...the french got a foothold in Ireland, joined succesfully with the United irishmen and gained control of the country? Would the world be a better place?
As an Englishman who views Anglo-Irish history within the greater european context. I am quite interested in what peoples thoughts are?
Most likely the French would have occupied Ireland themselves, ignoring Irish requests to leave. Wonder what French occupation would have been like? Considering the evidence elsewhere probably much harsher than that of the British.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
You've come out with some nonsense before Hotrodder but this takes the biscuit.
Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott
You think the French of 1798 would have just left peacefully, hmm, and not at least tried to add Ireland to their Empire if they got a chance? The French were a pretty nasty bunch at the time too, arguably far worse than the Brits.
And I'll have a hob nob please.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
You've come out with some nonsense before Hotrodder but this takes the biscuit.
The nonsense I refer to is his constant suggestion that of all the nations that suffered under British rule they could have had it worse. It almost seems like the conquered should be grateful that it's English soldiers murdering men and raping children!
Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott
Apart from never making such a suggestion as far as I recall, it is probably actually true. The French, Portugese, Spanish and Germans treated the natives in their colonies far worse than the British ever did. The British Empire was a curates egg- good in parts, bad in others. At least it tried to attain a level of law and order that applied to everyone. Yes, some Britons committed atrocities and appalling things were done- who denies it? Not me. But there were positive aspects too- hospitals were built, railways, buildings, factories and schools.
Not least the fact is that many countries are far worse off now than when they were under British administration. They were left as funcioning democracies with often thriving economies. Many of them have become dictatorships with failed economies and that can't be blamed on the British, who still even try to help them with aid.
As for the English soldiers murdering men and raping children crack that's beneath you, Mikey. At no point was murder or rape not illegal in the British Empire AFAIK. Soldiers were often hanged for such crimes they committed.
Also the BRITISH Empire's troops consisted of English, Scots, Welsh AND Irish soldiers not just the English, who of course get blamed for everything bad that happened. Comical how the Irish rail against the English while conveniently forgetting that the Prime Minister of GB at the time of their war of independence was a Welshman- a fellow Celt!- David Lloyd George.
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
Beneath me??? What's beneath me is having a conversation with a deluded muppet. Learn some of your own history buddy. The Amritsar massacre wasn't murder? Bloody Sunday wasn't murder? Britain claimed and subjugated through the barrel of a gun so don't have us believe it was all done with jugs and kisses. In actual fact you're becoming quite a tiresome little English man not too far removed from the intelligence of rosslynglen.
Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott
Me a muppet? You're the one who decided to smear all English soldiers as murderers and rapists. Even worse, rapists of children FFS. Yes, I took umbrage at that as family members of mine have been soldiers now and in the past.
Should I smear all Irish people as murderers because of Prov IRA atrocities? Or are you deluded enough to believe that all Irishmen are just good honest folk and that no Irishman has ever carried out a rape or committed a murder? I don't tar every Irish person with the same brush because of PIRA murders BTW and you shouldn't say the same about English or British soldiers for that matter.
A couple of simple questions for you to answer, Mikey:
Do you really believe that every English soldier was a murderer and/or rapist now and in the past?
Do you really believe that it was legal under British law in the 19th Century for any Englishman to rape an Irishwoman or murder Irish people and that said Englishman was also free to commit more murders and rapes if he felt like it?
And me deluded? No, realistic more like it. I did say appalling things had been carried out by the British or had you not noticed? Quoting from my very own post:
Yes, some Britons committed atrocities and appalling things were done...
Me a muppet? You're the one who decided to smear all English soldiers as murderers and rapists. Even worse, rapists of children FFS.
Do you really believe that every English soldier was a murderer and/or rapist now and in the past?
Do you really believe that it was legal under British law in the 19th Century for any Englishman to rape an Irishwoman or murder Irish people and that said Englishman was also free to commit more murders and rapes if he felt like it?
As for holding all the subjugated people by the barrel of a gun, d'ya mind telling me how a country with a relatively small army managed to keep the teeming millions of say, India at bay if it wasn't for the considerable co-operation of many Indians? Or almost any other country in the Empire? Including Ireland itself BTW whose population was quite considerable pre-famine days? All despite the fact that the British Army actually spent most of it's time fighting it's equally imperialist European neighbours?
