Navy

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5142/changeNav/3533

until either the F-35 or the Sea Eurofighter come into service.

Doesn't matter it's not 2011, the Queen Libby class carriers won't be ready until ~2015.

which leaves us in quite a pickle should we actually be called on to do something

Because the SA80 is a good weapon now they have been fixed. No really despite the negative press, they are actually world class rifles these days. The G36 is also in circulation.

never seen the G36 in British hands but yeah A-2 is at least on scratch with the worlds modern rifles (we just had to pay 4 times more)

have you seen how quick it is to clean the M-4 *tantrums in a professional way*

Many of the US ships are based off UK ships. The difference being the cost of man power to build these ships some times over takes price. In the long run, it is sufficiently cheaper to buy ships from a county with larger manpower. The only reason the UK is not buying from other countries is that the US ships are the closest resemblance to our own.

however we didn't buy we had to borrow because we couldn't provide our own

The SA80 sucks. Experience not press.

well yes I too have had my fair share of unnecessary dramas (along with the cleaning kit costing the same as the rifle for no logical reason) but then the the Stayr AUG was already made so you can't expect Jesus

If you hit an enemy twice in the stomach, the third isn't that much of a problem.

unless you miss twice

True, however.

British soldiers are encourage to use single shots. Where the rifle excels.

Accuracy has always been a priority with the British, so the problems the rifle faces in full auto aren't majorly important, but matter nonetheless.

Typically at the kind of ranges where a section is required to use full auto, accuracy isn't a major problem either.

Maintaining any western rifle is a necessary evil.

Accuracy I'll give you. In single shot it's brilliant. The L86 is even better.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5142/changeNav/3533





which leaves us in quite a pickle should we actually be called on to do something


RAF Harriers are not Sea Harriers.

We are continuing to operate 2 or our carriers until the libby's are built correct?

Why build when you could buy at a cheaper price? The pound is usually higher than the dollar. Comparing the profits and losses from buying ships from the US compared to building in the UK, buying from the US is cheaper. What do you mean by borrow?

RAF Harriers are not Sea Harriers.

We are continuing to operate 2 or our carriers until the libby's are built correct?

maybe I need to go to bed :$

....this is a mockery thread anyway *throws stink bombs on floor*

Why build when you could buy at a cheaper price? The pound is usually higher than the dollar. Comparing the profits and losses from buying ships from the US compared to building in the UK, buying from the US is cheaper. What do you mean by borrow?

too bad the RN is skint which is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with buying US ships

If you hit an enemy twice in the stomach, the third isn't that much of a problem.

When they're amped up on some drug, it's unlikely the 3rd round will do anything. [personal experience, after that I would try to aim for the head..]

When they're amped up on some drug, it's unlikely the 3rd round will do anything. [personal experience, after that I would try to aim for the head..]

Drugged up insurgents was a common problem where British troops are stationed right now. I have no idea if it still is. I guess the situation is improving.

Even in the seventies, if somebody sent 200 bombers against England, Her many friends around the globe would proceed to assram the aggressor like Mick Jagger did David Bowie, only without the poetic preface.

Even in the seventies, if somebody sent 200 bombers against England, Her many friends around the globe would proceed to assram the aggressor like Mick Jagger did David Bowie, only without the poetic preface.

Wouldn't help much. We'd probably have been too busy loosing teeth and hair to care.

Britain doesn't need to repel an invading force. Really, who'd want it? :p

Wouldn't help much. We'd probably have been too busy loosing teeth and hair to care.

Well, a mass invasion of the British Isle Itself would at least give Guy Ritchie a chance to direct a "Saving Private Ryan" epic.


Open with bright, peaceful scene of of people laughing and playing in a park...

(fade to black, cue voiceover) "In a world...."

One of the little cute blonde children looks up, squinting at something the sky...

"...where the Sun has finally set...on the British Empire"

Massive explosions, women screaming, men running around in terror...

"One man...will rise up..."

London in flames, the sky blackened, foreign helicopters unleashing rappelling, black clad invaders...suddenly, several them shudder and convulse as they are shot down by...Hugh Grant with a chain gun.

"I...I just..this is, this is just preposterous, I mean you can't just invade our island...its rude."

Cue Kiera Knightly, about to be run over by a tank, suddenly, a rocket streaks across the screen and destroys it.

