stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 20, 2018 17:24:01 GMT
I didn't realise they were still that outdated. Good to know. Although their software and missiles etc are probably somewhat updated I don't think they will make a bid. The IRA are likely to have some nasty shocks, along with social changes which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic church and things like same sex marriage. However I think most of them were pretty much monolithically concentrated on killing people they don't like [or don't obey them] and running their protection rackets and generally pushing people about. If the British government can get info from 2018 possibly a lot of deaths in Ulster and Britain generally can be avoided. At the same date as the Mountbatten attack there was a big bomb in London and the killers could well be in Britain by this time so possibly they could well be caught before they can do anything. Although this does raise the question of can you charge someone for what they did in 1979 [or latter] when for them it hasn't yet??] However there are a lot of crimes and activities than are known about, as well as miscarriages of justice. Ditto with things like some of the political scandles and some of the big pedophilia cases for instance. I did mention earlier that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper can be identified and caught before his last murders but a lot of other cases can be cleared up or prevented as well. That means a new Good Friday Agreement has to be made. It does presume that the all four of the parties will be willing to do that. The Irish government will be but the British government, Ulster Protestants and IRA of 1979 may be less willing. I doubt a British government would feel that powerful that it would be willing to let so many murderers walk given how bloody things were in the 1970s, especially if they think access to knowledge from the future will help beat the terrorists. Probably even more so the Protestants and the Irish hard liners.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,931
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 20, 2018 17:25:44 GMT
That means a new Good Friday Agreement has to be made. It does presume that the all four of the parties will be willing to do that. The Irish government will be but the British government, Ulster Protestants and IRA of 1979 may be less willing. I doubt a British government would feel that powerful that it would be willing to let so many murderers walk given how bloody things were in the 1970s, especially if they think access to knowledge from the future will help beat the terrorists. Probably even more so the Protestants and the Irish hard liners. But the 1979 IRA will have a problem that it might not get the same sympathy from 2018 Ireland, i wonder, is the IRA also active in 2018 Ireland, because that would be weird.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 20, 2018 17:33:10 GMT
It does presume that the all four of the parties will be willing to do that. The Irish government will be but the British government, Ulster Protestants and IRA of 1979 may be less willing. I doubt a British government would feel that powerful that it would be willing to let so many murderers walk given how bloody things were in the 1970s, especially if they think access to knowledge from the future will help beat the terrorists. Probably even more so the Protestants and the Irish hard liners. But the 1979 IRA will have a problem that it might not get the same sympathy from 2018 Ireland, i wonder, is the IRA also active in 2018 Ireland, because that would be weird. Sinn Fein, its 'political' wing is active and has gained a worrying level of support in recent years. Back in the 1970s' it was seen as a terrorist organisation in Ireland, with minimal support electorally - although there were always some extremists who gave them shelter and support and some politicians who seemed to favour their activities. It might depend on how 2018 Britain and Ulster react as their likely to find the degree of influence in 2018 Ulster of Ireland worrying. The Protestants because they feared rule from Dublin, which many at the time would see this as the thin end of the wedge and London as this, coupled with the changes in the EU as seriously threatening to national sovereignty. Not saying this would happen but I could see it occurring.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 20, 2018 18:20:03 GMT
Ouch, Hongkong would hurt, it could cost UK "everything"... because china will not "negotiate" but demand... including an ultimatum. No sane country of 2018 would deny the legimate demands of china. Also, china of 2018 is VERY different to china of 1980. It is vastly superior in anything military, because the chinese had a huge jump in that time. Compared to the USN of 2018 they are helpless, compared with the one of 1980... well that is interesting. For sure the chinese satellites are vastly superior. So i can´t really see the USA supporting UK in this scenario. the economic development of UK is interesting. Propably a gigantic desaster, because Thatchers UK wouldn´t be welcomed in the world of 2018, esp. with Thatcher ruling it. The french, germans and most other european countries would see UK and esp. Thatcher as a big problem. Because they know how nasty Thatcher was OTL, they will show no mercy. UK is not competitive in any industries, its military stuff is 40-50 years to old, outdated and there is no hope for them to really win any fight (okay, against the argentines... but the argentine subs are much more dangerous as the OTL ones, they have superior missles and - ship for ship - the argentines are vastly superior. Unfortunatly, they are so weak now, that they would not try something against UK. THe biggest problem for UK is this: the USA is in an even bigger crisis as UK. Suddenly they lost their place nr.1, they have way to many nukes - and the rest of the world would kind but direct make clear that they have to reduce 80-90% of them, otherwise the USA would violate all treaties of the last 30 years. All military hardware is outdated, completly outdated. The tanks are just targets, their helicopters just targets, their airforce a joke - plane for plane. Numbers will help, but the modern engagements mean that suddenly the USA need 20-30 older planes to beat 3-4 enemies of 2018. With no real internet, no real computer industries, with their weak economy (esp. car manufacturers will no longer sell stuff, any car from china, japan, europe is so superior you couldn´t describe it) The same is true for machinery, production systems, basically every single industrial area the US economy is par to a 3rd world country... even north korea is superior in "anything" Mexico and Canada are suddenly countries who have much better specialists and the USA is the LLDC that need them.. urgently. If UK remove Thatcher, accept that they are only ballast to the other europeans and drop their "imperial" opinion, they get a realistic chance to get developted. 20 years of massive support by the EU could change things, the mindset of the british of 1980 isn´t incompatible to the modern world. But the globalism is still a huge shock for them, just the fact that the cold war has gone, hungaria is more powerfull in economic terms as UK will really hurt them. Or the fact about germany, no longer "british occupation forces" but a free united germany that is economically very powerfull - there still live enough britons who would not be to happy about that. In the same time someone like Merkel would not be understood. Putin they could easily understood Some things never change, right?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 21, 2018 9:26:05 GMT
Ouch, Hongkong would hurt, it could cost UK "everything"... because china will not "negotiate" but demand... including an ultimatum. No sane country of 2018 would deny the legimate demands of china. Also, china of 2018 is VERY different to china of 1980. It is vastly superior in anything military, because the chinese had a huge jump in that time. Compared to the USN of 2018 they are helpless, compared with the one of 1980... well that is interesting. For sure the chinese satellites are vastly superior. So i can´t really see the USA supporting UK in this scenario. the economic development of UK is interesting. Propably a gigantic desaster, because Thatchers UK wouldn´t be welcomed in the world of 2018, esp. with Thatcher ruling it. The french, germans and most other european countries would see UK and esp. Thatcher as a big problem. Because they know how nasty Thatcher was OTL, they will show no mercy. UK is not competitive in any industries, its military stuff is 40-50 years to old, outdated and there is no hope for them to really win any fight (okay, against the argentines... but the argentine subs are much more dangerous as the OTL ones, they have superior missles and - ship for ship - the argentines are vastly superior. Unfortunatly, they are so weak now, that they would not try something against UK. THe biggest problem for UK is this: the USA is in an even bigger crisis as UK. Suddenly they lost their place nr.1, they have way to many nukes - and the rest of the world would kind but direct make clear that they have to reduce 80-90% of them, otherwise the USA would violate all treaties of the last 30 years. All military hardware is outdated, completly outdated. The tanks are just targets, their helicopters just targets, their airforce a joke - plane for plane. Numbers will help, but the modern engagements mean that suddenly the USA need 20-30 older planes to beat 3-4 enemies of 2018. With no real internet, no real computer industries, with their weak economy (esp. car manufacturers will no longer sell stuff, any car from china, japan, europe is so superior you couldn´t describe it) The same is true for machinery, production systems, basically every single industrial area the US economy is par to a 3rd world country... even north korea is superior in "anything" Mexico and Canada are suddenly countries who have much better specialists and the USA is the LLDC that need them.. urgently. If UK remove Thatcher, accept that they are only ballast to the other europeans and drop their "imperial" opinion, they get a realistic chance to get developted. 