Many "conquered" countries which had only known lawlessness, anarchy, tribalism and war were brought law and order, competant administration and other benefits.
Here we go again. Don't you read properly? For the record I said in a previous post:
"Yes, some Britons committed atrocities and appalling things were done- who denies it? Not me."
by - deeman1992 what, have you not read about all those Iraqi and Afghan children abused by British soldiers?
they were still getting away with mass murder and rape in Kenya in the 1950s ffsMurder yes, but mass murder? Evidence please. And don't forget the police or military men committing murder or rape were acting illegally- when was murder or rape considered legal FFS?
right, so divide and conquer is a good thing is it?
Afghanistan knew religious toleranceThey may well have done in the past but how precisely is Britain to blame for the rise there of Muslim fundamentalism, particularly in the last 30 years?
non-revisionist imperialist history quite clearly shows that British imperialism only brought theft and plunder and halted economic development.So no schools were built? No railways built? No hospitals were built? No law and order? No cities built? No ports? No irrigation projects? No canals, factories, airports built? You do know that prior to WW2 the British were actually spending more on the Empire than they gained from it? It was a net loss. Only Rhodesia actually turned any profit for Britain. Why do you think Britain had to give up it's Empire after WW2- because it couldn't afford it any longer! If it was such a source of such great plunder why give it up FFS? Answer- the Empire changed over the course of its history. It may have started as mere exploitation but it bacame much more than that.
Having said all that I was against our forces being in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But inevitably a few rotten apples threaten to spoil the barrel. Most of our forces there are just trying to do their duty and truly believe they are defending the freedom which allow people like you to insult all of them.
Murder yes, but mass murder? Evidence please. And don't forget the police or military men committing murder or rape were acting illegally- when was murder or rape considered legal FFS?
Did I say it was? Read my posts properly again FFS! I already said the Empire consisted of both good and bad things. A balanced view of our past rather than a hysteric politically correct one is a more intelligent approach surely? But I suspect you're an left wing twit who hates all our past, hates our military and indeed hates the British people themselves.
They may well have done in the past but how precisely is Britain to blame for the rise there of Muslim fundamentalism, particularly in the last 30 years?
So no schools were built? No railways built? No hospitals were built? No law and order? No cities built? No ports? No irrigation projects? No canals, factories, airports built?
You do know that prior to WW2 the British were actually spending more on the Empire than they gained from it? It was a net loss. Only Rhodesia actually turned any profit for Britain. Why do you think Britain had to give up it's Empire after WW2- because it couldn't afford it any longer! If it was such a source of such great plunder why give it up FFS? Answer- the Empire changed over the course of its history. It may have started as mere exploitation but it bacame much more than that.
I'm intelligent enough to realise that empires were part of human development, that the urge to conquer and control wealth etc was a (actually, the) major driving force not just for the British but many other countries.
And "halted economic development"? The evidence shows that prior to the British arrival that India had all but stagnated, most of Africa didn't even possess an economy to speak off and that pretty much holds true for much of what became the Empire.
And BTW, while much of the world lived in heart breaking poverty that included most of the British people too, unless you think my ancestors who worked in coal mines for up to 14 hours a day were somehow having a great time. They too were being exploited by people who thought they had the moral right to do so.
deeman1992, oh I see. I thought for a minute you might give a reasoned considered argument. Instead you offer pointless slogans, dreary neo-Marxist rhetoric and revisionist clap trap. Yes, BTW YOU are the revisionist, not I.