"Who? Who would do this?" she says as she tries to gather the remnants of her blouse.

Hugh Grant helps her up, and with grim, freqnuently blinking eyes, he says "England only has one enemy who would dare..."

Cue him looking down at a dead invader, the FAMAS still clutched in his fingers...

Hugh Grant isn't tough enough for that, It'll be Jason Issacs backed up by Robert Carlyle and Ewan McGregor.

We couldn't defend ourselves in WW2 either

What about the Battle of Britain ? Is it taught as a defeat for Britain?

What about the Battle of Britain ? Is it taught as a defeat for Britain?

I think he meant that most our victories were defensive in nature, e.g. Arras, Dunkirk, Malta and Britain (I want to add Narvik but I'm not sure that it was a success.)

It wasn't until El Alamein that we really attacked back.

What about the Battle of Britain ? Is it taught as a defeat for Britain?

Our standing army at the time was woefully below-par (they got kicked out of France). Without the Channel we would have had a ground invasion that would have probably been at least a partial success.

The RAF was much smaller than the Luftwaffe at the start of the war. What won the battle of Britain was largely radar, sneaky tactics, lack of range of the Luftwaffe and the fact Hitler decided to attack civilian targets instead of airfields.

That's my basis for saying "we couldn't really defend ourselves properly in WW2"

EDIT: Dunkirk wasn't a military victory, it was a PR victory. It was a chaotic retreat whose success meant we actually had some army left in the UK. In France it is viewed as an unmitigated defeat and downright betrayal of them due to leaving the remaining French forces to be slaughtered.

"Don’t Fight with the British
Don’t Drink with the British
Don’t Gamble with the British

You Will Lose!"

The card given to American soldiers in the UK, just to prove how mint we are.

"Don’t Fight with the British
Don’t Drink with the British
Don’t Gamble with the British

You Will Lose!"

The card given to American soldiers in the UK, just to prove how mint we are.

I doubt this is true

"Don’t Fight with the British
Don’t Drink with the British
Don’t Gamble with the British

You Will Lose!"

The card given to American soldiers in the UK, just to prove how mint we are.

Or how uncouth. Nothing much has changed since then, eh?

Realistically:

1. I don't see any European nations attacking the UK.
2. If Russia wanted to attack, there's the whole NATO thing, plus all the nukes, so I don't see it happening.
3. Ditto the Airstrip One comment.
4. Diego Garcia is safe, because the US thinks it's Airstrip Two.
5. Maybe you'll lose the Falklands this time around.

If London weeps, still Buenos Aires isn't laughing either.

"Don’t Fight with the British
Don’t Drink with the British
Don’t Gamble with the British

You Will Lose!"

The card given to American soldiers in the UK, just to prove how mint we are.

I have heard that this was in fact true. The rivalry was there so its believable.

I've heard the rivalry between American troops and British Canadian forces was also pretty intense.

the OP needs one question answered before you can decide if you are adequately prepared for a defensive war...

who the fuck are you going to go to war with?

who the fuck are you going to go to war with?

Squirrels

Squirrels

we're doomed.

I have heard that this was in fact true. The rivalry was there so its believable.

I've heard the rivalry between American troops and British Canadian forces was also pretty intense. Its probably just a myth, I have a few mates in the Army and RN and they swear it's true but there is nothing on Google.

There was a card published in 1942 for Americans coming to Britain "Instructions for American Servicemen in Britain, 1942: Reproduced from the Original Typescript, War Department, Washington, DC

It does remind me of the tale of the MP who read from captured Chinese instructions during the Korean War. Something along the lines of;

"If at night you see a hill that is totally silent and dark don't go there because it is a British position."

Squirrels
then i recommend that you develop and distribute a better bbgun.

problem solved.

Squirrels

me and my big stompin' boots should do the trick then. job well done, i say. anyone for tea and crumpets, wot wot?

I think he meant that most our victories were defensive in nature, e.g. Arras, Dunkirk, Malta and Britain (I want to add Narvik but I'm not sure that it was a success.)

It wasn't until El Alamein that we really attacked back.

That's taught as a victory? :confused:

That's taught as a victory? :confused:

The objective was to withdraw British forces.

That objective was completed.

So, it was a success, obviously not tactically but...