20 years of massive support by the EU could change things, the mindset of the british of 1980 isn´t incompatible to the modern world. But the globalism is still a huge shock for them, just the fact that the cold war has gone, hungaria is more powerfull in economic terms as UK will really hurt them. Or the fact about germany, no longer "british occupation forces" but a free united germany that is economically very powerfull - there still live enough britons who would not be to happy about that. In the same time someone like Merkel would not be understood. Putin they could easily understood Some things never change, right? The problem is will the EU stay hostile to the UK? At the very least its likely to seek more control and to 1979 Britain that will be excessive, no matter how weak it is economically. Don't forget this is only 4 years after the 75 referendum when Britain was repeatedly told that the EEC was just a trading organisation and has no intention of being a continental sized state and now their in a world where its well on the way to that. I can see Britain being very angry at the imperial attitude of the EU and saying no way. There is a chance of support from the US, which is in a similar boat and also friendly countries but if the EU tries the sort of approach its being using the last decade or so, and especially since the 2016 referendum the reaction is likely to be go to hell. That's far, far more important than your illusions about Britain. Thatcher will be a problem given her historical weak government style and support of the parasites of the city and big business. She's more likely to submit to demands from a more powerful body, especially if the wealthy are looked after but there's going to be a huge shock to the system and its possible it could get the shake up it needed. However whoever is in charge if the EU tries continuing to dictate there is likely to be a very powerful opposition. Similarly 79 Britain is unlikely to be happy with all the concessions made to centralised power since then or accept that their bound by agreements they never made. Britain once its finds its feet and gets a clearer idea of the world its in will recognise Putin more easily than the EU does. He will be seen as a street thug who became the ruler of a large state, with strong parallels to his role model in Germany. As I have said there is the chance of a clash over Hong Kong, especially if China reacts violently without giving Britain and the US time to understand what's happened and negotiate. That is partly because they won't accept, on the gut level even if on the brain level the relative power of China nowadays. Given the current ruler of China this is a distinct danger and could go as far as a lot of nukes flying. At the least Hong Kong could be trashed by China and prolonged bad feeling between the three powers. Which would make the US even more determined to rejected Chinese claims on debts and the like. This is one reason why the US may well refuse to give up nukes in such a suddenly threatening world.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 21, 2018 11:08:17 GMT
Ouch, Hongkong would hurt, it could cost UK "everything"... because china will not "negotiate" but demand... including an ultimatum. No sane country of 2018 would deny the legimate demands of china. Also, china of 2018 is VERY different to china of 1980. It is vastly superior in anything military, because the chinese had a huge jump in that time. Compared to the USN of 2018 they are helpless, compared with the one of 1980... well that is interesting. For sure the chinese satellites are vastly superior. So i can´t really see the USA supporting UK in this scenario. the economic development of UK is interesting. Propably a gigantic desaster, because Thatchers UK wouldn´t be welcomed in the world of 2018, esp. with Thatcher ruling it. The french, germans and most other european countries would see UK and esp. Thatcher as a big problem. Because they know how nasty Thatcher was OTL, they will show no mercy. UK is not competitive in any industries, its military stuff is 40-50 years to old, outdated and there is no hope for them to really win any fight (okay, against the argentines... but the argentine subs are much more dangerous as the OTL ones, they have superior missles and - ship for ship - the argentines are vastly superior. Unfortunatly, they are so weak now, that they would not try something against UK. THe biggest problem for UK is this: the USA is in an even bigger crisis as UK. Suddenly they lost their place nr.1, they have way to many nukes - and the rest of the world would kind but direct make clear that they have to reduce 80-90% of them, otherwise the USA would violate all treaties of the last 30 years. All military hardware is outdated, completly outdated. The tanks are just targets, their helicopters just targets, their airforce a joke - plane for plane. Numbers will help, but the modern engagements mean that suddenly the USA need 20-30 older planes to beat 3-4 enemies of 2018. With no real internet, no real computer industries, with their weak economy (esp. car manufacturers will no longer sell stuff, any car from china, japan, europe is so superior you couldn´t describe it) The same is true for machinery, production systems, basically every single industrial area the US economy is par to a 3rd world country... even north korea is superior in "anything" Mexico and Canada are suddenly countries who have much better specialists and the USA is the LLDC that need them.. urgently. If UK remove Thatcher, accept that they are only ballast to the other europeans and drop their "imperial" opinion, they get a realistic chance to get developted. 20 years of massive support by the EU could change things, the mindset of the british of 1980 isn´t incompatible to the modern world. But the globalism is still a huge shock for them, just the fact that the cold war has gone, hungaria is more powerfull in economic terms as UK will really hurt them. Or the fact about germany, no longer "british occupation forces" but a free united germany that is economically very powerfull - there still live enough britons who would not be to happy about that. In the same time someone like Merkel would not be understood. Putin they could easily understood Some things never change, right? The problem is will the EU stay hostile to the UK? At the very least its likely to seek more control and to 1979 Britain that will be excessive, no matter how weak it is economically. Don't forget this is only 4 years after the 75 referendum when Britain was repeatedly told that the EEC was just a trading organisation and has no intention of being a continental sized state and now their in a world where its well on the way to that. I can see Britain being very angry at the imperial attitude of the EU and saying no way. There is a chance of support from the US, which is in a similar boat and also friendly countries but if the EU tries the sort of approach its being using the last decade or so, and especially since the 2016 referendum the reaction is likely to be go to hell. That's far, far more important than your illusions about Britain. Thatcher will be a problem given her historical weak government style and support of the parasites of the city and big business. She's more likely to submit to demands from a more powerful body, especially if the wealthy are looked after but there's going to be a huge shock to the system and its possible it could get the shake up it needed. However whoever is in charge if the EU tries continuing to dictate there is likely to be a very powerful opposition. Similarly 79 Britain is unlikely to be happy with all the concessions made to centralised power since then or accept that their bound by agreements they never made. Britain once its finds its feet and gets a clearer idea of the world its in will recognise Putin more easily than the EU does. He will be seen as a street thug who became the ruler of a large state, with strong parallels to his role model in Germany. As I have said there is the chance of a clash over Hong Kong, especially if China reacts violently without giving Britain and the US time to understand what's happened and negotiate. That is partly because they won't accept, on the gut level even if on the brain level the relative power of China nowadays. Given the current ruler of China this is a distinct danger and could go as far as a lot of nukes flying. At the least Hong Kong could be trashed by China and prolonged bad feeling between the three powers. Which would make the US even more determined to rejected Chinese claims on debts and the like. This is one reason why the US may well refuse to give up nukes in such a suddenly threatening world. Hi, first of all it would be nice to respect the opinion of other people. We disagree fully about the roles in the Brexit and how the EU should react to it. THat is fine - everyone has his opinion. That is just because my impression about this is that you seem to not accept different opinions in this. But nothing else about the OTL politics. We discuss the ASB-event of the replacement of 1979-UK and USA into te world of 2018 - 39 years later. With Thatcher ruling UK, an UK that indeed thinks the EU is just the economic loose treaty that should benefit british interests (that is called historically the "british discount" by the MP Thatcher). Infact the times have changed - in consequence (OTL) the british decided in a narrow election to leave the EU (for me this is fine, i would be happy if others also could decide to stay or leave - no problems with that). The problem we face now is this: the european people, politicans, but moreso the politicans of the EU all have zero desire to support that "hostile" UK (as they see it today - you could think that is unfair, but i just repeat the facts - with the brexit the british politics had broken all bridges and all symphathies they had in the EU-leadership. So no "opinion" but matter of facts). Naturally the UK of 1979 hadn´t done this, but - unfortunatly for the british of 79 the other europeans just could look into WIKI or other history books to understand that UK never had a real interest in the actual development of the EU. So - my question to you - should the modern EU have any interest to fuel this UK, that is - in the moment - helpless in modern economics, lacking computers, lacking the education you need to build up modern economy, lack basically "anything". Do not misunderstand my point here, please. The british people of 1979 aren´t uneducated, but they are 40 years behind in the propably most accelerated changing histoy of human mankind. This brings them in a huge troublesome situation, they are not competitive, in NO area of economics. They lack behind, far behind, in anything. Okay, maybe nuclear armed submarines they are still competitive, but otherwise? How could a country like UK, that live in