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/ (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/)
Prentices in Newry and Armagh feature.............
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
I had a look at the list of statues monuments around Dublin city to see if an argument could be made for pulling them down or blowing them up as the case may be. There is only one that stands out -The Wellington Monument - dedicated to that imperialist pond scum, vassal to the East India Trade Company the Duke of Wellington.
Instead of knocking it down though, I think we could make a few small adjustments and rename it "The Duke Ellington - BLM"
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
Welllington finally agreed to catholic emancipation in Britain and Ireland after O'Connell's party won all the seats and public opinion changed in favour in Britian. After passing the act they raised the bar for voting eligibility to vote,
Quote from: Main Street on June 10, 2020, 09:56:45 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
Welllington finally agreed to catholic emancipation in Britain and Ireland after O'Connell's party won all the seats and public opinion changed in favour in Britian. After passing the act they raised the bar for voting eligibility to vote,
don't know much about Wellington but if what you're saying is correct then after passing the catholic emancipation bill upped the property threshold for those allowed to vote then he did so because he was forced to do so and like all good British diplomats attempted to circumvent the rules he'd put in place to give the air or decency when there was none.
I'd pull it down then.
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like it when we apply today's fashions to yesteryear. Bell bottoms and handlebar moustaches were great for the 1970's but not now.
In the same way, it was okay for sapiens to wipe out the neanderthals (albeit a few still left in Tyrone) but has anyone ever apologised?
Quote from: Orior on June 10, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like it when we apply today's fashions to yesteryear. Bell bottoms and handlebar moustaches were great for the 1970's but not now.
In the same way, it was okay for sapiens to wipe out the neanderthals (albeit a few still left in Tyrone) but has anyone ever apologised?
Only a few??
On Mitchel, he just didn't just avidly support slavery but the worst aspects of it, he was beyond the pale even in the deep dark South.
And just look at what happened to the Magheracloone Mitchells.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1B68/production/_103561070_42396175_1975989752446875_3575056521500819456_o.jpg)
Quote from: Orior on June 10, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like it when we apply today's fashions to yesteryear. Bell bottoms and handlebar moustaches were great for the 1970's but not now.
In the same way, it was okay for sapiens to wipe out the neanderthals (albeit a few still left in Tyrone) but has anyone ever apologised?
His views back then were detested by some of his fellow Young Irelanders so we're hardly looking upon his beliefs now with any more insight that his contemporaries.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 12:04:44 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 10, 2020, 10:07:56 AM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 10, 2020, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: Orior on June 09, 2020, 07:59:56 PM
But the Duke was born in Dublin, and helped implement Catholic Emancipation albeit after huge struggle when he and others decided they could no longer resist.
His statue in Glasgow is always bedecked with a traffic cone, lol
A bit like the current debate over John Mitchel.
Should we ignore their misdeeds or odious beliefs because of the greater good they achieved here in Ireland?
I'm not so sure.
I don't like it when we apply today's fashions to yesteryear. Bell bottoms and handlebar moustaches were great for the 1970's but not now.
In the same way, it was okay for sapiens to wipe out the neanderthals (albeit a few still left in Tyrone) but has anyone ever apologised?
His views back then were detested by some of his fellow Young Irelanders so we're hardly looking upon his beliefs now with any more insight that his contemporaries.
They were too much for many in the Confederacy. He was waaaayyyy out there even then.
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Its amazing how little known this is, how such a large proportion of the war, the atrocities and death in Europe occurred on what would come to lie behind the Iron Curtain.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 11, 2020, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: BennyCake on June 11, 2020, 10:11:10 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 11, 2020, 08:16:18 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: Main Street on June 11, 2020, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: Main Street on June 11, 2020, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 11, 2020, 11:32:04 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 11, 2020, 11:32:04 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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?
It's a wonder the Wellington Monument survived the purge
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
Quote from: tyroneman on June 12, 2020, 10:10:42 AM
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.
Quote from: lurganblue on June 12, 2020, 09:52:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 12, 2020, 04:26:53 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:57:46 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 11, 2020, 11:32:04 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
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.
Further to Sid W's analysis, which I agree with, there is one other aspect to the UK's role in WWII which needs to be pointed out.