Until the 1950s most Britons believed the British Empire was a positive thing. Only over the last fifty years or so have some claimed it was something to be ashamed of. So let's take a look at a few of your points shall we, however dull they may be:
imperialist army which carries out imperialism - is already rotten and the bad apples - ie. atrocities, war crimes - are the natural symptom
yes, up to 300,000 killed definitely counts as mass murder
Caroline Elkins claims it is "tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands".[177] Elkins numbers have been challanged by the British demographer John Blacker. In an article in African Affairs, Blacker demonstrated in detail that Elkins' numbers were over-estimated, explaining that Elkins' figure of 300,000 deaths "implies that perhaps half of the adult male population would have been wiped out—yet the censuses of 1962 and 1969 show no evidence of this—the age-sex pyramids for the Kikuyu districts do not even show indentations."[173] His study dealt directly with Elkins' claim that "somewhere between 130,000 and 300,000 Kikuyu are unaccounted for" at the 1962 census
imperialism is fundamentally a bad thing.A simplistic statement, easily demolished by the facts. The Roman Empire may have had many bad things about it but it also produced great architecture and superb engineering, art, philosphy, literature, etc. It even was democratic in a way. So while there are no positive sides to rape and murder it is clear there can be to empire. If everything about empire- your argument- is bad, then it follows that Winston Churchill was bad, his leadership was bad, the British people in WW2 were bad. The British Empire opposing Hitler and the Nazis was bad. The RAF, an imperial force- you're right for once- was bad for stopping the Luftwaffe. And so on.
the last 30 years? well creating and arming the *beep* out of Al-Qaeda in the first place in the 1980s sure helped
or settlers and some local fat cats to enjoy maybe, as for the toiling masses they didn't get *beep* btw the kinda "law and order" you're talking about wasn't the kinda "law and order" any normal person would want to live under given how it was enforced.
they gave it up because America became the new top dog and because neo-colonialism became a cheaper, more efficient long-term solutionNope, Britain gave up the Empire because even after WW1 it was clear that the days of Empire were coming to an end. Independence was being talked about and pursued in many possessions prior to WW2. WW2 just hastened the process, as Britain had it's own wounds to lick and it's own economy to rebuild. The Empire was simply unsustainable - it was expensive to maintain for people who now wished to be independent so why bother?
India, like China, was a functioning civilization when we were still painting our faces blue and building stonehenge.
We don't have an an empire any longer so quite how can we have an "imperialist" army? British forces were sent into Iraq and Afghanistan to support the Americans, a decision made by a Labour govt. A decision I did not agree with either. But whether we were right to support those actions is a matter of mature debate, the "imperialist" accusation is just childish nonsense. Britain has gained almost nothing from the whole enterprise- some imperial "grasping" that!
I like the "up to" bit, which is rather like supermarket chains claiming "up to" 50% off or whatever- ie essentially meaningless as 20% or even 2% can be included! The British govt claimed that around 12,000 Mau Mau/Kikuyu died. The 300,000 figure is suspect at best, indeed has been discredited. Wiki will do but the same facts can be found elsewhere:
A simplistic statement, easily demolished by the facts. The Roman Empire may have had many bad things about it but it also produced great architecture and superb engineering, art, philosphy, literature, etc.
then it follows that Winston Churchill was bad
The fact that the Empire was one of the reasons we won WW2 rather than lost it I would rather suggest is a good thing.
If Britain had given up it's colonial possessions in the Far East, including India prior to WW2, the chances are that the Japanese would have ended up ruling much of the Far East. Was their Empire no worse than the British? Was the Third Reich- basically another Empire -no worse than the British Empire?
The Afghan Mujahideen wasn't armed by the British- that was the Americans, son.
And Al Qaeda did not grow out of the Mujahideen- that's a myth. Some people who had been in the Mujahideen did become members of Al Qaeda but that is hardly the same thing. The Mujahideen opposed the Soviet occupation, that didn't make them terrorists nor anti-West, nor the forerunners of Al Qaeda.
Actually it was enforced pretty much the same for everyone including Britons who lived there, and it was based on the same system that existed in the UK at the time- juries, habeas corpus etc. Many old ex-British colonies still use the British model for their courts complete with silly wigs. If it was so bad why would they?
Stonehenge was a structure built by a functioning civilisation- it took a huge degee of organisation to feed, house and instruct the hundreds of people needed to build Stonehenge. That other stone circles exist throughout the British Isles suggests they weren't mindless savages- could you and a few mates build even one of the simpler ones?
