The Empire is finished, no foreign lands to seize....

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

You know how they never shut up about the 1966 World Cup because it's the last time they won anything worthwhile? It's a bit like that.

They always go on about their rivalry/hatred of Germany too. It's all one way though. There is no rivalry. Germany consider Italy, Netherlands, Spain and even Argentina far bigger rivals than England.

Germany certainly consider England to be major rivals. They just don't go on about the war, because the war is sort of a major embarrassment to them. Holland are probably their biggest rivals. Italy have always had the upper hand on them football wise but I never considered it a particularly bitter rivalry. Argentina are bitter rivals because they have met so often since 1986. England would probably come in third in their list of rivals after Holland and Argentina.

England going on about the war when they meet Germany is little different to how Irish people go on about 850 years of oppression any time we meet England in a major sporting event, particularly in association football.

[Main Street]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Hmm... I'm sure the millions who died in the imposed famine of West Bengal during war time would appreciate your fine words about Britain  and Churchill's war cabinet's decisions, stripped the grain warehouses of every grain of rice, decisions made for the greater good,  ie. the preservation of their control over their empire.

[Eamonnca1]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Did Britain really go to war with their emerging industrial and strategic rival because they cared about the fate of Poland? I have my doubts about that. The tactics of Bomber Harris in targeting German civilians is another matter. The destruction of Dresden is regarded by some as a war crime.

[Eamonnca1]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Hmm... I'm sure the millions who died in the imposed famine of West Bengal during war time would appreciate your fine words about Britain  and Churchill's war cabinet's decisions, stripped the grain warehouses of every grain of rice, decisions made for the greater good,  ie. the preservation of their control over their empire.

Don't get me started about Churchill. He withdrew naval cover for North Atlantic commercial shipping during WWI in the hope that the Germans would torpedo a passenger ship and pull America into the war. He got his wish when the Lusitania went down.

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Hmm... I'm sure the millions who died in the imposed famine of West Bengal during war time would appreciate your fine words about Britain  and Churchill's war cabinet's decisions, stripped the grain warehouses of every grain of rice, decisions made for the greater good,  ie. the preservation of their control over their empire.

Well if it's any consolation to you, the Empire didn't last very long, and also, I wasn't making a point in defence of the British Empire.

I note you didn't actually argue the point I made, but sure I'm well used to people doing that.

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Did Britain really go to war with their emerging industrial and strategic rival because they cared about the fate of Poland? I have my doubts about that. The tactics of Bomber Harris in targeting German civilians is another matter. The destruction of Dresden is regarded by some as a war crime.

They were left with no alternative. There could no longer be any pretence about what they were dealing with. Britain did not want war and their poor military performance until they finally got their act together in North Africa in 1942 proved it. Germany nakedly wanted war.

War is a very dirty business, especially a World War, and especially a World War against the most evil regime in human history. As regards Dresden and Hamburg etc., the reality is that Britain had to break the will of the German people as well as their military might and they had to do it as quickly as they could. It was grotesque, but it was all out war.

In my view America has bigger questions to answer about whether what was done to civilians in August 1945 was necessary. We'll never know, but what is certain is that it unleashed a ghoulish new vista of the evils that man was capable of. Even if it was committed in service to a lesser evil in that particular case.

Britain can be proud of how it stood against Nazism, the problem is how they could not really accept how their part in the Allied victory could have heralded the end of their own empire - and how the historical memory of that victory has been used for some deeply nefarious purposes since. The problem was they could never move on. They, or rather those of the white/Tory/Brexiteer mentality, see it as their last hurrah of "greatness", which has made them deeply and unhealthily nostalgic as a people.

[Windmill abu]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Operation Vegetarian, the plan to drop anthrax spores across northern Germany and force millions of civilians into starvation, cannot be considered a morally clear and creditable position.

[Eamonnca1]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Did Britain really go to war with their emerging industrial and strategic rival because they cared about the fate of Poland? I have my doubts about that. The tactics of Bomber Harris in targeting German civilians is another matter. The destruction of Dresden is regarded by some as a war crime.