Which was that Hitler never actually wanted to invade Britain, rather he hoped desperately to avoid it.
If you look at everything he ever said or did, he was motivated by racism. The Germans ("Ayrans") were top dogs, whose destiny was to rule a 1,000 year Reich on the European continent, with expansion to the East providing "Lebensraum" for an expanding German population.
The Slavs and Eastern Europeans were "Untermensch" who were to provide slave labour for the Reich, while the Jews and Roma etc were only fit for extermination.
Within this world view, as white Anglo-Saxons, he saw the British as next to the Germans in the hierarchy - hadn't they carved out an Empire all round the world to prove it?
And since he had no overseas ambitions for Germany, his "deal" was that if they kept out of the war, he would allow them to keep their overseas Empire, while he got on with carving out an empire of his own on the Continent. Which would also offer the obvious advantage of not having to fight on two fronts, while he got on with what was always his overriding priority - to attack Poland, Ukraine and (esp) Russia.
In this, he was encouraged by Appeasers (eg Lord Halifax), Fascists (eg Mosley), and naive members of the political establishment (eg Chamberlain) in the UK, to believe that he could make a deal. In addition, he never believed that the UK would go to the aid of Poland, after blithely abandoning Czechoslovakia in 1938. And even as late as 1940, when the world saw how easily France and Western Europe had crumbled, he continued to hope that a weak and isolated UK would finally "see sense" and sue for peace.
Which was, for instance, he never seriously tried to mount a sea invasion (he was happy to believe Goering when he claimed that the Luftwaffe alone would bring Britain to its knees within weeks), and also explains Hess's desperate flight to Britain in 1941, as he (Hess) still felt there was a chance of "an honourable peace" between UK and Germany.
And make no mistake, with the carnage of WWI still fresh in British minds a mere 20 years later, there were many, many people in the UK who were desperate to avoid another war at any cost. Which explains why Churchill, who had been seen as a dangerous, war-mongering outsider throughout the 1930's, didn't get to become PM until May 1940 i.e. 8 months after the war had begun: many people were still hoping it could be settled without all-out conflict.
So all in all, it was touch and go whether Britain would fight, with every reason for believing that without the intervention of Churchill personally, the UK could easily have sued for peace with Hitler. Which could very easily have seen Operation Barbarossa succeed and the whole of Europe subjugated and enslaved, with European Jewry completely destroyed.
All of which explains why no-one on the Continent and beyond is tearing down the numerous Churchill monuments and memorials; on the contrary, he is widely revered even yet.
As for Ireland, people might like to consider that he was always a committed Home Ruler, with no sympathy for Ulster Unionism.... ;)
Quote from: grounded on June 12, 2020, 02:15:17 PM
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.
You miss the point entirely.
Which is that even if there were huge civilian casualties in Germany from the Allied bombing campaign etc, Britain made a distinction between fighting the Nazi's and fighting the "entire [German] people".
The proof of this is to be found by contrasting the behaviour of the Nazi's towards the local populations in Poland, Ukraine and Russia when they occupied those countries in 1941/42; and that of UK/USA when they occupied Germany in 1945.
Or look at the USSR's treatment of the people in the countries they occupied/controlled after 1945.
Meanwhile, on the specific question of the aerial bombing campaign (Dresden etc), no legal expert has ever seriously considered prosecuting UK/USA over this, not because we were the winners, but actually because such activity did not come within the strict legal definition of what constitutes a "war crime".
For example, one requirement is that the perpetrators should have carried out their activities at no risk to themselves (eg soldiers rounding up civilians and murdering them).
Here are the casualty figures for RAF Bomber Command during WWII:
Killed in action or died while prisoners of war 47,268
Killed in flying or ground accidents 8,195
Killed in ground-battle action 37
Total fatal casualties to aircrew 55,500
Prisoners of war, including many wounded 9,838
Wounded in aircraft which returned from operations 4,200
Wounded in flying or ground accidents in U. K. 4,203
Total wounded, other than prisoners of war 8,403
Total aircrew casualties 73,741http://www.rafinfo.org.uk/BCWW2Losses/BC-RoH-casstats.htm (http://www.rafinfo.org.uk/BCWW2Losses/BC-RoH-casstats.htm)
Considering just under 120,000 aircrew served in Bomber Command during the war, this means 46% died, with another 15% wounded or captured.