As for India's industry there was no India as such. What there was any number of principalities and other provinces ruled by whatever put himself in as King, Maharajah or whatever. Most of India was taken by treaties in which these locals did rather well out of it. The few wars fought -by an army actually belonging to a tea company, ahem. Fancy being conquered by PG Tips!
deeman1992-of course, we've gained from it. what benefits America benefits us, that's how alliances work.
your man there still says 50,000 died, half of them children, so yeah still mass murder nonetheless. don't you have anything to say about all the torture and murder that article describes?Again who's denying that evil was done? The whole point I have been making all along is that the Empire did bad and good things, ya twit! The Mau Mau Uprising didn't exactly reflect well on any of the people involved. It was one of the bad things.
all you're saying there is that the Romans were good at architecture, engineering, art, philosophy, literature, etc. how does taking over other people's countries factor into that?They developed those skills, etc because Rome became wealthy from dominating trade, you dumb bugger.
racist, anti-semitic, bloodthirsty, fascist sympathisers are bad, yes.Churchill was no more racist than anyone else of the time, the attitudes he had were shared by most. First time I've heard he was anti-semitic and laughable you claim he was a fascist sympathiser considering he was PM of a country that fought fasism. He was also democratically elected- how exactly is that fascist? Fascists don't exactly like democracy.
there I was thinking it was the USSR who destroyed a good 80-90% of the Wehrmacht, and who also defeated the Kwantung Army, contributing as much if not more to the Japanese surrender as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did70-80% of the Wehrmacht at most, and that with considerable British, Canadian and US aid. The Soviets did little to defeat the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine which the British and US did and little to destroy the war manufacturing ability of the Nazis which the US and British also did instead. The claim about Japan is laughable.
was Fred West no worse than the Yorkshire ripper?Did Britain have a secret police ready to arrest and execute it's own citizens foir criticising the administration? Did Britain have death camps and systematically murder 12 million innocent people in them? Was Britain entirely totalitarian with no free press?
List these so called "benefits" then. I'll be interested to see them!
Again who's denying that evil was done? The whole point I have been making all along is that the Empire did bad and good things, ya twit! The Mau Mau Uprising didn't exactly reflect well on any of the people involved. It was one of the bad things.
They developed those skills, etc because Rome became wealthy from dominating trade, you dumb bugger.
Churchill was no more racist than anyone else of the time, the attitudes he had were shared by most. First time I've heard he was anti-semitic
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)... this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.
laughable you claim he was a fascist sympathiser considering he was PM of a country that fought fasism. He was also democratically elected- how exactly is that fascist? Fascists don't exactly like democracy.
What a man! I have lost my heart!... I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by Signor Mussolini's gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers. Secondly, anyone could see that he thought of nothing but the lasting good, as he understood it, of the Italian people, and that no lesser interest was of the slightest consequence to him.If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism. I will, however, say a word on an international aspect of fascism. Externally, your movement has rendered service to the whole world. The great fear which has always beset every democratic leader or a working class leader has been that of being undermined by someone more extreme than he. Italy has shown that there is a way of fighting the subversive forces which can rally the masses of the people, properly led, to value and wish to defend the honour and stability of civilised society. She has provided the necessary antidote to the Russian poison. Hereafter no great nation will be unprovided with an ultimate means of protection against the cancerous growth of Bolshevism."
The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate... I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.
I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race has come in and taken its place.
70-80% of the Wehrmacht at most, and that with considerable British, Canadian and US aid.
The claim about Japan is laughable.
Did Britain have a secret police ready to arrest and execute it's own citizens foir criticising the administration? Did Britain have death camps and systematically murder 12 million innocent people in them? Was Britain entirely totalitarian with no free press?
When the British people heard of torture or atrocities carried out by British troopss/colonial police they found it abhorrent too you know. It wasn't seen as acceptable behaviour but shameful even back then, in contrast to Nazism where compassion and pity were seen as weaknesses and any atrocity acceptable.
That Indian website is idiotic propaganda, and if you really believe that famines compare to the holocaust you're a bloody fool. He even starts by repeating the old bull that history is written by the winners only. Funny that no-one seemed to have told that to the umpteen Germans who have have published books about their experiences about the war! The Indian author is also clearly a holocaust denier as he states in his first few lines that he more or less believes it to be a fiction buy disputing British and US figures. The Bengal famine (And previous famines) was not a deliberate systematic murder of people but an inadvertant one caused by the war as much as anything else. The British did actually try to relieve the famine, even inventing something called Bengal Famine Mixture, which ironically was used later to save many thousands of people in Belsen-Birkenau by the very same British Army you accuse of being murderous and imperialistic, and in one of the very camps this Indian cretin attempts to deny.
