its quite clear that you are attempting to belittle the british forces scoff and for this you should hang your head in shame the germans WERE the aggressors,regardless of what you are trying to peddle pal, however the fact the these other nations suffered more casualties has absolutely no bearing on why WW2 started.. the military alliance the germans had with italy didnt even guarantee the italians would fight and even after the germans invaded poland mousollini refused military action. read up on the various pacts the germans forged with the russians,japs and italians , you will then get an idea as to why they did it and what their ultimate goal was...btw the british and french declaration of war at the time had nothing to do with what the japs were up to in the far east, a completely unprovoked attack on poland, despite britain and france warning the krauts against it, was the reason we declared war on germany (i'm sure you are aware of this) ..the germans thought they had cracked it because they'd had assurances from the russians that there would be no military action against them (by the russians).. .after walking into and being practically welcomed by austria,along with taking over czechoslovakia more or less unchallenged the germans thought they could do the same with poland the poles suffered a terrible loss of life both militarily and civilian because they were being hammered from both the west(germany) and the east (russia) german / russian alliance fell apart after the germans crossed the boundaries drawn up in the pact set up between the two, in effect they invaded russia largest number of deaths in any war ever were caused because of german aggression.
If Hitler hadn't gone East into Russia, we'd probably never have been able to invade through France - the sheer volume of soldiers and equipment lost and the damage to morale during the winter of 1942/3 effectively broke the German armed forces. I doubt they'd have been able to successfully invade the UK either, so the war would probably have ground to a stalemate with mainland Europe being under Hitler, with borders at the North Sea, the Spanish border and Russia. Same in the Pacific, if Japan hadn't attacked the USA, then they'd have fought to a draw with India and China - with a chunk of China/South East Asia being Japanese for a few years. There is an argument that the war was lost by the overconfidence of autocratic leaders
Given that Brad Potts was pictured cavorting in swimming pools in Vegas with the rest of our squad, I wonder if a return to Oakwell may be on the cards?
Actually Hesetine hasnt been expelled from the party - he has just had the whip withdrawn which isnt quite the same thing So interestingly MP's can vote against the party even on a 3 line whip and the worst that can happen is they are sent to the back benches - if they arent already there. But someone who says they are so opposed to one part of the party policy on Europe they didn't want to vote for them in an election to the European parliament is kicked out - that seems bizarre. What happens to all the party members who dont vote in elections
Why? What word? You’re just talking sound bites now, that don’t make any sense. Which bit of my post is incorrect?
We didn't fight the Germans. We fought the Nazi's and their allies - Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary. I'm not belittling the British forces. They were part of (and not the largest part) of a combined effort. At the same time, neither we (nor the Americans) were the unbeatable superheros of film legend. We did some great work, including the code breaking and our resistance certainly helped to keep the fight alive before it could be turned around as a joint effort. The war was won, and lost, on the Eastern Front, where millions died. A massive amount of deaths were in Asia. Around 30m civilians (lower estimate) died from enemy action, disease and starvation due to the Japanese aggression. That started two years before the European conflict and ended after, and is a similar figure to that in Europe.
Difference between not voting for your party and actively voting for another party that , ironically, were an enabler in the Referendum in the first place . Campbell has done nothing but undermine Labour since Bliar left , good riddance
It would be interesting. I like Potts as a player, but Brown really has come into his own since January. Onto time was tell. Now, where were we....?
I believe I heard on a recent political programme that he's been told, if he doesn't pledge to vote for the Tory party in future elections, his membership of the party will be cancelled. On a point of principle, if somebody tried to do that to me, I think I'd offer my resignation.
The cyncial part of me would suggest the Labour heirachy are using Campbell as a bit of a scapegoat to distract from the other big Labour news today...
Apart from anything else how can you pledge to vote for someone in a future election if they haven't written the manifesto for that election yet. Also how do they know in anycase if you dont publicly state who you voted for I think this one is quite telling and if you want clear double standards Kate Howey seems to be actively campaining for the Brexit party but she hasnt been kicked out yet
Equality & human Rights commission has announced a formal investigation into Anti semetism and how it is handled within the party. It may come to nothing, it might blow the lid off the party, it might be somewhere inbetween. Either way Labour now shares the same infamy as the BNP
Why don't you mention the call for the same investigation but for Islamophobia in the Conservative party? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48434202