Victory born out of the ashes of defeat in a sense.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7795497.stm)
The fact that we'd get nukes dropped upon us in any kind of war with Russia made that report laughable.
our projection forces such as carriers will be non-existent in 5 years time.
Erm?

We have 2 new carriers coming.

who the fuck are you going to go to war with?

the continentals as usual, most likely they will want to overthrow the loving security of Emperor Brown and install democracy or whatever the ECHR has been bitching about

then i recommend that you develop and distribute a better bbgun.

me and my big stompin' boots should do the trick then.

just for that all the creatures of the forest will sneak into your house tonight and eat your eyes :)

The fact that we'd get nukes dropped upon us in any kind of war with Russia made that report laughable.

nah our impenetrable wall of defensive forces (yes that was the plan) would be nuked, then the Russian armour would just move round and we will be drinking vodka by Sunset!

the big question would be if the better red than dead policy would kick in before or after Russian armour moves into France

We have 2 new carriers coming.

emphasis on this being the 70's and 5 years time ;)

just for that all the creatures of the forest will sneak into your house tonight and eat your eyes :)


HEY!

watch out with that cursing thing! i live in the freaking forest and dont want a house full of squirrel/deer/turkey/coyote poo!

or to be blind.

nah our impenetrable wall of defensive forces (yes that was the plan) would be nuked, then the Russian armour would just move round and we will be drinking vodka by Sunset!

The Russians plans were that in the vent of neuclear war, they would first wipe out America, then steam role into Europe and take all that nice soil to cure Russians economic problems. It is an unconfirmed rumor that the UK would be attacked as well. If the UK remained neural what would happen is the Russians would grab Europe and live happily ever after. Of course its no secret that the Chinese were planning to use huge numbers to attack who ever was left. Back fired though for them. There was no war and ten years time they will have 1 female for every 100 males. And on a final note....

WHAT ABOUT THE WOODLAND CREATURES, TRYING TO GET INTO MY HOUSE!?!

The Russians plans were that in the vent of neuclear war, they would first wipe out America, then steam role into Europe and take all that nice soil to cure Russians economic problems. It is an unconfirmed rumor that the UK would be attacked as well. If the UK remained neural what would happen is the Russians would grab Europe and live happily ever after. Of course its no secret that the Chinese were planning to use huge numbers to attack who ever was left. Back fired though for them. There was no war and ten years time they will have 1 female for every 100 males. And on a final note....

WHAT ABOUT THE WOODLAND CREATURES, TRYING TO GET INTO MY HOUSE!?!
DONT OPEN THE DOOR!

close the fireplace doors--i hope you have secure glass doors on that thing!--the squirrels cant get through them.

close up any room with a skylight. eagles have been known to drop squirrel commandos from heights high enough to break the glass.

dont open the door to the ups man. just have him leave the package on the porch. DONT TOUCH THE PACKAGE! squirrels fit nicely into a cardboard box, dont they.

just for that all the creatures of the forest will sneak into your house tonight and eat your eyes :)


STOMP STOMP STOMP STOMP!!

i can do this all night ;)

nah our impenetrable wall of defensive forces (yes that was the plan) would be nuked, then the Russian armour would just move round and we will be drinking vodka by Sunset!
Erm?

Why did the planners not just assume everyone would be dead, as the Russkies attacked and we dropped nukes on Moscow, thus bringing about our own destruction?
the big question would be if the better red than dead policy would kick in before or after Russian armour moves into France
We'd beat them in a conventional war - they only ever win on the defensive :tongue:
emphasis on this being the 70's and 5 years time ;)
Oh in the 70s, aye.

That's taught as a victory? :confused:
A victory in the sense that we're no deid.

As someone previously said, it was a PR coup. It's still taught in the UK as some massive, spontaneous, collective effort by us plucky Brits in saving our brave soldiers from evil grasp of the dirty Hun.

Nonsense, of course.

A victory in the sense that we're no deid.

As someone previously said, it was a PR coup. It's still taught in the UK as some massive, spontaneous, collective effort by us plucky Brits in saving our brave soldiers from evil grasp of the dirty Hun.

Nonsense, of course.

Is it really taught that way? (I did my history o'level back in the eighties, and since we were all trying to fit into the common market and be friends with the germans back then the whole WWII thing was glossed over. Barely mentioned in fact. History sort of stopped just before the Boer war).