I could go and on but frankly you're just a moron so what's the point? You obvously hate Britain and the British people and their history although you claim to be a Scottish, a member of a people that very much was part of the Empire. Tell you what son, why don't you emigrate and f!ck off somewhere else if you hate Britain so much?
no matter how violent the Mau Maus were, fact remains said violence was in defense of their country.Why did said defence (I thought you said you were Scots? No Briton spels defence "defense". You're a bloody Yank aren't you?) include murdering their OWN people? Such as the atrocities at Lari? Funny sort of defence that.
In a February 8, 1920 article, "Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People," Churchill declared that "We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind." But "it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent."
While assuring readers that "Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct," and praising "National Jews," he warned:
"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews .... There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover,
the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders."
He patronized Zionism as an antidote to Bolshevism:
"Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weizmann, in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a worldwide communist State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal."
right, got it. Myra Hindley was morally superior to the Yorkshire ripper, who himself was morally superior to Fred West
lolwut? that's a bit racist towards Germans ain't it? German people are just as compassionate as English, French or any other people.
did anti-Nazi Germans also just hate Germany and its history and should've *beep* off somewhere else in your view?Germans have a right to be proud of their country's history just not the Nazi part of it. There's nothing to be proud of there. However Britons have every right to be proud of their country's role in WW1 and WW2, the fight to abolish slavery and the Royal Navy's later fight against slavery and all other manner of other things, including abolishing sutee. Unless of course you think stopping people burning widows to death is disgraceful interference with their culture.
Why did said defence (I thought you said you were Scots? No Briton spels defence "defense". You're a bloody Yank aren't you?)
include murdering their OWN people? Such as the atrocities at Lari? Funny sort of defence that.
As for Churchill's article on the Jews convenient you omit so much of it:
Which rather puts a different complexion on it doesn't it?
As for Churchill being racist, let's highlight another line from that article:
"Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct"
Which would be a funny thing for a racist to write wouldn't it?
As for writing favourably about Mussolini, a lot of people did PRE-WAR.
A lot of otherwise pretty sensible people wrote favourably about Hitler too. MOst certainly didn't keep those opinions after the outbreak of war though and I would remind you Churchill hated Hitler and the Nazis well before the war and spoke on numerous occasions how Nazism was the real threat. Our national interests would probably have been better served by staying out of the war if we could have. WW2 effectively bankrupted Britain, hardly very much in our national interest.
You're being incredibly dumb about the Soviet contribution. They did nothing against the Germany Navy and little against the Luftwaffe to defeat them. They played no part in destroying German industry. Most trucks in the Russian Army were US, British or Canadian made and these trucks were far more technologically advanced than Soviet trucks which were based on 1920s US designs FFS.
The Soviets more or less fought on a single long front and played no part in any other campaigns other than their brief foray aghainst the Japanese.
You really are a complete f!ckwit arn't you? Nazism vs British Empire; there was nothing decent or good about the Third Reich, nothing at all. However the British Empire did a great deal of good as well as bad. And on the overall balance sheet they did far more good than bad. That's a true comparison, not your witless comparisons to serial killers.
God, you're a piece of work. Would you say instead: "Nazis are just as compassionate as English, French or any other people."? Maybe you would as I'm beginning to suspect your politics anyway. You quoting a holocaust denier makes me wonder if you're one yourself. That would explain your hatred of the British and your anti-Churchill opinions, very Neo-Nazi.
Germans have a right to be proud of their country's history just not the Nazi part of it. There's nothing to be proud of there. However Britons have every right to be proud of their country's role in WW1 and WW2, the fight to abolish slavery and the Royal Navy's later fight against slavery and all other manner of other things, including abolishing sutee. Unless of course you think stopping people burning widows to death is disgraceful interference with their culture.
Ah, you're a Marxist-Leninist, that explains a whole lot, including your hypocrisy. Marxism was and is just as evil as Nazism. If I'd known you had such a fondness for totalitarianism I wouldn't have bothered. Admirer of Stalin too are we?