So whatever else you think of them, they were phenomenally courageous in carrying out their duties, and this sacrifice alone provides a valid defence to any possible "War Crimes" charge.
Quote from: grounded on June 12, 2020, 02:15:17 PM
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.
Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.
From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.
You miss the point entirely.
No, i dont think i do. Its always the same argument when it comes to Dresden or any similar action by the British whether it was in either of the ww's, Kenya, India, South Africa, Malaysia or even here
' desperate times required desperate actions'
Call a spade a spade. Firebombing Dresden was a war crime. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's or the Soviets(allies) carried out worse actions, Or that the allied airmen(who were carrying out orders) had high casualty rates(They were certainly brave men that is not in doubt).
History is written by the winners and that is why there was never any or there will never be any prosecution of that act.
Quote from: J70 on June 12, 2020, 03:10:04 PM
Quote from: grounded on June 12, 2020, 02:15:17 PM
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.
Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.
From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.
So, was it ok to firebomb Dresden?
The justification of Dresden basically boils down to: they were bad bast@rds and they got what they deserved.
Thats fair enough, the Nazis were some of the worst examples of humanity that ever existed. In the eyes of the allied military top strategists the allied firebombing campaign in Germany had one specific goal namely the demoralisation of the German civilian population.
Perhaps in the context of ww2 and the Allied fight for survival the argument for such an action could be made. Perhaps war crimes were necessary for the defeat of Nazi Germany?
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:29:37 AM
Quote from: Main Street on June 11, 2020, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
I did argue one of your 'facts' I even put it in bold, but you missed it by a country mile in your rush to present the readers digest version of WW2 in europe.
Perhaps you havent the foggiest notion about what was done to India as a country and a people during WW2 by Churchill's "clean and moral hands", perhaps Indian lives don't matter as much to you.
The debate is about Churchill the patriot of England and the empire, who not only was inherently racist but a sadistic cruel one especially when it came to places like India
The central theme of Churchill's career had been, in his own words, 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'. By the end of his life it was clear that this had not been achieved.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815 (ftp://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815) much of his ambition re WW2 was to save the Empire.
But don't fret for Winston's statues, his ideological descendents, the English racists Tommy Robinson et al are on duty to protect and serve.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
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.
So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?
Quote from: grounded on June 12, 2020, 03:42:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 12, 2020, 03:10:04 PM
Quote from: grounded on June 12, 2020, 02:15:17 PM
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.
Germany WERE a totally unreasonable and evil enemy. Their modus operandi was the complete dehumanization of any groups that didn't fit into their idealized vision of what the German world should look like. You can make the argument if you think there have been worse regimes.
From the actions of the Einsatzgruppen across eastern European, which, to basically save morale, evolved into the industrialized mass slaughter of millions of human beings, I'm hard-pressed to come up with words to describe the utter callousness, cruelty and immorality of the Nazi regime. The German people were seduced by Hitler, they facilitated what was to come. The regime fought to the death and at no point attempted to stand down and surrender in the face of the advancing Allies, even using concentration camp prisoners, whom they subsequently slaughtered, to try to cover the tracks of their atrocities against the Jews and peoples of eastern Europe before the Russians arrived in town.
So, was it ok to firebomb Dresden?
Under the circumstances, I don't personally have an issue with it. The historians can fight it out. No matter what I say, I'm sure you have a counter argument.
But I'm not arguing that the Allies conducted the war immaculately or that some of their decisions can't be second-guessed afterwards. Dresden was one of a number of cities firebombed by both sides. The writing was on the wall for the Germans by that time (same as the Japanese when Tokyo was firebombed the following month), and they still would not countenance surrender.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 12, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
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.
So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?
Only difference I see, in the perspective of the time, is in the result. The Tokyo firebombing was as destructive. But even then, it took the second bombing and the threat of another to bring about the Japanese surrender.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 12, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
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.
So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?
My belief is that they had to. Should
any air bombing at all have been part of the war effort in your view?
Hiroshima killed nearly 150k, Nagasaki nearly another 100k. Dresden is estimated to have had a death toll of around 25k.