A victory in the sense that we're no deid.

As someone previously said, it was a PR coup. It's still taught in the UK as some massive, spontaneous, collective effort by us plucky Brits in saving our brave soldiers from evil grasp of the dirty Hun.

Nonsense, of course.

Dunkirk as a victory always bothered me; we learned it that way, too. I feel slightly justified hearing a person from the UK saying it was PRed to victory.
I wonder how it's taught in Germany?

Is it really taught that way?
It was taught to me like that, though that was nearly ten years ago now.

WW2 and Scottish history were the only things we really covered in high school.

EDIT: And, now I recall, a history of 19th/20th century British politics; Suffragettes, Charterists, et al.

Dunkirk as a victory always bothered me; we learned it that way, too. I feel slightly justified hearing a person from the UK saying it was PRed to victory.
I wonder how it's taught in Germany?

The German exchange student told me that Dunkirk was a blunder on both England's and Germany's parts,

Germany's for hesitation 3 days and allowing us to rescue 386,000 men.

Ours, for allying with the French in the first place!

(real reason, lack of equipment and co-ordination.)

watch out with that cursing thing! i live in the freaking forest and dont want a house full of squirrel/deer/turkey/coyote poo!

think of it as natures calling card :)

or to be blind.

and what did your mother always say about playing with bb guns?

SNIP

I've always heard it being played as an attempt to knock the US back to the Americas where they will just turtle and leave the New Soviet Empire in peace

I guess it depends on which plans would of been chosen though

SNIP

haven't you noticed the bizarre fur coat in your closet yet? or is it camouflaged in your house of death!

i can do this all night ;)

*sends in the seagulls to pinch your fish and chips*

Why did the planners not just assume everyone would be dead, as the Russkies attacked and we dropped nukes on Moscow, thus bringing about our own destruction?

well you don't just go from border skirmishes in Germany to full scale nuclear war now :wink:

also we could hardly let the side down in front of the Popovs now could we?

We'd beat them in a conventional war - they only ever win on the defensive :tongue:

well as said we bunched all our forces up nice and good in Germany planning for a Russian armored push forgotten the whole nuke thing

Dunkirk as a victory always bothered me; we learned it that way, too. I feel slightly justified hearing a person from the UK saying it was PRed to victory.
I wonder how it's taught in Germany?

what I had to do was write a newspaper report on it and make it all sparky like a victory

I would presume German classes would be too busy learning Hitler was a very very naughty man

And, now I recall, a history of 19th/20th century British politics; Suffragettes, Charterists, et al.

oddly I was away that day. did you not cover the industrial revolution with its canals and stuff?

oddly I was away that day. did you not cover the industrial revolution with its canals and stuff?
A wee bitty, but always in relation to UK politics.

Corn laws and all that jazz.

GCSE history was a load of bollocks. We only did the 20th century, and half of it was American history rather than our own. We never did WW2, but covered WW1 and Nazi Germany before the war.

I would say Dunkirk was a victory-ish, better than having all our men killed.

A wee bitty, but always in relation to UK politics.

not even about the production of battleships in Germany? (mind you I only remember all this because my 9th year teacher was fit as)

Corn laws and all that jazz.

I think your teacher was just a lawyer :tongue:

We never did WW2, but covered WW1 and Nazi Germany before the war.

well you can't really learn much from WWII beside the whole womens rights (which is always amirite?:wink:) whereas the rise of the nazi party is super duper important and has lots of chances for analysis

well you can't really learn much from WWII beside the whole womens rights (which is always amirite?) whereas the rise of the nazi party is super duper important and has lots of chances for analysis Well you could learn about, you know, the war.

I think we should have done earlier stuff, only 18th-19th century stuff we have ever done is centred on the Industrial Revolution, whole empire thing just sort of never happened in the eyes of my history teacher.

Well you could learn about, you know, the war.

I think we should have done earlier stuff, only 18th-19th century stuff we have ever done is centred on the Industrial Revolution, whole empire thing just sort of never happened in the eyes of my history teacher.

This is all dependent on your course, my GCSE history course was also America/Nazi/Civil rights based.

But A level on the other hand, hats much different.