"Oh dear. How sad. Never mind!"
I didn't have time yesterday to go through your drivel but now I have.
every national liberation struggle ever has seen the killing of those considered, either rightly or wrongly, to be "collaborators".So all the Kikuyu killed by the Mau Mau were collaberators? All of them? Even the women and children? Even babies? Get 'em young, huh!
"I'm not racist, I have lots of black friends!"An idiotic statement often put about by left wingers who claim that any criticism of racial issues, say immigration, necessarily makes one racist. Which is ludicrous and a method of trying to gag free speech- which Marxists don't believe in anyway. And actually yes I do have black friends!
the implication being that fascism was fine as long as it didn't threaten Britain
had to go to war or else Britian would've been no. 2 to Germany in the Thousand Year Reich, so they went to war to protect Britain's national interests. what does seeing in hindsight that WW2 bankrupted Britain have to do with anything?
sweet jesus, please read something like "Absolute War" by Chris Bellamy or "Stalin's Wars" by Geoffrey Roberts
you were just saying how plenty of intelligent people were praising Hitler pre-war weren't you? why would they have been doing that if there was literally nothing good about Nazi Germany?Intelligent people are often fools too- you're proof positive of this yourself here. Hitler had seemed to have worked an economic miracle and brought German pride back, some admired him for this. Many more sensible people realised the danger though- Churchill and RJ Mitchell amongst others.
oh dear god what in *beep* hell was "good" about WW1? an entire of generation of European men went and slaughtered each other to determine whether fat British/French/Russian *beep* or fat German/Austrian/Ottoman *beep* would rule the world. what was good about anybody's role in that?
So all the Kikuyu killed by the Mau Mau were collaberators? All of them? Even the women and children? Even babies? Get 'em young, huh!
Not really a surprise, Marxists have murdered millions they've disagreed with too, sometimes just for having soft rather than calloused hands. Pol Pot anyone?
An idiotic statement often put about by left wingers who claim that any criticism of racial issues, say immigration, necessarily makes one racist.
But Churchill was an admitted Imperialist who believed the British were better than anyone else. That makes him chauvinistic not racist.
Britain was obligated to go to war on account of it's treaty with Poland but it certainly did the country no favours. Churchill knew by fighting on that bankruptcy was almost inevitable but he chose to do so rather than talk peace terms. He knew at the time, not in hindsight, that he was sacrificing future British national interests by doing so, and that even winning the war meant any economic recovery was unlikely
He knew the Empire would be lost as well as Britain's position as a world power.
You don't believe in Jesus, remember? That's OK though, neither do I.
I've read plenty about the war and yes, the USSR's contribution is huge but they couldn't have won without the US and UK's involvement.
Plus they hardly liberated anyone, just took over from the Nazis. From one bunch of murderous jackbooted thugs to another murderous bunch of jackbooted thugs- some "liberation" that. Most had to wait another 45 years to get their own country back.
Your Marxist Empire survived for a while anyway, even if it wan't actually a stunning success and killed and enslaved millions more than the British Empire ever did.
Intelligent people are often fools too- you're proof positive of this yourself here. Hitler had seemed to have worked an economic miracle and brought German pride back, some admired him for this.
Nothing good about the deaths of millions- members of my own family amongst them. But let's remember what the British soldiers, etc thought they were fighting for. Their country, other countries, freedom. Doesn't matter if they were misled and mistaken. A lot of them genuinely believed they were helping to defend Belgium and France against a dastardly foe. That the Germans had invaded France and violated Belgian neutrality did rather confirm that belief, however much we view it with disdain now. We honour those men because of what they thought they fought for. The Belgians certainly believe their fight was just- have you visited the Menin Gate and seen and heard the Last Post- played every single day since WW1, barring during the time of Nazi occupation? I have. Visited any of the war cemetaries kept immaculate throughout France, etc? I have. Yes, it brings a lump to the throat- it should. Yes, it was utter folly but those men believed in their cause and that their cause was just. That's why so many volunteered.
you mustn't have noticed when I said "rightly or wrongly"
Pol Pot was an anarchist who was supported by America and Britain.I can't recall any support- care to enlighten me? He was however General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. Sounds like a Marxist to me, not an anarchist. He wasn't General Secretary of the Anarchist Party of Kampuchea.
