Talking of ludicrous political systems, I see Sinn Fein is polling at 25% in Ireland.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

A sophomoric and naive analysis that displays exactly zero understanding of the balance of probabilities with regard to Home Rule. Had the Irish not resorted to violence, it is highly unlikely (given the power wielded by Unionism and the primacy of the Ulster question in British minds) that Home Rule in any form would have been forthcoming. Even as it was Ireland only achieved rule over that portion of Ireland that was left once the Ulster question had been resolved to Unionist satisfaction.

It is our common error to assume that NI is what was 'left over' after the establishment of the Free State - in fact, it was very much the other way about as far as the British were concerned. This is why the British offered a truce to Sinn Féin only after the boundary was in effective operation and the Northern Ireland parliament had come into existence in June 1921.

In short, the British would almost certainly have fúcked Home Rule out the window in order to keep the Unionists (which also meant the military - see the Curragh Mutiny) happy. Violence is the only way they got any semblance of independence.

As for the war, by 1916 there was no realistic possibility of anywhere in the British isles being occupied by Germany - the British fleet was far, far too powerful for that ever to happen, even if the Germans had by some miracle won on land.

Anyway, read this and learn something.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fatal-Path-.../dp/0571297404

Did you miss the point about the second war in what I wrote?

We know from the 1914 September Programme exactly what the Germans planned in the event of a victory in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

The Brest-Litovsk shows they weren't joking in terms of imposing such a punitive peace.

Have a look at the terms of the Sept Prog - you'll like "Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany." {Brexit is the final stage of its implementation.}

Now which is the only country not mentioned at all? GB. Why? Because Germany planned a second war with the UK for global domination.

{This is why Fritz Fischer in the 1960s - the first historian given full access to the imperial German archives - talked about German war aims being identical in both wars. And the Fischer Thesis is the accepted, historical consensus over half a century later.}

This can also be seen with the peace offers made later in 1916 to France and Russia which explicitly stated "the war at sea continues."

Had the Sept Prog been implemented, all the Channel Ports would be in hostile hands, and our trade would be banned from the continent.

But more importantly, this massive German continental sized economy would then devote all the resources to building a fleet capable to beating the RN. They wouldn't have to put most of their military spending towards the army as France and Russia were no longer threats.

So had the Germans won at any point during the war, which was possible until the Spring Offensive failed to split GB and Fr on the Western Front, then we would have been looking at a second war within a decade that we wouldn't be able to afford to fight.

So I'm afraid you're completely wrong to dismiss the threat to GB during WW1. The reason the UK isn't mentioned in the Sept Prog - why there's not even a demand for an indemnity from us, unlike the French - is because they saw it as only the warm up for the sea war with us for global domination.

Think about it as Schlieffen Plan 2.0. Knock out France then knock out Rus. Then use the resources of the continent and control of the Channel Ports to knock out GB in a second war.

[Burney]

Did you miss the point about the second war in what I wrote?

We know from the 1914 September Programme exactly what the Germans planned in the event of a victory in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

The Brest-Litovsk shows they weren't joking in terms of imposing such a punitive peace.

Have a look at the terms of the Sept Prog - you'll like "Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany." {Brexit is the final stage of its implementation.}

Now which is the only country not mentioned at all? GB. Why? Because Germany planned a second war with the UK for global domination.

{This is why Fritz Fischer in the 1960s - the first historian given full access to the imperial German archives - talked about German war aims being identical in both wars. And the Fischer Thesis is the accepted, historical consensus over half a century later.}

This can also be seen with the peace offers made later in 1916 to France and Russia which explicitly stated "the war at sea continues."

Had the Sept Prog been implemented, all the Channel Ports would be in hostile hands, and our trade would be banned from the continent.

But more importantly, this massive German continental sized economy would then devote all the resources to building a fleet capable to beating the RN. They wouldn't have to put most of their military spending towards the army as France and Russia were no longer threats.

So had the Germans won at any point during the war, which was possible until the Spring Offensive failed to split GB and Fr on the Western Front, then we would have been looking at a second war within a decade that we wouldn't be able to afford to fight.

So I'm afraid you're completely wrong to dismiss the threat to GB during WW1. The reason the UK isn't mentioned in the Sept Prog - why there's not even a demand for an indemnity from us, unlike the French - is because they saw it as only the warm up for the sea war with us for global domination.

Think about it as Schlieffen Plan 2.0. Knock out France then knock out Rus. Then use the resources of the continent and control of the Channel Ports to knock out GB in a second war.