They were left with no alternative. There could no longer be any pretence about what they were dealing with. Britain did not want war and their poor military performance until they finally got their act together in North Africa in 1942 proved it. Germany nakedly wanted war.

War is a very dirty business, especially a World War, and especially a World War against the most evil regime in human history. As regards Dresden and Hamburg etc., the reality is that Britain had to break the will of the German people as well as their military might and they had to do it as quickly as they could. It was grotesque, but it was all out war.

In my view America has bigger questions to answer about whether what was done to civilians in August 1945 was necessary. We'll never know, but what is certain is that it unleashed a ghoulish new vista of the evils that man was capable of. Even if it was committed in service to a lesser evil in that particular case.

Britain can be proud of how it stood against Nazism, the problem is how they could not really accept how their part in the Allied victory could have heralded the end of their own empire - and how the historical memory of that victory has been used for some deeply nefarious purposes since. The problem was they could never move on. They, or rather those of the white/Tory/Brexiteer mentality, see it as their last hurrah of "greatness", which has made them deeply and unhealthily nostalgic as a people.

I'm surprised at you saying this. You could use that argument to justify all manner of war crimes, whether it's the Siege of Drogheda or the atom bombs dropped on Japan. Was it okay for the Germans to flatten Coventry?

[lurganblue]

It's a wonder the Wellington Monument survived the purge

[tyroneman]

Yes, Britain played an important role in WW2.

No, Britain did not stand alone.

Nor did it defeat the Nazis by itself.

There were more participants than the US, Britain and Russia on the allied side. It's a shame they seem too easily forgotten.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/sep/02/empire-britain-second-world-war-hitler

[sid waddell]

Yes, Britain played an important role in WW2.

No, Britain did not stand alone.

Nor did it defeat the Nazis by itself.

There were more participants than the US, Britain and Russia on the allied side. It's a shame they seem too easily forgotten.

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/sep/02/empire-britain-second-world-war-hitler

Of course they didn't defeat the Nazis by themselves. Who has said that? Neither did the Soviets, the Americans, or anybody. That's why it was called an Allied effort.

Of the major powers in World War II, for a significant period of time, ie. May 1940 to June 1941, Britain did indeed stand alone against the Nazis. And that isn't an effort to airbrush anybody out of history. It's simply a fact.

France had been overrun and the collaborationist Vichy regime had been formed.

The Soviets were collaborating with the Nazis.

The Americans were standing idly by.

I don't know why there's such an effort to denigrate Britain's war effort, I can only presume it's down to anti-British hatred.

[sid waddell]

It's a wonder the Wellington Monument survived the purge

It's a wonder the bould Lord Wellington survived all the years I was firing sliotars at him when I used to use his monument as my own personal hurling wall.

[sid waddell]

Now the BLM has gained a bit of momentum in the UK and the pulling down of that slave trader statue in Bristol the establishment there are now having to look at their wrongdoings in the past and face up to them of sorts except Winston, he's an all round good guy and off bounds for critical analysis of his various misdeeds.

This is a great wee website tracing those involved in the slave trade and were paid off by the British taxpayer to stop their evil deeds.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/

Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............

Oh he'll get his historical comeuppance too. WWII is sacred in the UK, but that might not last forever. Peter Hitchens, hardly a pinko leftie, has written about how the UK went into WWII not to save the world (and certainly not to save the Jews, if anything they did nothing to stop the holocaust when they could have) but to preserve Britain's status as a great power. Germany was bemused when the Brits joined in. They were like "WTF has this got to do with you?" WWII was originally an eastward-looking conflict. Hitler wanted to conquer lands to his east in order to feed the German industrial machine. Knocking France out of action was a prerequisite for his main objective which was capturing Eastern Europe.

The Western campaign was a distraction for the Nazis, and it ended up costing Britain it's great power status rather than securing it. It took Suez to get it into their heads that they'd lost it, although I'm not sure if it ever fully sunk in.

