Well,is he right ?

If you have a beef, complain to James Bond. 🙂

…….recently made redundant.:rolleyes:

Would the British economic climate be any better if the UK was overrun by the Germans in 1940?

Probably not, thats speculation, however our roads and motorways would certainly be better 😉

Lincoln .7

For news and social issues I ‘d thought it would have been Eastenders with its stunning social commentary.
Or perhaps “Top Gear” for its enlightened views on other nations and UK truck drivers.:D

That’s it John, you have just gone a bridge too far regarding your comments re Top Gear. Where else could us petrol heads see some of the most exotic cars on the planet?.
Not down my street, thats for sure. :p

Lincoln .7

That might not have been so bad………..;)

Surely it would have been the Reichsmarkzone? 😎

Would the British economic climate be any better if the UK was overrun by the Germans in 1940?

Far worse – we would be locked into the Eurozone.

Would the British economic climate be any better if the UK was overrun by the Germans in 1940?

For the Germans, certainly, but not the conquered Brits, who would have been gently encouraged to swap all their worldly goods for the odd bowl of gruel, hard graft, and some barbed wire walls.
Some parts of the UK were considered to be populated by ‘untermensch’ by the Nazis, such as the descendants of Pictish tribes on the Scottish east coast, and would have probably faired much worse than, say, the Gaels or Anglo-Saxons, whom the Germans considered their equals.
Shows how idiotic their ideology was – the Picts originally came from northern Germany and Scandinavia across the land-bridge after the last Ice-Age, whereas the Gaels were from Celtic stock migrating from the Basque area of Spain through Cornwall, Wales, and Ireland…

If it followed the German post war model. Yes.
But, Germany was rebuilt for almost free don’t forget.

However, the credit crunch hardly hit the Germans. My German friends and workmates never got into that much debt, nor did their Banks.

Would the British economic climate be any better if the UK was overrun by the Germans in 1940?

Whereas the Aboriginese in Australia were treated gallantly by the British, just like the Zulu in South Africa (not that they were treated any better by the Boers).

I don’t know if you’re serious about your remark, but if this is your view on history it is extremely biased.

Your remark would be more historically accurate if you’d say that “Has anyone ever noticed that the places [B][I]ethnically cleansed with the indigenous population being moved to the fringes of society by the British are,[/B] while not without fault, mostly wealthy and first world, among the nicer places to live?”[/I]

Nor sure about Indians in Canada being “ethnically cleansed” but presumably you are referring to Australia and New Zealand. Do you suppose that the Maoris and Aborigines would have provided their heirs with the quality of life now enjoyed by the populations of those two countries had they not been colonised?

While one might argue that the persons of Hawaii for instance might have been better off had Cook not found them…

Whereas the Aboriginese in Australia were treated gallantly by the British, just like the Zulu in South Africa (not that they were treated any better by the Boers).

I don’t know if you’re serious about your remark, but if this is your view on history it is extremely biased.

Your remark would be more historically accurate if you’d say that “Has anyone ever noticed that the places ethnically cleansed with the indigenous population being moved to the fringes of society by the British are, while not without fault, mostly wealthy and first world, among the nicer places to live?”

Back to thoughts about the Empire:

Has anyone ever noticed that the places colonized and organized by the British are, while not without fault, mostly wealthy and first world, among the nicer places to live? United States, Australia, portions of Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

Don’t forget other, perhaps less desirable places to live, such as Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan. It seems that the wealth spread mainly to places where large numbers of Europeans went to live.

As for Haiti, it hasn’t been a colony since the 18th Century, and was crippled by high interest loans from then until 1947.

And we fought the French in North America and the Dutch in South Africa. Not sure if I would include South Africa in the current list and if you then add all our ex-African colonies it does rather colour the theme. I suppose we either got to the best places first or won out against the opposition for them!

Back to thoughts about the Empire:

Has anyone ever noticed that the places colonized and organized by the British are, while not without fault, mostly wealthy and first world, among the nicer places to live? United States, Australia, portions of Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.

By comparison consider the places colonized by the French, Spanish, and Dutch: Large portions of Africa, South America, and Central America that are perpetually in Civil War and where millions languish in destitution. Haiti anyone? (The frightfully poor DR next door almost seems pleasant by comparison).

While one might argue that the persons of Hawaii for instance might have been better off had Cook not found them, it is right frighful to recall what the Spanish did to the native peoples of Jamaica, for example, basically giving them a choice between slavery and death.

J. Boyle – I read an interview with him at the weekend and much of what he has to say is quite illuminating – but not to the usual Bush/Blair/US haters, as you pointedly note.

Really? 😮
I’ve never researched it. Surley he had some other evidence…and don’t call me Shirley.

Well Shirley, we actually did. UK, just like USA has “Operatives” in every country. The WMD was a convenient ploy to get in there and finish the job, IMO.
As for us actually using our own intel., no matter IMO. We shall always stand by the USA and I’m sure she will stand by us in every major crisis. (Well, you did before you voted that idiot in)

The WMD’s never turned up, we KNOW he had them 5 years before, so where are they? Don’t answer that, it’s a thread on its own.

I just saw this on the CNN website.
I’m sure it won’t change the opinions any of the Bush/Blair/U.S. haters out there, but here’s are some words from the guy in the middle of it…

Washington (CNN) – If the Bush Administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn’t have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, Rumsfeld noted there were multiple reasons for attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein from power.

However, intelligence reports – now shown to have been false – that Iraq possessed so-called WMDs was the main reason for going in, Rumsfeld said.

“No question it was the big one,” he said. Asked if the United States would not have invaded if the administration didn’t believe Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: “I think that’s probably right.”

He criticized the source known as “Curveball” – an Iraqi defector who admitted his claims that Iraq possessed WMDs were false – but stopped short of condemning the U.S. intelligence community.

“The intelligence community talks to hundreds of people,” Rumsfeld said. “They have human assets, such as this man. Some are honest, some are dishonest. Some do it for money, some do it for self aggrandizement. Some do it, apparently, to lie.”

I’m sure he did not commit your country without independent proof or intelligence. If he didn’t have non-US supplied proof, your country has far bigger defense troubles than the retirement of obsolete aircraft

He didn’t, and we have.

Really? 😮
I’ve never researched it. Surley he had some other evidence…and don’t call me Shirley.

You’ll have to elaborate on that one, because I don’t see the connection.
Are you referring to Doctor Who, or Strictly Come Dancing?
East Enders, perhaps? :confused:

For news and social issues I ‘d thought it would have been Eastenders with its stunning social commentary.
Or perhaps “Top Gear” for its enlightened views on other nations and UK truck drivers.:D

I’m sure he did not commit your country without independent proof or intelligence. If he didn’t have non-US supplied proof, your country has far bigger defense troubles than the retirement of obsolete aircraft

He didn’t, and we have.

The American intelligence, wasn’t.

That’s no matter to me, because I support the removal of all such regimes anyway, no need to lie to me about 45 minutes blah blah blah.