the moment from ressources from the north sea (oil and gas - but in much reduced numbers!) survive in the modern world? What could they offer? Please remember, the european countries, their leadership "knows" that OTL the british gave them a boot and - again european POV - try to insult, betray and cheat in maximum arrogant kind the whole political elite of the EU. You may see it different - i just repeat the impressions these politicans made public about the negotiations with UK. The only other country UK could ask for help, the USA, has similar problems. China - some country UK could ask for help normally (the chinese propably would be happy to reduce the power/economic influence of the EU in europe) is very angry about the realistic reaction of UK about the chinese demands to give Hongkong "tomorrow" to china... So scratch this country from your list of supporters. UK is really in deep troubles, esp. because a lot companies who have strong ties with UK suddenly have lost this influence (these connections were build up in a long time, that is now reduced to nil!). So we not only speak about a country that is not competitive in all economic areas but also a country that has angered the needed partners (EU) in a problematic way and the companies in these european countries are VERY upset about the fact that they lost billions of euro of investitions, that they suddenly face taxes and hurdles they got reduced in the last 40 years. We need also to understand that the politicans of the UK in 1979 are more in the cold-war-post-ww2-area as in modern times (34 years to 38 years), i still try to see them to react to 82million unified germans, that are the most powerfull economic country in an EU that will frighten them. Give Thatcher who hated germany from their hearts and really i can´t see her reacting better to the EU-political leadership and you face a really troublesome situation - for UK. The USA is to big to fail, to strong economically, they could survive but with huge problems. UK is to small, to weak and - to unimportant. China will be in opposition to UK (because of Hongkong), with the USA (because they lost several billions of Dollar). Russia will be VERY happy, because their global enemy - the USA - has gigantic internal problems, in fact russia is far ahead in technology, living standards, military equipment compared to the USA now. Even china - because 40 years old stuff is old, very old. The modern revolution caused this. I mean, a time warp from 1890 to 1935 is bad, but acceptable... some things changed, but not in the same way as it changed from 1980-2018. Really, UK sit in a deep pit and can´t win... i do not see em accepting the EU-laws, esp. after they learn that their "OTL"-version had voted to opt out. UK in this scenario has no friends, nobody who would support them. India? forget em, they remember colonialism. China? Hongkong - sorry nope. Russia - maybe Putin would love Thatcher, but next to her hate for germany was her cold-war-blood... so again she will not try to deal with Putin. We need to understand that this UK need thousends of billion EURO support to modernize its country. Just think about container terminals, in 1980 container traffic was in its infants, now it is needed. We talk about 2-4 million unemployed british at day 1 of the timewarp... because nobody would buy british goods in 1980-quality... lack of technology, quality. Again - that isn´t something "against UK or USA", you could move any modern country and replace it by its 1980-version, everyone face the same problem. it is a bit special for UK, because of Brexit in combination with Thatcher... by the way, leftist british will learn about history of Thatcherism, so expect a lot unrest and hate against her ruling. So the country itself will be teared appart, because the conservatives and the socialists will fight about the right way Last thing: the EU is not hostile to UK in OTL, the EU is just not interested in a "special relationship" the british wanted since day one of their entry in the EU. The way the brexit happened the british had lost all symphaties and - in the core of the negotiations - the EU will not accept anything the british wants. You interpret this as "hostile", others- like me - see it as fair but hard realism, so UK understand what they did and what their "wishes/demands" mean. That will hurt some economies (like the german one), but overall - and this is my personal view - it is a good example to make clear that nobody who leave the EU could hope to get "special relationships". You go all in (or all out in this case) and you face the consequences. From the EU-pov this is necessary to keep the EU together. Again, feel free to disagree - no problem. We both have zero influence about the development of the next years. Some points that need clarification: with the brexit done, but in the same time the british not signing a lot stuff that is law actually, how is the behaviour of UK to interpret? I mean, say there existed taxes to italian cheese in 1979 (say 40% taxes), but actual there is zero, what rules they have to obey? In the moment we discuss it just like "all stuff from today is accepted, including Brexit-negotiations". But the british hadn´t payed 40 years into it... so this would effect these brexit-negotiations... on the other hand, the EU want that money, because for them UK had benefited all the time. This alone is a huge dilemma... also who could solve this? Such ASB-ish moves cause a lot troubles
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 21, 2018 16:24:39 GMT
The problem is will the EU stay hostile to the UK? At the very least its likely to seek more control and to 1979 Britain that will be excessive, no matter how weak it is economically. Don't forget this is only 4 years after the 75 referendum when Britain was repeatedly told that the EEC was just a trading organisation and has no intention of being a continental sized state and now their in a world where its well on the way to that. I can see Britain being very angry at the imperial attitude of the EU and saying no way. There is a chance of support from the US, which is in a similar boat and also friendly countries but if the EU tries the sort of approach its being using the last decade or so, and especially since the 2016 referendum the reaction is likely to be go to hell. That's far, far more important than your illusions about Britain. Thatcher will be a problem given her historical weak government style and support of the parasites of the city and big business. She's more likely to submit to demands from a more powerful body, especially if the wealthy are looked after but there's going to be a huge shock to the system and its possible it could get the shake up it needed. However whoever is in charge if the EU tries continuing to dictate there is likely to be a very powerful opposition. Similarly 79 Britain is unlikely to be happy with all the concessions made to centralised power since then or accept that their bound by agreements they never made. Britain once its finds its feet and gets a clearer idea of the world its in will recognise Putin more easily than the EU does. He will be seen as a street thug who became the ruler of a large state, with strong parallels to his role model in Germany. As I have said there is the chance of a clash over Hong Kong, especially if China reacts violently without giving Britain and the US time to understand what's happened and negotiate. That is partly because they won't accept, on the gut level even if on the brain level the relative power of China nowadays. Given the current ruler of China this is a distinct danger and could go as far as a lot of nukes flying. At the least Hong Kong could be trashed by China and prolonged bad feeling between the three powers. Which would make the US even more determined to rejected Chinese claims on debts and the like. This is one reason why the US may well refuse to give up nukes in such a suddenly threatening world. Hi, first of all it would be nice to respect the opinion of other people. We disagree fully about the roles in the Brexit and how the EU should react to it. THat is fine - everyone has his opinion. That is just because my impression about this is that you seem to not accept different opinions in this. But nothing else about the OTL politics. We discuss the ASB-event of the replacement of 1979-UK and USA into te world of 2018 - 39 years later. With Thatcher ruling UK, an UK that indeed thinks the EU is just the economic loose treaty that should benefit british interests (that is called historically the "british discount" by the MP Thatcher). Infact the times have changed - in consequence (OTL) the british decided in a narrow election to leave the EU (for me this is fine, i would be happy if others also could decide to stay or leave - no problems with that). The problem we face now is this: the european people, politicans, but moreso the politicans of the EU all have zero desire to support that "hostile" UK (as they see it today - you could think that is unfair, but i just repeat the facts - with the brexit the british politics had broken all bridges and all symphathies they had in the EU-leadership. So no "opinion" but matter of facts). Naturally the UK of 1979 hadn´t done this, but - unfortunatly for the british of 79 the other europeans just could look into WIKI or other history books to understand that UK never had a real interest in the actual development of the EU. So - my question to you - should the modern EU have any interest to fuel this UK, that is - in the moment - helpless in modern economics, lacking computers, lacking the education you need to build up modern economy, lack basically "anything". Do not misunderstand my point here, please. The british people of 1979 aren´t uneducated, but they are 40 years behind in the propably most accelerated changing histoy of human mankind. This brings them in a huge troublesome situation, they are not competitive, in NO area of economics. They lack behind, far behind, in anything. Okay, maybe nuclear armed submarines they are still competitive, but otherwise? How could a country like UK, that live in the moment from ressources from the north sea (oil and gas - but in much reduced numbers!) survive in the modern world? What could they offer? Please remember, the european countries, their leadership "knows" that OTL the british gave them a boot and - again european POV - try to insult, betray and cheat in maximum arrogant kind the whole political elite of the EU. You may see it different - i just repeat the impressions these politicans made public about the