By any stretch of the imagination, whether by casualties or by the means used, Dresden does not compare to the atomic bombs.
Quote from: Main Street on June 12, 2020, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:29:37 AM
Quote from: Main Street on June 11, 2020, 11:02:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 11, 2020, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: red hander on June 10, 2020, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 09, 2020, 06:30:43 PM
Quote from: johnnycool on June 09, 2020, 03:15:00 PM
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/ (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.
I did argue one of your 'facts' I even put it in bold, but you missed it by a country mile in your rush to present the readers digest version of WW2 in europe.
Perhaps you havent the foggiest notion about what was done to India as a country and a people during WW2 by Churchill's "clean and moral hands", perhaps Indian lives don't matter as much to you.
The debate is about Churchill the patriot of England and the empire, who not only was inherently racist but a sadistic cruel one especially when it came to places like India
The central theme of Churchill's career had been, in his own words, 'the maintenance of the enduring greatness of Britain and her Empire'. By the end of his life it was clear that this had not been achieved.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815 (ftp://www.amazon.co.uk/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0465024815) much of his ambition re WW2 was to save the Empire.
But don't fret for Winston's statues, his ideological descendents, the English racists Tommy Robinson et al are on duty to protect and serve.
The problem with such anti-Britishness, especially on an Irish forum, is that the mere upholding of historical fact leads to totally ridiculous stuff like comparing people to Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who is racist, fascist sc**bag who I utterly abhor - were I in England I'd be firmly on the left of the Labour party. God knows I've written enough stuff supporting Corbyn, his policies and most of his worldview over the last few years.
You also must have missed my previous posts where I mention the British Empire and what I think of it.
The famine in Bengal was a tragedy of the highest order, but it was
not deliberate, was
not a genocide (neither was the Irish famine), and was caused mainly by a combination of actual food shortages due to bad harvests, cack handed incompetence at a local level, and the Japanese invasion of Burma.
The causes of it are actually extremely complex. But in fake history, people can just shout "Churchill did it".
What is
not fake history is that Britain behaved in the most morally just manner of the major Allied powers in World War II and of them, did indeed stand alone against the Nazis when others were collaborating and standing idly by.
No amount of subject changing bleating can change that fact. And Britain
can justifiably be proud of that fact.
Was Hess on an official peace mission to try and get the Brits to stand aside while Hitler invaded Russia?
Quote from: Rossfan on June 12, 2020, 05:00:05 PM
Was Hess on an official peace mission to try and get the Brits to stand aside while Hitler invaded Russia?
Don't think its every been established definitively whether it was with the foreknowledge or authorization of Hitler.
Obviously Hitler moved decisively and brutally in the aftermath as it was neither.
A very interesting article arguing that it was not in fact the atomic bombs that caused Japan's surrender. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 12, 2020, 05:41:17 PM
A very interesting article arguing that it was not in fact the atomic bombs that caused Japan's surrender. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
Interesting argument indeed.
However, surely some research must have been done back in the day on the thinking of those in power in Japan?
Assuming the author's opinion is correct, did every single one of those involved toe the line and, forever more, falsely promote the decisiveness of the atomic bombings?
Has there been any revisionism in Japan?
[/quote]
Under the circumstances, I don't personally have an issue with it. The historians can fight it out. No matter what I say, I'm sure you have a counter argument.
But I'm not arguing that the Allies conducted the war immaculately or that some of their decisions can't be second-guessed afterwards. Dresden was one of a number of cities firebombed by both sides. The writing was on the wall for the Germans by that time (same as the Japanese when Tokyo was firebombed the following month), and they still would not countenance
I suppose my point is more a hypothetical one. Is it justifiable to carry out war crimes(arguable by some) for the greater good? I think in this specific case you dont have an issue with it and thats fair enough. My point is why not just call a spade a spade.
And you are right, looking back and judging historical actions and in particularly military ones is fraught with difficulty. Those top military brass didnt have access to the information we have now and had to base their strategy on the limited intel they had.
If there is one thing that ww2 shows is the amount of negotiating and deals that went on behind closed doors. No doubt the evidence of it has been destroyed but you can bet yer bottom dollar a deal would have been struck between Germany and the Allies had Hitler been removed, as the allies realised the threat the Soviet Union posed.