Yes, but it was nonsense. Germany never had a chance of defeating the Royal Navy. It was simply too fúcking big and as was made clear by actual events, any attempt to defeat Britain at sea would necessarily have brought the USA into the war - at which point it was game over.

The Spring Offensive was a last, desperate gamble, by the way. It terrified the allies because it made significant local gains so quickly, but the fact is that it could never have succeeded because Germany simply didn't have the strategic resources to exploit their successes. All they ended up with were stretched supply lines, isolated troops and lots of impossible-to-defend salients. Their men were half-starved and exhausted and the offensive cost them a million casualties they couldn't afford. It looked impressive, but it petered out and then they were then crushed by Haig's war-winning combined arms offensive.

Besides, they didn't even have the means to fight the Spring offensive until they'd won on the Russian front and brought all those troops west, by which time the USA was already in the war and they were strategically fúcked. Their fleet was still blockaded in harbour by the Grand Fleet and their population was starving as a result.

No. In strategic terms, the Germans lost the war at the Marne in 1914. It just took them four more years to realise it. As a result, there was never any realistic chance of Ireland coming under the Prussian jackboot - even if they'd wanted to.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Yes, but it was nonsense. Germany never had a chance of defeating the Royal Navy. It was simply too fúcking big and as was made clear by actual events, any attempt to defeat Britain at sea would necessarily have brought the USA into the war - at which point it was game over.

The Spring Offensive was a last, desperate gamble, by the way. It terrified the allies because it made significant local gains so quickly, but the fact is that it could never have succeeded because Germany simply didn't have the strategic resources to exploit their successes. All they ended up with were stretched supply lines, isolated troops and lots of impossible-to-defend salients. Their men were half-starved and exhausted and the offensive cost them a million casualties they couldn't afford. It looked impressive, but it petered out and then they were then crushed by Haig's war-winning combined arms offensive.

Besides, they didn't even have the means to fight the Spring offensive until they'd won on the Russian front and brought all those troops west, by which time the USA was already in the war and they were strategically fúcked. Their fleet was still blockaded in harbour by the Grand Fleet and their population was starving as a result.

No. In strategic terms, the Germans lost the war at the Marne in 1914. It just took them four more years to realise it. As a result, there was never any realistic chance of Ireland coming under the Prussian jackboot - even if they'd wanted to.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow, as you are deliberately ignoring the point about the second war with GB within the subsequent decade, with the whole resources of the continent.

Had Fr and Rus been defeated before US entry, the Yanks wouldn't have entered. Their economy would have been in trouble - one major reason for entry was the fact that the Dow Jones was going up and down with allied victories and defeats. We'd entwined their economy with the war.

With France defeated, there was no way they'd suddenly enter to fight with GB. Wilson won re-election in 1916 on an isolationist ticket.

Combine the Fr and Rus navies with the Germans (in the way we nicked all their ships in 1918) and it was already bigger than the RN. Give them 5-10 years to build a massive fleet using the whole resources of the continent and we'd have lost.

This is what they were actively planning. And this is why anyone who says GB didn't have to fight in 1914 is an idiot. As I say, read the Fischer Thesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_...Fischer_thesis

Re: The spring offensive. If you read my essay below, you'll see that many top historians believe the Germans came close to victory.

I disagree, as you'll see, because for it to work, they had to split the allied armies, yet at the Doullens conference, Haig immediately agreed to put the BEF under French command. My tutor reckons this was touch and go, but I don't.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ppj4qxnomc...JSG.pages?dl=0

We were also wide open if only the Germans had known how bad the Nivelle mutinies were in 1917, one reason why we had to keep fighting Passchendaele.

And had those mutinies occurred at Verdun in 1916 when the Paddies were getting uppity, as may well have happened if they'd had that idiot Nivelle in charge as opposed to the great (thought later Vichy baddie) Pétain, then the land war could have been lost then, too.

Oh, and the US were insignificant in 1918, though they could be trusted to guard quiet sectors. It was more the German fear that by 1919, they'd have huge numbers of battle hardened troops. Had the armies been split in spring 1918, the Yanks would have made no difference. That's why they gambled all on victory in 1918.

Had the French fallen back on Paris and the BEF to the Channel Ports it would have been game over. However, as I show, that wasn't likely to happen, despite what many historians think. Though putting a British army under foreign (French, even) command for the first time was one hell of a step.

[Arsenal Alcoholic Review]

All about The National Party these days.