negotiations with UK. The only other country UK could ask for help, the USA, has similar problems. China - some country UK could ask for help normally (the chinese propably would be happy to reduce the power/economic influence of the EU in europe) is very angry about the realistic reaction of UK about the chinese demands to give Hongkong "tomorrow" to china... So scratch this country from your list of supporters. UK is really in deep troubles, esp. because a lot companies who have strong ties with UK suddenly have lost this influence (these connections were build up in a long time, that is now reduced to nil!). So we not only speak about a country that is not competitive in all economic areas but also a country that has angered the needed partners (EU) in a problematic way and the companies in these european countries are VERY upset about the fact that they lost billions of euro of investitions, that they suddenly face taxes and hurdles they got reduced in the last 40 years. We need also to understand that the politicans of the UK in 1979 are more in the cold-war-post-ww2-area as in modern times (34 years to 38 years), i still try to see them to react to 82million unified germans, that are the most powerfull economic country in an EU that will frighten them. Give Thatcher who hated germany from their hearts and really i can´t see her reacting better to the EU-political leadership and you face a really troublesome situation - for UK. The USA is to big to fail, to strong economically, they could survive but with huge problems. UK is to small, to weak and - to unimportant. China will be in opposition to UK (because of Hongkong), with the USA (because they lost several billions of Dollar). Russia will be VERY happy, because their global enemy - the USA - has gigantic internal problems, in fact russia is far ahead in technology, living standards, military equipment compared to the USA now. Even china - because 40 years old stuff is old, very old. The modern revolution caused this. I mean, a time warp from 1890 to 1935 is bad, but acceptable... some things changed, but not in the same way as it changed from 1980-2018. Really, UK sit in a deep pit and can´t win... i do not see em accepting the EU-laws, esp. after they learn that their "OTL"-version had voted to opt out. UK in this scenario has no friends, nobody who would support them. India? forget em, they remember colonialism. China? Hongkong - sorry nope. Russia - maybe Putin would love Thatcher, but next to her hate for germany was her cold-war-blood... so again she will not try to deal with Putin. We need to understand that this UK need thousends of billion EURO support to modernize its country. Just think about container terminals, in 1980 container traffic was in its infants, now it is needed. We talk about 2-4 million unemployed british at day 1 of the timewarp... because nobody would buy british goods in 1980-quality... lack of technology, quality. Again - that isn´t something "against UK or USA", you could move any modern country and replace it by its 1980-version, everyone face the same problem. it is a bit special for UK, because of Brexit in combination with Thatcher... by the way, leftist british will learn about history of Thatcherism, so expect a lot unrest and hate against her ruling. So the country itself will be teared appart, because the conservatives and the socialists will fight about the right way Last thing: the EU is not hostile to UK in OTL, the EU is just not interested in a "special relationship" the british wanted since day one of their entry in the EU. The way the brexit happened the british had lost all symphaties and - in the core of the negotiations - the EU will not accept anything the british wants. You interpret this as "hostile", others- like me - see it as fair but hard realism, so UK understand what they did and what their "wishes/demands" mean. That will hurt some economies (like the german one), but overall - and this is my personal view - it is a good example to make clear that nobody who leave the EU could hope to get "special relationships". You go all in (or all out in this case) and you face the consequences. From the EU-pov this is necessary to keep the EU together. Again, feel free to disagree - no problem. We both have zero influence about the development of the next years. Some points that need clarification: with the brexit done, but in the same time the british not signing a lot stuff that is law actually, how is the behaviour of UK to interpret? I mean, say there existed taxes to italian cheese in 1979 (say 40% taxes), but actual there is zero, what rules they have to obey? In the moment we discuss it just like "all stuff from today is accepted, including Brexit-negotiations". But the british hadn´t payed 40 years into it... so this would effect these brexit-negotiations... on the other hand, the EU want that money, because for them UK had benefited all the time. This alone is a huge dilemma... also who could solve this? Such ASB-ish moves cause a lot troubles Then you need to stop making derogatory remarks about Britain and its current relationship with the EU or component members. As I said to Lordroel earlier I will avoid the issue if I can but if your doing that I reserve the right to respond with the British case. As such look at the actual situation with the EU. a) The British discount was a reduction in the disproportionate amount Britain was paying at the time. NOT to create a level playing field but a reduction in the subsidy to the rest of the EU, largely because our culture and economic position was considerably different from that of the continental powers. As such your analysis is inaccurate and also there is no way Britain is going to pay a lot more for the loss of the subsidy Britain gave over those 39 years as the EU has received it. Albeit that some might try and demand this. b) By hostile to the UK I meant the EU leadership's willingness to do harm to its own subjects as an acceptable cost to do unnecessary damage to the UK. Their determination to make it a messy divorce rather than an amicable one. Its possible to argue their doing this to try and frighten other powers out of possibly consider leaving - a "look at what we did to Britain" response. However a lot of EU people will suffer for its unwillingness to look for a mutually beneficial agreement. Note this is regardless of any British retaliation for EU bloody-mindedness. c) Thatcher was a worthless parasite but I wonder if your talking about her hatred of Germany is projecting your own bias? d) As far as I'm aware there were no tariffs in 79 but given the EU's intent on restoring such barriers I would expect Britain to respond in kind. If the UK did decide to stay in the EU then, since its now a very poor country, by the EU's own rules it would have to pump massive amounts of funds into Britain rather than talking about continuing to take more. Which given the concerns raised about increased taxes from other countries to counter the reduced British subsidy would be most unpopular. I agree that Britain will have serious problems and will need a lot of support to catch up with the rest of the world. As you yourself make clear the EU will not be willing to do this and is likely to try and milk yet more money out of Britain so relations will be cool to say the least. However I can expect a closer relationship with the US as we're both in the same boat and also probably a fair bit of help from commonwealth countries. Coupled with that Britain will have cheaper wages which can help with tempting in new investment. True in the short term this will be restricted to the small UK market but once set up they can be useful for exporting to much of the rest of the world. True not the EU because of its deeply protectionist nature but there are other powers in the world. As I said things could well get very nasty with China. However if that doesn't leap in all guns blazing on the Hong Kong issue it might be radically different. While I wouldn't trust the current Chinese regime especially very far they might be interested in investing in Britain as a relatively cheap and useful return. In one way Britain being so far behind will be a possible benefit as it can see what it needs to do to catch up and bypass a lot of the last 40 years. Rather than having a lot of resources invested in say 80-00's technology. Reform is necessarily and clearly so, which is something the Tories especially have been seeking to avoid since ~1975. There will be quite a political mess in Britain as few from those time would be happy with the decay in terms of the social, economic and technological base that occurred OTL. This could go in many different ways but you are likely to see a very strong pressure for radical reform. Various reactionary organisations, on both the left and right will oppose this but the need for reform and change is so clear they might well be overcome by it. I know in 79 I was finishing my final year of college and would have found the change a huge shock but I would also be looking to see how best to take advantage of the situation and overcome the problems it has caused. One other factor that is unclear is what happened to Brits outside the UK. Are all those in such positions in 79 moved back to the country or some or all lost? Are all those in 2018 still in the wider world - other than the US of course - still there or are they gone? This could be as explosive as the decisions about the status of resources. Ditto with the British EEZ. Are the oil-fields and installations as 1979 [in which case only starting up but the oil and gas are still there] or as 2018 [in which case a lot of installations but much of the oil is gone]?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,931
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 21, 2018 16:35:34 GMT