So to say the writing was on the wall for the axis powers is only partially true, because as events proved during the war anything could and did happen.
You don't think that by the early months of 1945 it was all but over for the Axis powers? I guess you could make some kind of argument for Japan holding out for a bit, but Germany?
By that time, the Red Army was already in eastern Germany, closing in on Berlin, and the Allies had crossed the Rhine.
https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/ (https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/)
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 04:16:36 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 12, 2020, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 12, 2020, 12:18:50 PM
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.
So it's okay to flatten a city full of civilians with conventional bombs but not okay to do the exact same thing with a nuclear weapon? What's the difference?
My belief is that they had to. Should any air bombing at all have been part of the war effort in your view?
Of course it should. They didn't have laser-guided weapons in those days but they still had the ability to target industrial areas which could be regarded as legitimate targets. But they chose to also deliberately target residential areas. In fact the USAF had a test range consisting of mocked up homes made of the same materials as typical Japanese homes. They used it to perfect the technique of incendiary bombing to ignite firestorms in residential areas. If that's not a war crime I don't know what is.
Quote
Hiroshima killed nearly 150k, Nagasaki nearly another 100k. Dresden is estimated to have had a death toll of around 25k.
By any stretch of the imagination, whether by casualties or by the means used, Dresden does not compare to the atomic bombs.
So the fact that 25,000 dead is less than 100,000 dead makes it okay?
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marvelcrossroads/images/7/76/Genturgidsone42.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/340?cb=20180802005318)
"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed! But I do promise you no more than ten to twenty million dead, tops! Er, depending on the breaks."
Quote from: J70 on June 12, 2020, 06:01:48 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 12, 2020, 05:41:17 PM
A very interesting article arguing that it was not in fact the atomic bombs that caused Japan's surrender. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab)
Interesting argument indeed.
However, surely some research must have been done back in the day on the thinking of those in power in Japan?
Assuming the author's opinion is correct, did every single one of those involved toe the line and, forever more, falsely promote the decisiveness of the atomic bombings?
Has there been any revisionism in Japan?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions. I had always thought the second bombing was sheer malevolence, given that the Japanese surely would have surrendered just to avoid a second bombing. But not if this author is correct.
Quote from: J70 on June 12, 2020, 07:23:59 PM
You don't think that by the early months of 1945 it was all but over for the Axis powers? I guess you could make some kind of argument for Japan holding out for a bit, but Germany?
By that time, the Red Army was already in eastern Germany, closing in on Berlin, and the Allies had crossed the Rhine.
https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/ (https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/)
The battle of the bulge was a disaster for Germany alright, and but for that they could have held out on the western front for much longer. But you're right, that given the resources the allies had at their disposal, that the end result was inevitable.
However, a German regime change even at this late stage could have altered the end outcome of the war drastically. Churchill and Roosevelt had long before altered their sights to Stalin and the iron curtain.
Certainly, it is well known that most if not all German forces would much prefer to surrender to the western allies than the dreaded Soviets. An agreed surrender in favour of the west, may have freed sufficient troops and materials to at least have reduced the eastern european land grab by the soviets.
All what ifs and maybe's but im sure the blueprints of a plan had been devised to thwart old Joseph.
This article on Churchill showed up on my newsfeed today. Timely, given the direction of this thread. A good read.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism?fbclid=IwAR1Tr1kPIxqqp21KT47dXXDoDpVDb1kT2JgHnQtfcDURkV9LhKTWxviSMKg (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/01/winston-churchill-british-empire-colonialism?fbclid=IwAR1Tr1kPIxqqp21KT47dXXDoDpVDb1kT2JgHnQtfcDURkV9LhKTWxviSMKg)
Quote from: Rossfan on June 12, 2020, 05:00:05 PM
Was Hess on an official peace mission to try and get the Brits to stand aside while Hitler invaded Russia?