Dunkirk was never a victory or victory-ish. The fact is the UK's forces in France got their asses handed to them and Dunkirk was just the final part of English forces leaving France. It was a brilliant display of bravery form the common foke for going out in fishing craft and saving our bays from German POW camps. But is also one of the biggest mistakes of both sides in the war. Why was their no fleet ready to pick up our troops and why did the Germans take three days to attack? It was also the greatest display of luck in the entire war. How did we manage to get that many troops out with crafts like rubber dingies? The Germans got their own display of luck though in Market Garden. Some of the men who jumped out of those planes ended up in the British channel!

Well you could learn about, you know, the war.

not really much to learn there though beyond never get involved in a land war in Asia >.>

I think we should have done earlier stuff, only 18th-19th century stuff we have ever done is centred on the Industrial Revolution, whole empire thing just sort of never happened in the eyes of my history teacher.

so you didn't do about Ireland and the troubles? I think the idea of it is to teach the proles about the modern world really rather than how we basically went apeshit on the natives(which would be economics)

though to be fair I think the industrial revolution and the whole slavery thing was done pre-GCSE :confused:

This is all dependent on your course, my GCSE history course was also America/Nazi/Civil rights based.

didn't you do crime and punishment?

didn't you do crime and punishment?

Jack the Ripper coursework. That's about it.

Well you could learn about, you know, the war.
"Germans get royally fucked up by the Allies after totally ravaging most of Europe, much the same with the Japs and Asia"
I think we should have done earlier stuff, only 18th-19th century stuff we have ever done is centred on the Industrial Revolution, whole empire thing just sort of never happened in the eyes of my history teacher.
What's there to really learn?

"We beat the shit out of whatever lame armies are around and then use the resources in those countries to fuel the Industrial Revolution, while westernising their societies"

Yeah, I don't think it matters how defenseless Britain is at any point in time. I'm from the U.S., and let me say that I think the Brits are a scrappy bunch who can fight machine guns with their fingernails if they need to.

I think they proved that in WWII, didn't they? The U.S. didn't have to liberate Britain. They had to liberate cowardly France, who aren't worth a crap and no matter how well-armed they are they'll still lose every war they fight in.

See here for proof of Britain's wartime resourcefulness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF0R4dhUqk

I won't post proof of France's wussy nature. I think it's a pretty commonly known fact.

Wahooo! Thanks for the compliment.

I think they proved that in WWII, didn't they? The U.S. didn't have to liberate Britain. They had to liberate cowardly France, who aren't worth a crap and no matter how well-armed they are they'll still lose every war they fight in.

"Cowardly?" Because they were defeated by Nazi Germany.

If Britain didn't have the Channel, they would have been overrun by the Blitzkrieg as well. Or do you contend that 1939 Britain's land and air forces were the match of Nazi Germany's?

Either way your idiotic apellation of cowardice just shows you know very little about history, were not alive at the time, and have never fought in a war yourself. Of course the way you tell it, you personally saved France and defeated Hitler.


I won't post proof of France's wussy nature. I think it's a pretty commonly known fact.

It's a stupid stereotype, not a fact.

Yeah, I don't think it matters how defenseless Britain is at any point in time. I'm from the U.S., and let me say that I think the Brits are a scrappy bunch who can fight machine guns with their fingernails if they need to.

I think they proved that in WWII, didn't they? The U.S. didn't have to liberate Britain. They had to liberate cowardly France, who aren't worth a crap and no matter how well-armed they are they'll still lose every war they fight in.

See here for proof of Britain's wartime resourcefulness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF0R4dhUqk

I won't post proof of France's wussy nature. I think it's a pretty commonly known fact.



Your point is pretty accurate. Us Brits are pretty damn scrappy (hence the football hooligans :P)


Obviously there is more to it than this.

SNIP

shh I say we let him continue believing I'm a god so long as he isn't actually putting a machine gun in front of me

*breaks a nail*

Us Brits are pretty damn scrappy

really I was never satisfied with the intro story... (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LV6a4aBtcVg&feature=related)

"Cowardly?" Because they were defeated by Nazi Germany.

If Britain didn't have the Channel, they would have been overrun by the Blitzkrieg as well. Or do you contend that 1939 Britain's land and air forces were the match of Nazi Germany's?