Hi, first of all it would be nice to respect the opinion of other people. We disagree fully about the roles in the Brexit and how the EU should react to it. THat is fine - everyone has his opinion. That is just because my impression about this is that you seem to not accept different opinions in this. But nothing else about the OTL politics. We discuss the ASB-event of the replacement of 1979-UK and USA into te world of 2018 - 39 years later. With Thatcher ruling UK, an UK that indeed thinks the EU is just the economic loose treaty that should benefit british interests (that is called historically the "british discount" by the MP Thatcher). Infact the times have changed - in consequence (OTL) the british decided in a narrow election to leave the EU (for me this is fine, i would be happy if others also could decide to stay or leave - no problems with that). The problem we face now is this: the european people, politicans, but moreso the politicans of the EU all have zero desire to support that "hostile" UK (as they see it today - you could think that is unfair, but i just repeat the facts - with the brexit the british politics had broken all bridges and all symphathies they had in the EU-leadership. So no "opinion" but matter of facts). Naturally the UK of 1979 hadn´t done this, but - unfortunatly for the british of 79 the other europeans just could look into WIKI or other history books to understand that UK never had a real interest in the actual development of the EU. So - my question to you - should the modern EU have any interest to fuel this UK, that is - in the moment - helpless in modern economics, lacking computers, lacking the education you need to build up modern economy, lack basically "anything". Do not misunderstand my point here, please. The british people of 1979 aren´t uneducated, but they are 40 years behind in the propably most accelerated changing histoy of human mankind. This brings them in a huge troublesome situation, they are not competitive, in NO area of economics. They lack behind, far behind, in anything. Okay, maybe nuclear armed submarines they are still competitive, but otherwise? How could a country like UK, that live in the moment from ressources from the north sea (oil and gas - but in much reduced numbers!) survive in the modern world? What could they offer? Please remember, the european countries, their leadership "knows" that OTL the british gave them a boot and - again european POV - try to insult, betray and cheat in maximum arrogant kind the whole political elite of the EU. You may see it different - i just repeat the impressions these politicans made public about the negotiations with UK. The only other country UK could ask for help, the USA, has similar problems. China - some country UK could ask for help normally (the chinese propably would be happy to reduce the power/economic influence of the EU in europe) is very angry about the realistic reaction of UK about the chinese demands to give Hongkong "tomorrow" to china... So scratch this country from your list of supporters. UK is really in deep troubles, esp. because a lot companies who have strong ties with UK suddenly have lost this influence (these connections were build up in a long time, that is now reduced to nil!). So we not only speak about a country that is not competitive in all economic areas but also a country that has angered the needed partners (EU) in a problematic way and the companies in these european countries are VERY upset about the fact that they lost billions of euro of investitions, that they suddenly face taxes and hurdles they got reduced in the last 40 years. We need also to understand that the politicans of the UK in 1979 are more in the cold-war-post-ww2-area as in modern times (34 years to 38 years), i still try to see them to react to 82million unified germans, that are the most powerfull economic country in an EU that will frighten them. Give Thatcher who hated germany from their hearts and really i can´t see her reacting better to the EU-political leadership and you face a really troublesome situation - for UK. The USA is to big to fail, to strong economically, they could survive but with huge problems. UK is to small, to weak and - to unimportant. China will be in opposition to UK (because of Hongkong), with the USA (because they lost several billions of Dollar). Russia will be VERY happy, because their global enemy - the USA - has gigantic internal problems, in fact russia is far ahead in technology, living standards, military equipment compared to the USA now. Even china - because 40 years old stuff is old, very old. The modern revolution caused this. I mean, a time warp from 1890 to 1935 is bad, but acceptable... some things changed, but not in the same way as it changed from 1980-2018. Really, UK sit in a deep pit and can´t win... i do not see em accepting the EU-laws, esp. after they learn that their "OTL"-version had voted to opt out. UK in this scenario has no friends, nobody who would support them. India? forget em, they remember colonialism. China? Hongkong - sorry nope. Russia - maybe Putin would love Thatcher, but next to her hate for germany was her cold-war-blood... so again she will not try to deal with Putin. We need to understand that this UK need thousends of billion EURO support to modernize its country. Just think about container terminals, in 1980 container traffic was in its infants, now it is needed. We talk about 2-4 million unemployed british at day 1 of the timewarp... because nobody would buy british goods in 1980-quality... lack of technology, quality. Again - that isn´t something "against UK or USA", you could move any modern country and replace it by its 1980-version, everyone face the same problem. it is a bit special for UK, because of Brexit in combination with Thatcher... by the way, leftist british will learn about history of Thatcherism, so expect a lot unrest and hate against her ruling. So the country itself will be teared appart, because the conservatives and the socialists will fight about the right way Last thing: the EU is not hostile to UK in OTL, the EU is just not interested in a "special relationship" the british wanted since day one of their entry in the EU. The way the brexit happened the british had lost all symphaties and - in the core of the negotiations - the EU will not accept anything the british wants. You interpret this as "hostile", others- like me - see it as fair but hard realism, so UK understand what they did and what their "wishes/demands" mean. That will hurt some economies (like the german one), but overall - and this is my personal view - it is a good example to make clear that nobody who leave the EU could hope to get "special relationships". You go all in (or all out in this case) and you face the consequences. From the EU-pov this is necessary to keep the EU together. Again, feel free to disagree - no problem. We both have zero influence about the development of the next years. Some points that need clarification: with the brexit done, but in the same time the british not signing a lot stuff that is law actually, how is the behaviour of UK to interpret? I mean, say there existed taxes to italian cheese in 1979 (say 40% taxes), but actual there is zero, what rules they have to obey? In the moment we discuss it just like "all stuff from today is accepted, including Brexit-negotiations". But the british hadn´t payed 40 years into it... so this would effect these brexit-negotiations... on the other hand, the EU want that money, because for them UK had benefited all the time. This alone is a huge dilemma... also who could solve this? Such ASB-ish moves cause a lot troubles Then you need to stop making derogatory remarks about Britain and its current relationship with the EU or component members. As I said to Lordroel earlier I will avoid the issue if I can but if your doing that I reserve the right to respond with the British case. As such look at the actual situation with the EU. a) The British discount was a reduction in the disproportionate amount Britain was paying at the time. NOT to create a level playing field but a reduction in the subsidy to the rest of the EU, largely because our culture and economic position was considerably different from that of the continental powers. As such your analysis is inaccurate and also there is no way Britain is going to pay a lot more for the loss of the subsidy Britain gave over those 39 years as the EU has received it. Albeit that some might try and demand this. b) By hostile to the UK I meant the EU leadership's willingness to do harm to its own subjects as an acceptable cost to do unnecessary damage to the UK. Their determination to make it a messy divorce rather than an amicable one. Its possible to argue their doing this to try and frighten other powers out of possibly consider leaving - a "look at what we did to Britain" response. However a lot of EU people will suffer for its unwillingness to look for a mutually beneficial agreement. Note this is regardless of any British retaliation for EU bloody-mindedness. c) Thatcher was a worthless parasite but I wonder if your talking about her hatred of Germany is projecting your own bias? d) As far as I'm aware there were no tariffs in 79 but given the EU's intent on restoring such barriers I would expect Britain to respond in kind. If the UK did decide to stay in the EU then, since its now a very poor country, by the EU's own rules it would have to pump massive amounts of funds into Britain rather than talking about continuing to take more. Which given the concerns raised about increased taxes from other countries to counter the reduced British subsidy would be most unpopular. I agree that Britain will have serious problems and will need a lot of support to catch up with the rest of the world. As you yourself make clear the EU will not be willing to do this and is likely to try and milk yet more money out of Britain so relations will be cool to say the least. However I can expect a closer relationship with the US as we're both in the same boat and also probably a fair bit of help from commonwealth countries. Coupled with that Britain will have cheaper wages which can help with tempting in new investment. True in the short term this will be restricted to the small UK market but once set up they can be useful for exporting to much of the rest of the world. True not the EU because of its deeply protectionist nature but there are other powers in the world. As I said things could well get very nasty with China. However if that doesn't leap in all guns blazing on the Hong Kong issue it might be radically different. While I wouldn't trust the current Chinese regime especially very far they might be interested in investing in Britain as a relatively cheap and useful return. In one way Britain being so far behind will be a possible benefit as it can see what it needs to do to catch up and bypass a lot of the last 40 years. Rather than having a lot of resources invested in say 80-00's technology. Reform is necessarily and clearly so, which is something the Tories especially have been seeking to avoid since ~1975. There will be quite a political mess in Britain as few from those time would be happy with the decay in terms of the social, economic and technological base that occurred OTL. This could go in many different ways but you are likely to see a very strong pressure for radical reform. Various reactionary organisations, on both the left and right will oppose this but the need for reform and change is so clear they might well be overcome by it. I know in 79 I was finishing my final year of college and would have found the change a huge shock but I would also be looking to see how best to take advantage of the situation and overcome the problems it has caused. One other factor that is unclear is what happened to Brits outside the UK. Are all those in such positions in 79 moved back to the country or some or all lost? Are all those in 2018 still in the wider world - other than the US of course - still there or are they gone? This could be as explosive as the decisions about the status of resources. Ditto with the British EEZ. Are the oil-fields and installations as 1979 [in which case only starting up but the oil and gas are still there] or as 2018 [in which case a lot of installations but much of the oil is gone]? Okay i am going to be strict now, lets keep it on subject and for all, lets keep current politics out of this thread there are people who like it that way and that includes me.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 21, 2018 18:13:22 GMT