well I'd actually agree with that
even when he talked about "superior and inferior races" and all?
this historian seems to disagree with you - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xW6veHY9U
eastern Europe's really done well for itself since then hasn't it?
historians like J Arch Getty and Robert Thurston who aren't Cold War propagandists would disagree with you
ergo there were some good aspects but they were outweighed by the bad, just like the British EmpireYes, but the whole bloody point is the very few good aspoects of Nazism were completely outweighed by the overwhelming bad (as was the USSR). The British Empire is a different matter entirely in that I would argue the bad is overwhelmed by the far greater good the Empire did. Which side would you have preferred to fight for in WW2? Which political system would you have wanted to live under? It's a no brainer.
it's irrelevant what the soldiers thought they were fighting for.Actually it's very relevant. Are you saying we should demolish all the war memorials? Plough over the cemetaries? Their sacrifice should be remembered and I for one will continue to do so.
But somehow the Mau Mau are heroic freedom fighters rather than butchers to you? Where was their moral superiority when they tortured and murdered innocent people? Their cause makes it all OK? They used terror so they are terrorists to me, not freedom fighters. If they'd only fought troops they could claim to be the latter but targeting settlers and fellow Africans?
I can't recall any support- care to enlighten me?
He was however General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. Sounds like a Marxist to me, not an anarchist. He wasn't General Secretary of the Anarchist Party of Kampuchea.
A belief system that was common at the time, and thought by many to be evidentally true. Stop comparing past attitudes with modern mores. He was hardly racist in the terms of the day although he could be said to be by ours. I doubt in his own mind that Churchill was bigoted in the way we think of as being these days.
He may well do, plenty of other historians don't. The USSR received some 16,000,000 tons of supplies from the USA, UK,Canada etc. Are you saying that didn't make a difference? Or that the General in charge of the air defence of Moscow was wrong in admitting it couldn't have been managed without Spitfires and Hurricanes? Or that it made little difference that the USA and UK drew off thousands of German troops and aircraft to North Africa, Italy, NW Europe and that the strategic bombing campaign didn't help the USSR?
Actually yes they have. I've been to Prague, Dresden and Krakow. All have prospered since the end of Communism, especially Prague. They still loathe the Russians though. The secret police and all the other trappings of a police state weren't exactly a pleasure.
Barring a few scientific advancements I'm damned if I can see anything positive about the USSR- a stagnant police state which failed its people completely. It couldn't even produce a good car- the Lada anyone? The KGB made free speech impossible and people often just disappeared to eventually die in a gulag. That the USSR murdered millions is in little doubt. Murdering 22000 Polish officers at Katyn would just a trifle compared with it's worst excesses.
Yes, but the whole bloody point is the very few good aspoects of Nazism were completely outweighed by the overwhelming bad (as was the USSR). The British Empire is a different matter entirely in that I would argue the bad is overwhelmed by the far greater good the Empire did.
Actually it's very relevant. Are you saying we should demolish all the war memorials? Plough over the cemetaries? Their sacrifice should be remembered and I for one will continue to do so.
Deeman1992:
like I said before - it happened in Algeria, it happened in Vietnam etc. so either brown people are indeed inferior violent savages or else colonial rule was never as benign as you wish it wasAnd it didn't happen for the most part in the British colonies though which is the subject here. Algeria and Vietnam were French colonies not British ya dumb bugger! The British left most of their colonies peacefully, not by being forced to. Some of the guerillas were Marxist such as in Malaya and while Britain was quite prepared to give independence they preferred to leave these countries as functioning democracies not as Marxist hellholes. The ironic thing is that Britain was preparing to pull out of most of its colonies anyway and everything could have been done peacefully and without bloodshed. It was mostly the Marxists who wanted bloodshed or hadn't you noticed? That Britain did leave these countries and that many did become Marxist dictatorships later on is no fault of Britain. Those countries often ended up far worse economically and far more repressive than any time than they were under British rule.