His mission was to meet some high ranking earl in Scotland who'd expressed pro Nazi sentiments before the war. The true extent of pro Nazi views in royal family at time is still to come out. There is evidence to suggest Edward, the chinless wonder who abdicated, provided the Germans with info about French defences in the Ardennes region following a tour there in his role as army officer that led to Hitler completely changing his invasion plans for France in 1940. He also deserted after the Germans did invade, angering that old bastard Churchill so much that he wanted to have him shot for cowardice in face of enemy. Anthony Blunt, who was exposed as a Soviet spy in 70s/80s while keeper of the queen's art, was dispatched at end of war by royal family to scour German files for anything that would expose old Eddie boy's treachery, all this stuff was seized and given to the Saxe Coburg Gothas in Buck House, presumably to be destroyed. Would explain the kid glove treatment Blunt received after he was outed as spy, considering what secrets he knew. Also suggestions the king's other brother, who died in 'mysterious' wartime plane crash, had been up to his neck in pro Nazi treachery to collaborate with Hitler in event of successful invasion of Britain.
If Hess had been sent a year earlier before they started bombing English cities there's every chance an upper class coup might have succeeded.
Russia Today news reports are a good watch, in almost orgasm mode reporting on mass protests against racist policing tactics across Europe.
The one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue, cocooned inside a coffin, will be glad to hear that hundreds of drunken racists defended his location, i.e. until they departed after running out of lager.
RT had their camera crew do a vox pop with passerbys in Newcastle at the foot of the monument to Earl Grey, an alleged slavery adherent. One passerby was asked "what was noteworthy about Earl Grey?" He replied "tea".
Quote from: Main Street on June 13, 2020, 10:50:56 PM
Russia Today news reports are a good watch, in almost orgasm mode reporting on mass protests against racist policing tactics across Europe.
The one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue, cocooned inside a coffin, will be glad to hear that hundreds of drunken racists defended his location, i.e. until they departed after running out of lager.
RT had their camera crew do a vox pop with passerbys in Newcastle at the foot of the monument to Earl Grey, an alleged slavery adherent. One passerby was asked "what was noteworthy about Earl Grey?" He replied "tea".
Russia Today is a propaganda channel for the fascist, mafia state Russian regime.
That's the reason they are in "orgasm mode".
Russia Today frames its reporting to highlight extremism and division in western societies for the purposes of boosting extremism in these societies. The Russian regime wants to end democracy worldwide wherever it can and have client quasi-dictators come to power.
If it can't have that, it desires to have countries become ungovernable through internal division and conflict, by boosting division, extremists and extremism.
In the UK, it was a promoter and funder of Brexit, and the far right of the Tory party, UKIP, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his fascist yobs and the likes are those it seeks to benefit.
Perhaps you could name these "one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue".
The statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not sure what "hankering after the welfare of the legacy of a statue" is.
Quote from: sid waddell on June 13, 2020, 11:35:22 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 13, 2020, 10:50:56 PM
Russia Today news reports are a good watch, in almost orgasm mode reporting on mass protests against racist policing tactics across Europe.
The one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue, cocooned inside a coffin, will be glad to hear that hundreds of drunken racists defended his location, i.e. until they departed after running out of lager.
RT had their camera crew do a vox pop with passerbys in Newcastle at the foot of the monument to Earl Grey, an alleged slavery adherent. One passerby was asked "what was noteworthy about Earl Grey?" He replied "tea".
Russia Today is a propaganda channel for the fascist, mafia state Russian regime.
That's the reason they are in "orgasm mode".
Russia Today frames its reporting to highlight extremism and division in western societies for the purposes of boosting extremism in these societies. The Russian regime wants to end democracy worldwide wherever it can and have client quasi-dictators come to power.
If it can't have that, it desires to have countries become ungovernable through internal division and conflict, by boosting division, extremists and extremism.
In the UK, it was a promoter and funder of Brexit, and the far right of the Tory party, UKIP, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his fascist yobs and the likes are those it seeks to benefit.
Perhaps you could name these "one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue".
The statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not sure what "hankering after the welfare of the legacy of a statue" is.
Last time I watched RT they were defending Russian soccer hooligans as being very much maligned and misunderstood. I had a good chuckle and never watched it again. The propaganda is fairly blatant. I'm surprised they're allowed to broadcast in the UK.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 15, 2020, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 13, 2020, 11:35:22 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 13, 2020, 10:50:56 PM
Russia Today news reports are a good watch, in almost orgasm mode reporting on mass protests against racist policing tactics across Europe.