Hi Stevep, i have no interest in insulting foreign countries... i also do not want to fight about each other. REALLY! I enjoy an interesting discussion and i happily accept a different opinion. Why should i want to anger you? i do not know you, i do not know what kind of person you are. You are a bit older than me, but not to much (8-10 years, maybe?) If we discuss such scenario - as this one - we run quickly in actual politics, nearly by "force". why? the scenario cause it... i wish nobody something bad... but if we discuss such scenarios (another one was the "replace OTL france from 2018 by the one of 1870") we quickly give input about how we see actual politics. It couldn´t be different... how should we otherwise discuss the reactions and first new steps? Look at this scenario. Here we see that you and me see the Brexit different. We cannot avoid this, cause it is important to the whole thread and this story. If we get a situation in that a country (as i wrote - it doesn´t matter witch country!) is removed from OTL and its replacement come from the historical past, we face the ugly situation that we need to judge the "new" situation based on our personel opinion. i have no personal advanage by making that 1979 UK looking bad, why should i? i also never wrote derogatively - it is your own opinion that let you feel that way. I can only honestly say that your opinion is in this wrong. You can belive me or not... But yes, we differ in our opinion about UKs role in the EU. For me that is fine.. each person has his own opinion, right? It is also fine if you and me see the brexit different. As i tried to explain, personal i am happy with the brexit, even if i will feel the negative consequences of it. The british people were allowed to decide if they want to leave the EU, they decided in a majority to do so. That is the most democratic thing that a single person could do. I think you are a briton, right? So you could vote and hopefully you did. If we discuss HERE the brexit, than - from my side - ONLY in the context of the story (ASB as it is). So, modern UK vanish, 1979-UK comes.. so a lot people who are dead now live (in UK), many people who lived in 2018 are gone. Hopefully the ambassadors of UK in the world (outside the borders of UK) still live - so they can report their goverment and give an non-foreign input about the OTL-situation. you think i am hostile to the british people? nope, i am not. But i look into the history book and see, that UK was the "ill man of the 70ties of europe" (such is the wording of the offical german BBP (link: www.bpb.de/izpb/10533/entwicklung-grossbritanniens-seit-1945 unfortunatly all in german language) Even in 1979 the british economy was behind the economies of other european countries of that time. The story brings this in an even worse situation (that wasn´t my story). Yes, the wages of british workers are way lower as the wages of all other EU-nations of 2018. The labour-party of 1979 will love the EU... at last this is my impression. You are right, normally the EU would try to support in a massive way to improve the economy of TTL-UK. But - here we see it different, but untill now you failed to explain why you see it it different to me - as i tried to explain - 2018-europe KNOWS that the UK has voted to leave the EU (Brexit) and -unfortunatly for the 1979er british people - they know that Thatcher is no pro-modern-EU-PM of UK. i am not the enemy, i am just the guy who bring the bad news. Don´t chop my head off for the bad news... In this TL (and i only speak about OTL politics if one (here you) ask why i think that x would happen or Y) the british economy of 1979 was weak and now is way weaker. Some good things exist too. UK still has an economy! outside the financial sector. Unfortunatly, this economy is not competitive. So - you wrote the CW-states would support the "mothercountry". Well, why should they? You asked how i come to my opinion that Maggie Thatcher hated germany. Well - it is the result of her doing in the unification-process, in the things she did as the deciding MP in that time. She wanted to stop that, because she never accepted that the 1990-germany had nothing to do with the nazi-germany of her "youth". As long as germany was separated she could live with an economic succsessfull western germany... even if i personal belive she would have loved a situation in that western germany is usefull but "behind" UK in economic terms. The moment the iron curtain fell she feared (again?) germany and she was the loudest who tried to sabotage the german unification. So, based on her acting - i was over 20 as she did it - i would say, yes she hated germany. I did NOT say that the british hated the germans. I only wrote that Maggy Thatcher hated germany. Propably based on her wartime-experience. You could google it, a quick search find this: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/30/margaret-thatcher-had-deep-misgivings-reunification-germany/For my understanding, "hate" comes quite true to it. But also "fear, naked fear". To your interesting question about "what was removed"... as far as i understand, it is USA in its borders, UK in its borders... so the gas fields are full, the embassey in france, germany and co are "modern"... Heathrow is a oldstyle air strip, before it could handle 120 million passender a year. The Falkland islands are "old", the same goes for Hongkong, cause in 1979 hongkong was british. To bring in "fun" in such scenarios - switch the modern UK of 2018 into 1914... so suddenly modern UK has a worldwide empire that is old style... what would these modern british people do? support france in ww1? stop that nonsense, establish a much better world, democrate germany, russia (!), japan and avoid the deaths of spanish influenca, ww1, ww2... ? would they try to take over the osmans and all the oil? that could be an interesting scenario... same with "modern france into france 1914 or modern germany (in the modern borders) into 1914, the other areas are "old germans"... these could be interesting scenarios... to bring in some other aspects to this.. Or, also fun: send 1718 USA in the modern world... or the modern switzerland to the year 18 What a fun if everyone speak switzerdütsch What about Junckers Luxemburg into the year 18... Lux ruled world some other fun: bring modern germany (borders of 2018, march), into the year 1918, march 20th. what would Angela Merkel do... what would all the german-turk people do, or the refugees, how would the other german parts (1914 vintage) do? I mean, they are all oldstyle, racistic, and suddenly they learn about german history propably Merkel send a special force to find and "remove" a certain non-german, fighting in a bavarian unit at the western front (beeing part of the "outside the modern germany" section this certain austrian would be there...!)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 22, 2018 12:18:22 GMT
Steffen
Well things started going downhill in this thread with.
I would hope we removed Thatcher because while she was not a great problem for the EEC/EU she was a disaster for Britain. Like most loud bullies she attacked the weak but cowered to those with a lot of strength hence the backing down on many issues with the EU and vested interest groups like the city and big business. True she got a rebate that partially refunded Britain's excess contributions but she did it in such a cack-handed way it alienated many and still got a relatively poor deal as she made a lot of further concessions. Also as a newly elected government, with the winter of discontent still in people's minds and the country facing a serious crisis from the change I fear her position, at least initially would be strengthened.
What imperial opinion? By 79 Britain was definitely a post-imperial state. There were and still are a few territories, largely because they don't want independence but the desire for empire and its burdens was dead. You might find a few nutters who still had delusions but then you could find similar numbers with such 'ideas' in most/all countries.
Ditto the talk about occupation forces. Not by 79 and not for a generation or so. Even when it was an occupation force in the early post war years you yourself admitted they were the best occupying power, without the malice of the French, let alone the Soviets and the mistrust of the Americans.
Its such abusive language and disrespect that causes anger and hence my response. If you want respect then treat others likewise. That's why I reacted as I did to your post.
The problem with assuming that the EU would be the sole or best source of help for Britain is the likely poor relations between the two. Leaving aside the emnity shown in the Britexit 'negotiations' the vast majority of 79 Britain would be horrified at the way that the EU has developed and also I would expect that the EU in return for any aid would seek to demand closer control of Britain, including probably things like joining the Euro. As such I can see a lot of mistrust blocking close cooperation there.
I would point out that even 79 Britain is more open to globalisation than the modern EU with its emphasis on centralised control, trade barriers and the like. It would be less capable in many ways because of the technological gap but it would be more interested in open trade. After all it was only with a lot of reluctance it agreed to establishing such barriers on entry.