Either way your idiotic apellation of cowardice just shows you know very little about history, were not alive at the time, and have never fought in a war yourself. Of course the way you tell it, you personally saved France and defeated Hitler.



It's a stupid stereotype, not a fact.

Yes, because they were defeated by Nazi Germany.

I don't contend that Britain's anything were compatible to anything, Mr. Hostile and Defensive. I'm contending that the British are a scrappy bunch who were actually in a period of disarmament domestically when the war eventually broke out, and could have lost and didn't. And France did lose.

And the word is spelled "appellation", and I don't think I'm wrong about my "appellation" of the word cowardly. I think France is not a warlike country. Why do you think Southern France was left unoccupied after the Germans won?

Because Southern France was siding with the Nazis.

All right, so I'll take it back. 1/3 of France is cowardly. The Southern bit.

The rest of France just has weak armies and not-very-good weaponry and little tactical ability and is more interested in food and sex than in work.

*gets the touching pole out*

SNIP

what was America doing in 39-41 again?

more interested in food and sex than in work.

sounds like they got it pretty right to me

Well you could learn about, you know, the war.

I think we should have done earlier stuff, only 18th-19th century stuff we have ever done is centred on the Industrial Revolution, whole empire thing just sort of never happened in the eyes of my history teacher.

Damn. The history of the British Empire is practically the history of the world in the 18th,19th and early 20th centuries! Not t'mention how many nations today WERE British colonial possessions, why Ghandi was important, why there is a Pakistan and an India, why Egypt has the borders it has, not to mention Israel and Palestine, then there's South Africa, Australia, Ireland (north and south), Canada... plus the whole Longitude and Latitude systems, the history of Trade worldwide after the 15th Century, the foundation of the colonies that would be the United States, the Caribbean conflicts over colonies in the New World in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, the war with Boney (Napoleon) in Europe, Wellington, Nelson, followed by Disraeli and Kipling and Conrad...

You're saying your History teacher didn't talk about ANY of that?? (geez, and I thought AMERICAN history teachers were screwed up and unpatriotic...)

Yes, because they were defeated by Nazi Germany.


So losing a war makes you "cowardly?" Interesting. I guess everyone is a coward in your view and your opinion on the matter is even more irrelevant.


I don't contend that Britain's anything were compatible to anything, Mr. Hostile and Defensive. I'm contending that the British are a scrappy bunch who were actually in a period of disarmament domestically when the war eventually broke out, and could have lost and didn't. And France did lose.

The British could have lost but didn't, thanks to being an island nation. Unlike France. That's why France fucking lost, not because they're a bunch of cowards.

I'm not Hostile or Defensive; you are Hostile and Offensive.

And the word is spelled "appellation", and I don't think I'm wrong about my "appellation" of the word cowardly. I think France is not a warlike country.

"not warlike" doesn't mean "cowardly" any more than "losing a war" means "cowardly."

For someone so fond of the British you don't seem to be using their language very well. Sure, I made a spelling error, but you made an argument based on your own made-up definitions of the words in question.

Why do you think Southern France was left unoccupied after the Germans won?

Because Southern France was siding with the Nazis.

France surrendered after being defeated militarily. That's how it works. It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice.

All right, so I'll take it back. 1/3 of France is cowardly. The Southern bit.

You don't have to "take it back;" you're simply wrong.

The rest of France just has weak armies and not-very-good weaponry and little tactical ability and is more interested in food and sex than in work.

So I should just write you off as a troll and quit pretending you're able to think rationally, eh?

The British could have lost but didn't, thanks to being an island nation. Unlike France. That's why France fucking lost, not because they're a bunch of cowards.

I'm not Hostile or Defensive; you are Hostile and Offensive.

:rolleyes:

Unfortunately for you I don't have conversations with aggressive bullies who can't mind their manners. I wont be responding to you anymore.

:rolleyes:

Unfortunately for you I don't have conversations with aggressive bullies who can't mind their manners. I wont be responding to you anymore.

Concession accepted.

Realistically:

1. I don't see any European nations attacking the UK.
2. If Russia wanted to attack, there's the whole NATO thing, plus all the nukes, so I don't see it happening.
3. Ditto the Airstrip One comment.
4. Diego Garcia is safe, because the US thinks it's Airstrip Two.
5. Maybe you'll lose the Falklands this time around.

