Quote Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult View Post
1. "Hence 'at least in the short term,'" Don't descend to semantics, mate. It was either fight while we still had friendly channel ports and a Dreadnought advantage or after Ger had taken both of those of us.

2. Nazi Naill's logic (assuming you've read the book) is "Och aye, I love the British empire. Perhaps if we hadn't fought, my beloved empire would have lasted longer and I could have walked around it. And anyway, I hate the Frogs. Och aye the noo."

While the economic analysis in the middle chapters is respected, the stuff on whether we should have fought or not is ignored by all historians and inane ranting drivel.

Ps, Berni, old chap. You know earlier you said you thought Brexit had made the political class go mad?

Erm, you do realise your arguing with a lefty, with you saying I'm wrong for wanting us to fight in the two WWs and you wanting to be all Quislingy. A bit "mad", no?

I can't believe we are arguing about GB's reasons for acting as we did in 1914 and 1939 (and 40). Bit surreal, no?
I'm not arguing we were wrong to fight in 1914 and 1940, though. You seem to have forgotten the initial point - which was that I was arguing that correct principled decisions sometimes come at an economic cost. Like Brexit.

Also, dismissing Ferguson as a 'Nazi' and just directing ad hom crap at him is cheap rubbish that you're doing because he's a conservative historian. He is not 'dismissed'. If he were, he wouldn't have his chair at that notable academic backwater...errr...Harvard, would he? The fact people don't like him is not the same as him not being respected. It simply means he doesn't do the cozy consensus thing that second- and third-rate academic brains like to use as cover for their intellectual inadequacies.