I know you seem to think that the EU is both right and wise to take a hard line with Britain on the current situation and you know I disagree on both those points so leave it at that.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 22, 2018 14:36:23 GMT
Steffen Well things started going downhill in this thread with. I would hope we removed Thatcher because while she was not a great problem for the EEC/EU she was a disaster for Britain. Like most loud bullies she attacked the weak but cowered to those with a lot of strength hence the backing down on many issues with the EU and vested interest groups like the city and big business. True she got a rebate that partially refunded Britain's excess contributions but she did it in such a cack-handed way it alienated many and still got a relatively poor deal as she made a lot of further concessions. Also as a newly elected government, with the winter of discontent still in people's minds and the country facing a serious crisis from the change I fear her position, at least initially would be strengthened. What imperial opinion? By 79 Britain was definitely a post-imperial state. There were and still are a few territories, largely because they don't want independence but the desire for empire and its burdens was dead. You might find a few nutters who still had delusions but then you could find similar numbers with such 'ideas' in most/all countries. Ditto the talk about occupation forces. Not by 79 and not for a generation or so. Even when it was an occupation force in the early post war years you yourself admitted they were the best occupying power, without the malice of the French, let alone the Soviets and the mistrust of the Americans. Its such abusive language and disrespect that causes anger and hence my response. If you want respect then treat others likewise. That's why I reacted as I did to your post. The problem with assuming that the EU would be the sole or best source of help for Britain is the likely poor relations between the two. Leaving aside the emnity shown in the Britexit 'negotiations' the vast majority of 79 Britain would be horrified at the way that the EU has developed and also I would expect that the EU in return for any aid would seek to demand closer control of Britain, including probably things like joining the Euro. As such I can see a lot of mistrust blocking close cooperation there. I would point out that even 79 Britain is more open to globalisation than the modern EU with its emphasis on centralised control, trade barriers and the like. It would be less capable in many ways because of the technological gap but it would be more interested in open trade. After all it was only with a lot of reluctance it agreed to establishing such barriers on entry. I know you seem to think that the EU is both right and wise to take a hard line with Britain on the current situation and you know I disagree on both those points so leave it at that. Sorry, you are to sensitive. Some facts - even if you hate em: Thatcher had that imperial attitude... not the rest of UK. If you read my post it is clear that i wrote that she had this attitude, not "the british". the british forces in germany WERE occupation forces. they had their own rights, for crimes commited by british soldiers the british leadership punished them, not the german state. Also, only with the 2 + 4 treaty this "occupation system" ended. If you get insulted by the historical facts it is your problem. If you could show me one thing i said about "evil british rape helpless german woman and get free", show me. But the western allies were occupation forces, germany only got its full souveranity in 1990. Before in 1955 it was a partly souveranity. Nobody said that there did not exist a friendship between some british soldiers and german people. Why not? But to name the armed forces of UK (or france, russia or USA) different is wrong. Per law they were occupation forces, in the same time they had bound the german army into their alliance, but still ask yourself, if german forces had occupied great britain, uk had to pay for the presence of these forces in UK, if a german soldier commit a crime in UK the german military laws are used (or they "give" the criminal to your legal system), how do you call this system? I am a friend of facts, not propaganda. Germany got its full souveranity in 1990, not before. So british soldiers in germany were occupation forces in that country. They were also there to defend the british interests in central europe, for germany it was lucky that these interests also were the interests of the FRG. But i am really interested how you would call this - historical facts other then occupation forces? Do you think that germany in - say 1979 could have said: UK, go out of germany will all armed forces? Yes or no? (Hint - answer is no). So come down from that horse - as you mentioned, i did wrote that - short after the war - the british occupation forces were the ones that behaved best. Even later they were less "problematic". you will not find me attacking this. But they were STILL occupation forces, just because they had the right to do so, even against the will of the government or the will of the people in western germany. That IS called occupation forces. you seem to think that such troops need to behave like SS in poland... that is utterly wrong. Occupation forces are troops that are send in an conquered nation. They should protect the OWN interests, should controll the occupied country. These forces do not need to act like the SS, infact that is hardly possible. Even the russians had friends and connections to the germans, again they were occupation forces and they had the "lead". Basically you get angered by facts you don´t like. Sorry - that is not smart. If you belive the other person is somebody who want "insult" somebody, just ask, don´t think. Thank you very much. To make this clear: ask yourself this. Say in 1980 germany decide to go full neutral (western germany)... they leave the NATO, reduce their army to 1/10 of its size and demand that the western forces leave germany. Would they do it? Would the USA remove its nukes from german ground? would the british leave german ground because the "souveran" state FRG demand this? Yes or no. If the answer is no, then you have the qualification for occupation forces. My point about the "shock" was, that the british leadership naturally belived they could decide about germany as they did before. Now - with their troops gone (they are no longer in germany), what would they do? Again - if you belive that they were only "friends", why had they to leave post 1990? See my point? How would UK or the USA (same problem) solve this in this ASB-scenario? They face a germany that is superior in anything beside arms, but they also could build vastly superior arms, if they want to. Just ask yourself, what would the leadership of UK (hopefully somebody sane instead of Ms. Thatcher) would do? Demand that british forces are stationed in places they were OTL in 1979? OTL - in 1990 with the breakdown of the WP-states, Thatcher wanted to avoid unification, she was DEADLY against it. That is 11 years in the future, with a changed system. Here she is fresh in power, her attitude is even harder. About this i speculated... the imperial aspect - you mentioned the CW-states who would help UK. I just asked why? Why should 2018-canada help 1979-UK? Why australia, india, pakistan or the others? Sorry, they would do nothing, at last not in the way you think they could/would do. Only the USA would be interested, because they face the same problem. But UK is in the worse situation, compared to USA. Do you see UK79 openminded accepting millions of european workers entering the british market? Sorry, i can´t see this. So why should the EU - who has "the" mantra called "liberalness" accept a "closed borders" UK? we do not need to discuss historical facts (like the britian-discount), that isn´t necessary. I can open a secret to you: The rest of europe sees the discount as negative as i wrote. combine this with the brexit (again - it isn´t important what you or me think about it, but what the countries and the people in the countries think about it - here the result is clear - for them the british act -again and again arrogant and incredible bad. It doesn´t matter if that is true (my opinion) or wrong (your opinion), important is only that this is the climate in that an economic helpless UK from 79 is in the modern world. See - no problem with different opinions here, the problem is if you think the european countries, leaderships and commoners belive in "UK is treated unfair" as you seem to belive or if they wish a HARD stand and PUNISHMENT, as i see it. We could drop that discussion and just answer the "what is actual majority"... here i see my position beeing very strong. With a much weakened UK the EU will push even harder.. because UK can´t challange this. They could turn to the USA, yes. but the USA is also in a problematic situation, in all key technologies they are 40 years behind, 40 years! In modern times 4 years are the different between "good" and incredible bad. No car produced in the USA could be sold outside the USA. NO car. Because they are not safe, not competitive. Basically the whole US car production is broken down, foreign cars are vastly superior and cheaper. How many people worked in 79 in the car manufacturing industry and connected works? Also weaponary... nobody buys US weapons in the world... at last for 20 years. All these nukes the USA have are useless, cause modern weapons are better. The USA of 79 still could beat Iraq, but even Iran could be difficulty... esp. the airforce would be gutted by the modern SAMs. The US computer- and electronic industry... is dead in 80. a mainframe-IBM-computer for 1 million USD for companies is useless, some Samsung S7 has more calculation power. To benefit from the modern world the USA and UK need to cooperate with the "new" countries, but not in the "master-slave"combination (to exaggerate it) but the servant-master-combo... i can´t see countries like Republic of Korea, Japan, france, germany but esp. China not using this advantage. Not with 2018-us-politics angering them. Someone once wrote - countries have no friends, just common interests. Here the main player has himself removed, a strong 7th in the world has fallen at place 50-70. Ask yourself - do you buy an american TV with 66cm for 1000 USD and miserable quality or a 152cm-Flat for 700 USD? Even Hollywood is dead - all the movies they WANT to create exist, but in digital form... partly "for free". Even foodstuff - because to many poison is used to kill insects - can´t be sold worldwide. The others produce better, cheaper, healthier, faster... they are better in every single position. Only the military, thanks to nukes - is competitive, but in conventional conflicts Israel would wipe out whole US armies because their troops are better equipped and trained and have better weapons. 40 years is huge in this. By the way, in 79 the USA wanted to station Pershing2 in germany - this will not happen, not at all. Really, i can´t see em doing this. (oh - i strongly supported that in 82... but if you try this in 2018... no chance) See, this are problems to solve - basically you throw such countries under the bus, because the timespan is to long for modern replacement rates. THe USA CAN´t produce a competitive chipset, it doesn´t exist in the USA.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,931
Likes: 46,076
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 22, 2018 14:39:47 GMT