Well the UK could always invoke the NATO defense clause. Argentina's navy and ground forces would be decimated.

Well the UK could always invoke the NATO defense clause. Argentina's navy and ground forces would be decimated.

Well they were the first time around, without NATO :p

Damn. The history of the British Empire is practically the history of the world in the 18th,19th and early 20th centuries! Not t'mention how many nations today WERE British colonial possessions, why Ghandi was important, why there is a Pakistan and an India, why Egypt has the borders it has, not to mention Israel and Palestine, then there's South Africa, Australia, Ireland (north and south), Canada... plus the whole Longitude and Latitude systems, the history of Trade worldwide after the 15th Century, the foundation of the colonies that would be the United States, the Caribbean conflicts over colonies in the New World in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, the war with Boney (Napoleon) in Europe, Wellington, Nelson, followed by Disraeli and Kipling and Conrad...

You're saying your History teacher didn't talk about ANY of that?? (geez, and I thought AMERICAN history teachers were screwed up and unpatriotic...) The only bit of good British history we did about was The First World War, we did Jack the Ripper but that’s nothing compared to other things happening in the world at the time. The rest of it was interesting but I think our own country has ample history which is still relevant today which we simply didn’t cover, and not all of it pre-20th century.

Independence of India, the Trouble's, our role in Africa and the Middle East. I have honestly heard people in my General Studies class ask what’s the British Empire and what’s the Troubles

France surrendered after being defeated militarily. That's how it works. It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice.


You're wrong on this one, Trostia, the French are cowards.

If they weren't, there would have been thousands of Free French soldiers who fought on with the Allies.

There would have been 12 entire squadrons of French Pilots serving in exile in the RAF, helping to defend Britain, and thereby America.

There would have been a large, organized French resistence movement that risked everything to give ongoing, vital intelligence to the Allies.

Yes, the French are cowards, because all of those people never existed, never gave their lives to fight the Nazis.

Yes, piss on the French. Clearly they refuse to fight.

You're wrong on this one, Trostia, the French are cowards.

If they weren't, there would have been thousands of Free French soldiers who fought on with the Allies.

There would have been 12 entire squadrons of French Pilots serving in exile in the RAF, helping to defend Britain, and thereby America.

There would have been a large, organized French resistence movement that risked everything to give ongoing, vital intelligence to the Allies.

Yes, the French are cowards, because all of those people never existed, never gave their lives to fight the Nazis.

Yes, piss on the French. Clearly they refuse to fight.

Damn good points. I have to reconsider my position now that I think of all the things that the French didn't do due to their cowardly nature, their wine and their fornication...

Damn good points. I have to reconsider my position now that I think of all the things that the French didn't do due to their cowardly nature, their wine and their fornication...

Indeed, for no true soldier should love to drink and rut.

Why, the French never had any intention of fighting the Germans. That's why they build the Maginot Bridge, with mechanized white flags.

And when the Germans went round, through Belgium, the French threw their rifles to the ground, that very first hour, without firing a shot.

That's why those filthy frogs lost in Viet Nam, you know.

Gaullic pussies.

Indeed, for no true soldier should love to drink and rut.

Why, the French never had any intention of fighting the Germans. That's why they build the Maginot Bridge, with mechanized white flags.

And when the Germans went round, through Belgium, the French threw their rifles to the ground, that very first hour, without firing a shot.

That's why those filthy frogs lost in Viet Nam, you know.

Gaullic pussies.

I'm surprised they had the balls to offer money and support to the American colonists when they were trying to secede from the Empire. I bet they would have done a whole lot better without the frog money.

I'm surprised they had the balls to offer money and support to the American colonists when they were trying to secede from the Empire. I bet they would have done a whole lot better without the frog money.

See, that's what I'm saying! Why, the French were just using us as a proxy because they were afraid to fight the Enligh themselves!

Its true. I read it in a Chick Pamphlet.

If anyone attacks the UK, we'd have pounded the invaders in to the ground and taken their capital before they even needed to ready their defenses for a real battle.

I'm surprised they had the balls to offer money and support to the American colonists when they were trying to secede from the Empire. I bet they would have done a whole lot better without the frog money.
Um, that was...Louis XVI, and it was so o'erwhelmingly popular with his countrymen that they chopped off his head a few short years later for wasting the French Treasury on the New World (among a multitude of other, lesser grievances revolving around bankrupting the country in foreign adventures that did not turn a profit that the French Taxpaying public could then benefit from...)