The one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue, cocooned inside a coffin, will be glad to hear that hundreds of drunken racists defended his location, i.e. until they departed after running out of lager.
RT had their camera crew do a vox pop with passerbys in Newcastle at the foot of the monument to Earl Grey, an alleged slavery adherent. One passerby was asked "what was noteworthy about Earl Grey?" He replied "tea".
Russia Today is a propaganda channel for the fascist, mafia state Russian regime.
That's the reason they are in "orgasm mode".
Russia Today frames its reporting to highlight extremism and division in western societies for the purposes of boosting extremism in these societies. The Russian regime wants to end democracy worldwide wherever it can and have client quasi-dictators come to power.
If it can't have that, it desires to have countries become ungovernable through internal division and conflict, by boosting division, extremists and extremism.
In the UK, it was a promoter and funder of Brexit, and the far right of the Tory party, UKIP, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his fascist yobs and the likes are those it seeks to benefit.
Perhaps you could name these "one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue".
The statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not sure what "hankering after the welfare of the legacy of a statue" is.
Last time I watched RT they were defending Russian soccer hooligans as being very much maligned and misunderstood. I had a good chuckle and never watched it again. The propaganda is fairly blatant. I'm surprised they're allowed to broadcast in the UK.
It's unadultered propoganda, but interesting in the same way you'd watch Fox news or the likes so that you don't source your information in an echo chamber.
Quote from: J70 on June 12, 2020, 07:23:59 PM
You don't think that by the early months of 1945 it was all but over for the Axis powers? I guess you could make some kind of argument for Japan holding out for a bit, but Germany?
By that time, the Red Army was already in eastern Germany, closing in on Berlin, and the Allies had crossed the Rhine.
https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/ (https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19450324/)
IMO They were on the back foot from mid 44, and any fighting was just postponing the inevitable defeat. Memory of the years following 1918 would still have been raw.
I have always thought WW1 was a more close run thing. If the Germans had held off from all out submarine war for an additional few months until the Russian revolution and that collapse on the Eastern front they could have broke through on the West. It would have been a very different Century
Quote from: johnnycool on June 16, 2020, 10:05:47 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on June 15, 2020, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on June 13, 2020, 11:35:22 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 13, 2020, 10:50:56 PM
Russia Today news reports are a good watch, in almost orgasm mode reporting on mass protests against racist policing tactics across Europe.
The one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue, cocooned inside a coffin, will be glad to hear that hundreds of drunken racists defended his location, i.e. until they departed after running out of lager.
RT had their camera crew do a vox pop with passerbys in Newcastle at the foot of the monument to Earl Grey, an alleged slavery adherent. One passerby was asked "what was noteworthy about Earl Grey?" He replied "tea".
Russia Today is a propaganda channel for the fascist, mafia state Russian regime.
That's the reason they are in "orgasm mode".
Russia Today frames its reporting to highlight extremism and division in western societies for the purposes of boosting extremism in these societies. The Russian regime wants to end democracy worldwide wherever it can and have client quasi-dictators come to power.
If it can't have that, it desires to have countries become ungovernable through internal division and conflict, by boosting division, extremists and extremism.
In the UK, it was a promoter and funder of Brexit, and the far right of the Tory party, UKIP, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his fascist yobs and the likes are those it seeks to benefit.
Perhaps you could name these "one or two on this board who hanker after the welfare of the legacy of the racist to the bone imperialist Winston Churchill's statue".
The statement doesn't even make any sense. I'm not sure what "hankering after the welfare of the legacy of a statue" is.
Last time I watched RT they were defending Russian soccer hooligans as being very much maligned and misunderstood. I had a good chuckle and never watched it again. The propaganda is fairly blatant. I'm surprised they're allowed to broadcast in the UK.
It's unadultered propoganda, but interesting in the same way you'd watch Fox news or the likes so that you don't source your information in an echo chamber.
I don't mind getting alternative viewpoints, but when a source is known for blatant lies and misinformation like Fox then there's no benefit in watching it. People who watch Fox are consistently less informed about the world than people who watch no TV news at all. That said, I'm not averse to occasionally reading the opinion section of the Newsletter to try and get an insight into the unionist mind.