Never understood sacredness of WWII to Brits. They sell it as great fight against fascism, which is ironic considering they behaved like utter fascists in their empire. Red Army won WWII in Europe, nine out of 10 Nazi troops killed in war died on eastern front. More people were killed under the British empire than killed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined, with still plenty to spare. Don't forget who invented the concentration camp either. Bastards.

It was a fight against fascism, it was a fight for the freedom of the people of Europe. And Britain stood alone against the Nazis while the Soviets were actively collaborating with them and the Americans were standing idly by.

The Soviets certainly didn't care much for the freedom of the people of Europe, as they proved once the war was over.

Of the major Allied powers in World War II, Britain has by far the cleanest hands and adopted by far the most morally clear and creditable position.

You don't have to be a fan of the British Empire to recognise that fact.

Did Britain really go to war with their emerging industrial and strategic rival because they cared about the fate of Poland? I have my doubts about that. The tactics of Bomber Harris in targeting German civilians is another matter. The destruction of Dresden is regarded by some as a war crime.

They were left with no alternative. There could no longer be any pretence about what they were dealing with. Britain did not want war and their poor military performance until they finally got their act together in North Africa in 1942 proved it. Germany nakedly wanted war.

War is a very dirty business, especially a World War, and especially a World War against the most evil regime in human history. As regards Dresden and Hamburg etc., the reality is that Britain had to break the will of the German people as well as their military might and they had to do it as quickly as they could. It was grotesque, but it was all out war.

In my view America has bigger questions to answer about whether what was done to civilians in August 1945 was necessary. We'll never know, but what is certain is that it unleashed a ghoulish new vista of the evils that man was capable of. Even if it was committed in service to a lesser evil in that particular case.

Britain can be proud of how it stood against Nazism, the problem is how they could not really accept how their part in the Allied victory could have heralded the end of their own empire - and how the historical memory of that victory has been used for some deeply nefarious purposes since. The problem was they could never move on. They, or rather those of the white/Tory/Brexiteer mentality, see it as their last hurrah of "greatness", which has made them deeply and unhealthily nostalgic as a people.

I'm surprised at you saying this. You could use that argument to justify all manner of war crimes, whether it's the Siege of Drogheda or the atom bombs dropped on Japan. Was it okay for the Germans to flatten Coventry?

Well the Germans flattened Coventry long before the Brits ever got near Dresden. Germany was the aggressor, not Britain. Again, war is a very dirty business, a World War is a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy. There was nothing inevitable about victory. The war would not have been won without bombing from the air. It was all out war.

I don't think you can compare it to the Siege of Drogheda at all, you can compare Drogheda to what the Nazis did all across eastern Europe alright. You can probably compare Dresden to the atomic bombs in a way. The argument for the atomic bombs was that they shocked Japan so much that they brought about an earlier surrender than would otherwise have occurred. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with that argument - I would probably tend against it because the civilian toll was so great and the nature of the weapon used was so shocking and destructive - but I can see the argument and how many people might consider it valid.

[grounded]

a particularly dirty business, and a World War against the most evil regime in human history is the dirtiest business of all. Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy

I suppose a couple of issues i have with this logic. A pedantic point really but, who decides who or what was the most evil regime in the history of mankind? How do they quantify all of this?
      There has been some pretty bad regimes going of the top of my head in terms of sheer scale Mongol empire, Stalin and Soviet Union, the Nazi's, British empire, Mao and Pol Pot. All bad bast@rds in my eyes.

   But when you state 'Germany was not in any sense a reasonable enemy. You can't fight according to gentlemen's rules against a totally unreasonable and undeniably evil enemy'. You are entering very dicey territory. You are dehumanising and entire people. Once you do that you should gave no problem fire bombing or using chemical and or biological weapons or whatever you want outside of the Geneva convention.
          I'm sure that first line is in every terrorists handbook btw.