Comments

I'm sorry if I offended you Blimp-but the original Colonel Blimp was a very conservative, pretty stupid xenophobe as I recall; and the only reason I can think of selecting Botham before Sobers is a blinkered sense of nationalism.

Imo Sobers is one of the true greats of cricket, particularly as he change his bowling from fast-medium to medium with bits on to spin. Not many bowlers can do that let alone a sublime batsman and bowler.

I admire Beefy greatly, and will never ever forget his marvellous games against the old enemy' but rationally he is not in the same class as Sir Garfield Sobers.
Anybody who rubs the Aussies noses in it as well as he did is to be admired!
The recent South African performance was almost as funny though!!!!

One of my great disappointments is that I only watched Sobers in black and white poor quality TV and never saw him play live!

Benaud was a marvellous all-rounder as well and quite honestly I wouldn't want to have to judge between Botham and Benaud; as Benaud had a far superior temperament./

Fact is that in a list of all-time greats, the first two names on the team sheet should be Sobers and Bradman.

However conservative, stupid and xenophobic the original Colonel Blimp might have been I would have hoped you would have noticed jim that I am not conservative, stupid or xenophobic! It's nothing to do with nationalism, Botham was and is a sporting hero of mine! Anyway forget it, as it's not worth falling out over!

The Germans were working with some members of the IRA - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Russell#Arrival_in_Berlin_May_1940, but there were elements of the Irish government who were in negotiations with the British - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II for more on that.

My guess? If England fell and the Irish were offered Northern Ireland exchange for being "mostly neutral" then the Irish would have taken it. They had no reason to fight Hitler - which is why they never entered the war (even when the British tried to bribe them to do so). They would have ended up in the same boat as Spain and Sweden - neutrals during and after the war. Or maybe Vichy France would have served as a model?

If the Germans did occupy Ireland, then the Irish would have yearned for the days when the British were there. The British (mostly) had a rule of law while German occupations were rules of terror. One that turned the average citizen against the freedom fighters.

A German soldier dies? Then pick 10 people at random and shoot them. Another German soldier is ambushed? Pick 50 people at random and shoot them. You don't want to risk your wife/children/parents/friends/etc picked at random to be shoot? Then you inform on the guy who's attacking the Germans. Yes, people hated the Germans for doing what they did, but the fear generally outweighed the hatred.

Goodgulf

As camps are now starting to form I must clarify that I have not stated that Sir Ian Botham is the greatest cricketing all-rounder but that he is certainly one of the greats. I also put a couple of other great all-rounders into the mix and and I know of others who haven`t even been awarded a mention.

Sir Garfield Sobers has been acclaimed as the greatest all-rounder by those eminently more able to judge these things than I and if exceptionally good cricketers the likes of Fred Trueman and Richie Benaud hail him as the greatest then you have to take note and recognize what his peers had to say.

Sporting debates are fun and even though perceived knowledge will have a consensus you will always get those who do not agree for one reason or another. Cricket`s authorities bestow various honours on those thought worthy enough and it`s always a good yardstick but even then there will be divided camps.

You would think there could be no argument as to the identity of the greatest spinner of all time but I own books written by cognoscenti who have differing opinions. The same would apply to "greatest " footballer of all time or Tennis player or golfer or Formula 1 driver. There are times when raw statistics are not enough and something else comes into the mix and that`s why we chew it over as we do.

This particular forum is now divided, we started off with the one subject on the war and now we have somehow got cricket in the middle. That is what I love about this place, who cares what the original thing was all about, just write and away we go. Great job Gentlemen....

Well said canadianspankee, the thread started off with a reference to a story but then Lincoln nudged us and Hotspur gently chided and quite right too as it was very timely.

Is it the right place to be discussing something as complex and heavyweight as WW2 ? Opinions would differ on that especially as this site has members from all the participating nations of the war but there has been very many excellent posts which has, to myself at any rate, highlighted the wealth of knowledge that exists within the ranks of this site and it`s an aspect of the site which never ceases to delight and surprise me.

How many threads have there been with so few references to spanking or corporal punishment in general? From a spanking story to WW2 and then to cricketing greats and both of those themes able to coexist and flow really well and hardly a discordant note.

It goes to show that if a site is as well constructed and accessible as the LSF undoubtedly is the members will respond and participate and receive as much, if not more, than they put in. Long may it continue.

Goodgulf: The Irish might well have accepted the North, but what then? They are occupying a territory with a hostile and martial majority, having taken an action deeply divisive in their own country (given, for example, the numbers of Southern Irish in the U.K. armed forces) and they are not the Germans when it comes to suppressing resistance/terrorism. The Germans, occupying some key bases and finding themselves attacked from land under Irish control, retaliate.

As for the German WW" anti-resistance tactics, they were as you describe, but in which country did they stop armed resistance? Not in Yugoslavia, France, Greece, Norway, Denmark, the Baltic Republics (despite the high levels of support for the Third Reich in the Baltic countries) or the occupied USSR.

The levels of resistance in most of those countries were grossly exaggerated for propaganda - or being committed by people who the Germans considered subhuman (i.e. the next to go to the camps). The most effective acts of the various resistances were to get intelligence back to London. Yes, they took the occasional high ranking Nazi out, but most of the time the resistance were battling collaborators (people who did the Nazi's work for them). Often it was various native ethnic groups fighting each other with the "pure" ones supporting the Germans while the Germans just supervised and set policy.

Most of the various European nations had their own fascist movements with leaders who were happy to help Hitler rule their nations - the British one was interned during the war but others became the "Presidents" of Norway, France, etc.

If the the Germans got the UK to surrender (and that is what they would need to get Scotland and Wales) then awarded Northern Ireland to their buddies in southern Ireland, say had a public announcement over that, then it would have been an Irish problem (and the US probably would have cheered). The Irish couldn't have said no to someone handing them the rest of their island - giving them what they wanted with no (or very few) strings attached.

The Germans wouldn't have been the first to say "Let the Irish fight the Irish". As for launching attacks from Northern Ireland, that would have been difficult - you need logistics to fight a war. Without a constant supply of material (fuel, ammo, etc) any "retake England!" effort would have stalled. No, I could see the Irish fighting each other while the Germans mopped up in the UK. Maybe sending a few armoured units to help here and there (like they did to aid the Italians in North Africa) but mostly leaving it to the Irish to deal with.

But this is all a game if "what if" - and thanks to those who fought in WWII the answer doesn't really matter.

Goodgulf

I recently read a fiction story about the Foreign Legion during WW II, which informed me about something I was previously unaware of. The legion split allegiances during the war. Some of them fought for the Vichy French and others sided with DeGaulle's resistance which was on the allied side. There was a battle fought between two sides of the legion in Africa, it is the only time in the organisation's history that they have ever fought each other.
Maybe one of our South African readers could enlighten me, but I also believe there was an organised resistance by the Boers to the Allied forces because they sympathised with the Germans, largely due to the fact that the Germans were fighting the British.

You're absolutely right on this distinction. You're definitely not original. "Different" perhaps...


Where are the "off topic" police when you really need them?