Um, that was...Louis XVI, and it was so o'erwhelmingly popular with his countrymen that they chopped off his head a few short years later for wasting the French Treasury on the New World (among a multitude of other, lesser grievances revolving around bankrupting the country in foreign adventures that did not turn a profit that the French Taxpaying public could then benefit from...)

See, if they had just waited 40 years, we were going to pay them back.

EDIT: Besides, revolt is a form of warfare (sort of). French don't fight. So, you must be lying.

Um, that was...Louis XVI, and it was so o'erwhelmingly popular with his countrymen that they chopped off his head a few short years later for wasting the French Treasury on the New World (among a multitude of other, lesser grievances revolving around bankrupting the country in foreign adventures that did not turn a profit that the French Taxpaying public could then benefit from...)

Well yeah, he was a Monarch giving support to a fledgling Democratic rebellion against a Monarchy.

That took some balls. And a head.

Well yeah, he was a Monarch giving support to a fledgling Democratic rebellion against a Monarchy.

That took some balls. And a head.

The point is, the French cut off his head for it. That makes them cowards.

If they were truly a warrior people, they would have showered him with cheese for it, and then crossed the channel and Savate kicked George in the head.

If they were truly a warrior people, they would have showered him with cheese for it, and then crossed the channel and Savate kicked George in the head.

Oddly enough, people in France preferred not starving to war with the UK. Of course, this still doesn't explain where the fuck Napoleon came from...

Oddly enough, people in France preferred not starving to war with the UK. Of course, this still doesn't explain where the fuck Napoleon came from...

Corsica.

Seriously, don't they teach you anything in American schools? :p

Oddly enough, people in France preferred not starving to war with the UK. Of course, this still doesn't explain where the fuck Napoleon came from...

Its exactly that lack of courage that defines the French as cowards.

Had they the virtue of bravery, they would have solved both problems, as the English are edible.

Corsica.

Seriously, don't they teach you anything in American schools? :pObvious oxymoron is obvious. :p

You're wrong on this one, Trostia, the French are cowards.

If they weren't, there would have been thousands of Free French soldiers who fought on with the Allies.

There would have been 12 entire squadrons of French Pilots serving in exile in the RAF, helping to defend Britain, and thereby America.

There would have been a large, organized French resistence movement that risked everything to give ongoing, vital intelligence to the Allies.

Yes, the French are cowards, because all of those people never existed, never gave their lives to fight the Nazis.

Yes, piss on the French. Clearly they refuse to fight.


Oh be fair, there was a largely successful resistance movement, set up, supplied and organised by British and later American agencies...

Its exactly that lack of courage that defines the French as cowards.

Had they the virtue of bravery, they would have solved both problems, as the English are edible. To be fair, the actual French government was in London at the time of the invasion for talks with the British Govt. When De-Gaul found out about the surrender he was furious, almost as furious as when we sank his navy.

Yeah, I don't think it matters how defenseless Britain is at any point in time. I'm from the U.S., and let me say that I think the Brits are a scrappy bunch who can fight machine guns with their fingernails if they need to.

I think they proved that in WWII, didn't they? The U.S. didn't have to liberate Britain. They had to liberate cowardly France, who aren't worth a crap and no matter how well-armed they are they'll still lose every war they fight in.

See here for proof of Britain's wartime resourcefulness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF0R4dhUqk

I won't post proof of France's wussy nature. I think it's a pretty commonly known fact.

Pay closer attention to History. The French are not cowardly (but it is fun to make jokes about it) the actual problem France has had throughout its history is the over willingness of soldiers, and their officers, to commit to battle. France picks a fight without considering the consequences and then commits its full force to the battle; especially in defense. France has a very 'defense through offense' strategy. Historically speaking.

To be fair, the actual French government was in London at the time of the invasion for talks with the British Govt. When De-Gaul found out about the surrender he was furious, almost as furious as when we sank his navy.

He should of given it to us anyway, not like he was using it. And we couldn't let one of the most powerful navies at the time fall into German hands, so we had to do it.

(The French retaliated to that by the way, they didn't hit much.)