Steffen Well things started going downhill in this thread with. I would hope we removed Thatcher because while she was not a great problem for the EEC/EU she was a disaster for Britain. Like most loud bullies she attacked the weak but cowered to those with a lot of strength hence the backing down on many issues with the EU and vested interest groups like the city and big business. True she got a rebate that partially refunded Britain's excess contributions but she did it in such a cack-handed way it alienated many and still got a relatively poor deal as she made a lot of further concessions. Also as a newly elected government, with the winter of discontent still in people's minds and the country facing a serious crisis from the change I fear her position, at least initially would be strengthened. What imperial opinion? By 79 Britain was definitely a post-imperial state. There were and still are a few territories, largely because they don't want independence but the desire for empire and its burdens was dead. You might find a few nutters who still had delusions but then you could find similar numbers with such 'ideas' in most/all countries. Ditto the talk about occupation forces. Not by 79 and not for a generation or so. Even when it was an occupation force in the early post war years you yourself admitted they were the best occupying power, without the malice of the French, let alone the Soviets and the mistrust of the Americans. Its such abusive language and disrespect that causes anger and hence my response. If you want respect then treat others likewise. That's why I reacted as I did to your post. The problem with assuming that the EU would be the sole or best source of help for Britain is the likely poor relations between the two. Leaving aside the emnity shown in the Britexit 'negotiations' the vast majority of 79 Britain would be horrified at the way that the EU has developed and also I would expect that the EU in return for any aid would seek to demand closer control of Britain, including probably things like joining the Euro. As such I can see a lot of mistrust blocking close cooperation there. I would point out that even 79 Britain is more open to globalisation than the modern EU with its emphasis on centralised control, trade barriers and the like. It would be less capable in many ways because of the technological gap but it would be more interested in open trade. After all it was only with a lot of reluctance it agreed to establishing such barriers on entry. I know you seem to think that the EU is both right and wise to take a hard line with Britain on the current situation and you know I disagree on both those points so leave it at that. Sorry, you are to sensitive. Some facts - even if you hate em: Thatcher had that imperial attitude... not the rest of UK. If you read my post it is clear that i wrote that she had this attitude, not "the british". the british forces in germany WERE occupation forces. they had their own rights, for crimes commited by british soldiers the british leadership punished them, not the german state. Also, only with the 2 + 4 treaty this "occupation system" ended. If you get insulted by the historical facts it is your problem. If you could show me one thing i said about "evil british rape helpless german woman and get free", show me. But the western allies were occupation forces, germany only got its full souveranity in 1990. Before in 1955 it was a partly souveranity. Nobody said that there did not exist a friendship between some british soldiers and german people. Why not? But to name the armed forces of UK (or france, russia or USA) different is wrong. Per law they were occupation forces, in the same time they had bound the german army into their alliance, but still ask yourself, if german forces had occupied great britain, uk had to pay for the presence of these forces in UK, if a german soldier commit a crime in UK the german military laws are used (or they "give" the criminal to your legal system), how do you call this system? I am a friend of facts, not propaganda. Germany got its full souveranity in 1990, not before. So british soldiers in germany were occupation forces in that country. They were also there to defend the british interests in central europe, for germany it was lucky that these interests also were the interests of the FRG. But i am really interested how you would call this - historical facts other then occupation forces? Do you think that germany in - say 1979 could have said: UK, go out of germany will all armed forces? Yes or no? (Hint - answer is no). So come down from that horse - as you mentioned, i did wrote that - short after the war - the british occupation forces were the ones that behaved best. Even later they were less "problematic". you will not find me attacking this. But they were STILL occupation forces, just because they had the right to do so, even against the will of the government or the will of the people in western germany. That IS called occupation forces. you seem to think that such troops need to behave like SS in poland... that is utterly wrong. Occupation forces are troops that are send in an conquered nation. They should protect the OWN interests, should controll the occupied country. These forces do not need to act like the SS, infact that is hardly possible. Even the russians had friends and connections to the germans, again they were occupation forces and they had the "lead". Basically you get angered by facts you don´t like. Sorry - that is not smart. If you belive the other person is somebody who want "insult" somebody, just ask, don´t think. Thank you very much. To make this clear: ask yourself this. Say in 1980 germany decide to go full neutral (western germany)... they leave the NATO, reduce their army to 1/10 of its size and demand that the western forces leave germany. Would they do it? Would the USA remove its nukes from german ground? would the british leave german ground because the "souveran" state FRG demand this? Yes or no. If the answer is no, then you have the qualification for occupation forces. My point about the "shock" was, that the british leadership naturally belived they could decide about germany as they did before. Now - with their troops gone (they are no longer in germany), what would they do? Again - if you belive that they were only "friends", why had they to leave post 1990? See my point? How would UK or the USA (same problem) solve this in this ASB-scenario? They face a germany that is superior in anything beside arms, but they also could build vastly superior arms, if they want to. Just ask yourself, what would the leadership of UK (hopefully somebody sane instead of Ms. Thatcher) would do? Demand that british forces are stationed in places they were OTL in 1979? OTL - in 1990 with the breakdown of the WP-states, Thatcher wanted to avoid unification, she was DEADLY against it. That is 11 years in the future, with a changed system. Here she is fresh in power, her attitude is even harder. About this i speculated... the imperial aspect - you mentioned the CW-states who would help UK. I just asked why? Why should 2018-canada help 1979-UK? Why australia, india, pakistan or the others? Sorry, they would do nothing, at last not in the way you think they could/would do. Only the USA would be interested, because they face the same problem. But UK is in the worse situation, compared to USA. Do you see UK79 openminded accepting millions of european workers entering the british market? Sorry, i can´t see this. So why should the EU - who has "the" mantra called "liberalness" accept a "closed borders" UK? we do not need to discuss historical facts (like the britian-discount), that isn´t necessary. I can open a secret to you: The rest of europe sees the discount as negative as i wrote. combine this with the brexit (again - it isn´t important what you or me think about it, but what the countries and the people in the countries think about it - here the result is clear - for them the british act -again and again arrogant and incredible bad. It doesn´t matter if that is true (my opinion) or wrong (your opinion), important is only that this is the climate in that an economic helpless UK from 79 is in the modern world. See - no problem with different opinions here, the problem is if you think the european countries, leaderships and commoners belive in "UK is treated unfair" as you seem to belive or if they wish a HARD stand and PUNISHMENT, as i see it. We could drop that discussion and just answer the "what is actual majority"... here i see my position beeing very strong. With a much weakened UK the EU will push even harder.. because UK can´t challange this. They could turn to the USA, yes. but the USA is also in a problematic situation, in all key technologies they are 40 years behind, 40 years! In modern times 4 years are the different between "good" and incredible bad. No car produced in the USA could be sold outside the USA. NO car. Because they are not safe, not competitive. Basically the whole US car production is broken down, foreign cars are vastly superior and cheaper. How many people worked in 79 in the car manufacturing industry and connected works? Also weaponary... nobody buys US weapons in the world... at last for 20 years. All these nukes the USA have are useless, cause modern weapons are better. The USA of 79 still could beat Iraq, but even Iran could be difficulty... esp. the airforce would be gutted by the modern SAMs. The US computer- and electronic industry... is dead in 80. a mainframe-IBM-computer for 1 million USD for companies is useless, some Samsung S7 has more calculation power. To benefit from the modern world the USA and UK need to cooperate with the "new" countries, but not in the "master-slave"combination (to exaggerate it) but the servant-master-combo... i can´t see countries like Republic of Korea, Japan, france, germany but esp. China not using this advantage. Not with 2018-us-politics angering them. Someone once wrote - countries have no friends, just common interests. Here the main player has himself removed, a strong 7th in the world has fallen at place 50-70. Ask yourself - do you buy an american TV with 66cm for 1000 USD and miserable quality or a 152cm-Flat for 700 USD? Even Hollywood is dead - all the movies they WANT to create exist, but in digital form... partly "for free". Even foodstuff - because to many poison is used to kill insects - can´t be sold worldwide. The others produce better, cheaper, healthier, faster... they are better in every single position. Only the military, thanks to nukes - is competitive, but in conventional conflicts Israel would wipe out whole US armies because their troops are better equipped and trained and have better weapons. 40 years is huge in this. By the way, in 79 the USA wanted to station Pershing2 in germany - this will not happen, not at all. Really, i can´t see em doing this. (oh - i strongly supported that in 82... but if you try this in 2018... no chance) See, this are problems to solve - basically you throw such countries under the bus, because the timespan is to long for modern replacement rates. THe USA CAN´t produce a competitive chipset, it doesn´t exist in the USA. i do not like people saying to other people that they are to sensitive, so please do not say that ore this thread is going to be on a lock-down for a while.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 23,482
Likes: 12,077
|
Post by stevep on Mar 22, 2018 15:04:10 GMT
I see a lot of factual inaccuracies in your last post but will just highlight one. Yes in the late 70's the US did suggest placing cruiser and Pershing missiles in W Germany and Britain - plus also possibly a couple of other countries IIRC. However this was in response to the Soviets deploying SS-22's in eastern Europe, targeted at western Europe. Furthermore, showing the fallacy of your argument that NATO forces were occupation forces in Germany at that point, this was something that was agreed by negotiation between the members of the alliance, not a US dictate. There were a lot of stupid idiots claiming this was some aggressive move and later those same idiots claimed victory when the Soviets agreed to a joint removal of such forces, which I can't see happening without NATO deploying its nukes in response.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 2, 2018 1:06:39 GMT
Does that mean all those bands are still around? Guns N Roses? Queen? The Who? Michael Jackson? Chuck Berry? Prince? Freddie Mercury?
Just realized how much talent we have lost. I have self-induced myself a dose of depression that will take days to ease.
|
|
jasonsnow
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 569
Likes: 27
|
Post by jasonsnow on Apr 2, 2018 1:10:18 GMT
HAHAHAHA Just realized how off I am with this thread! Everyone else is talking about advanced history and stuff while silly old me just said some stupid thing about bands and musicians. Goodness me, what am I doing with my life...
|
|