William Blum's book "Rogue State" goes into detailYeah, keep on mentioning authors which agree with you. David Icke thinks that all world leaders (incl Pol Pot) were/are 6 foot lizards, just because it's in print that don't make it so either!
there's a bit of a difference between basic xenophobia and all-out racism. are you saying that back in the day everybody held full-on Nazi views on "superior and inferior races"?People held very different views on race 60 years ago- or are you too bloody stupid to know that? Doesn't mean those views were anywhere near as extreme as the Nazis ones though. It's one thing to be anti-Semitic it's quite another to hate them to the point when you exterminate millions of Jews. One is irratioonal bigotry, the other is mass murder FFS. General Patton was anti-Semitic but was still appalled by the death camps he saw.
care to name some of these historians? and nobody's saying that the US and Britain didn't help the USSR, what Geoffrey Roberts is saying there is that even without help they could have still eventually beaten the NazisIt's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows their WW2 history and again mentioning authors who just support your own points don't make them any more true.
wow you've been to a whopping three cities that looked alright on the surface.More than you I suspect- how many have you been to? And I also have a Polish friends and a friend who was brought up in East Germany. Not one of them has a good thing to say about Communist control though. All of them are glad their countries are now free.
OK obviously you've only read Cold War propagandists rather than proper historians like Getty who've actually gone through Soviet archives. the whole "millions killed" thing has been refuted effortlessly you'll findThere you go again! Obviously you've only read authors who reflect your own blinkered views. Are you claiming the Soviet Union was some sort of paradise? Heaven on Earth? Are you really that daft? Are you claiming the society wasn't repressive? That the KGB didn't arrest people for their views? That the Lubyanka didn't imprison and torture political opponents there? So why have the Russians themselves established a monument to victims of the repression?
And it didn't happen for the most part in the British colonies though which is the subject here. Algeria and Vietnam were French colonies not British ya dumb bugger! The British left most of their colonies peacefully, not by being forced to.
The ironic thing is that Britain was preparing to pull out of most of its colonies anyway and everything could have been done peacefully and without bloodshed. It was mostly the Marxists who wanted bloodshed or hadn't you noticed? That Britain did leave these countries and that many did become Marxist dictatorships later on is no fault of Britain. Those countries often ended up far worse economically and far more repressive than any time than they were under British rule.
Yeah, keep on mentioning authors which agree with you. David Icke thinks that all world leaders (incl Pol Pot) were/are 6 foot lizards, just because it's in print that don't make it so either!
People held very different views on race 60 years ago- or are you too bloody stupid to know that? Doesn't mean those views were anywhere near as extreme as the Nazis ones though. It's one thing to be anti-Semitic it's quite another to hate them to the point when you exterminate millions of Jews. One is irratioonal bigotry, the other is mass murder FFS. General Patton was anti-Semitic but was still appalled by the death camps he saw.
It's blatantly obvious to anyone who knows their WW2 history and again mentioning authors who just support your own points don't make them any more true.
More than you I suspect- how many have you been to? And I also have a Polish friends and a friend who was brought up in East Germany. Not one of them has a good thing to say about Communist control though. All of them are glad their countries are now free.
I can't believe anyone is dumb enought to think those countries prospered as part of the the Warsaw Pact! What they did have was political repression, secret police, no free speech, no free press, queues for even basic goods and a system that quite happily murdered it's own citizens for even minor transgressions againsat the state. Do you think the Stasi for example was just a bunch of traffic wardens FFS? Never mind the Warsaw Pacts support for terrorist organisations around the globe. Czech secret police supplied explosives that killed British citizens. The Romanians supplied AK47s to every bunch of murderers they could.
There you go again! Obviously you've only read authors who reflect your own blinkered views.
So why have the Russians themselves established a monument to victims of the repression?
The Great Purge alone is estimated to have killed 2 million people. Many more died after that in other purges and the gulags.
There is delicious irony for you supporting the Soviet Union, a far, far more Evil Empire than the British one ever was and your apologism for it is just as bad IMO as any neo-Nazi's attempts to whitewash the Holocaust! At at least I have acknowledged the bad as well as the good the British Empire represented and I still maintain the good it did outweighed the bad many times over.
And I suggest you know bugger all about the Great War either. Of course war is bad you numbskull. But sometimes it is inevitable and happens even though few actually gained from it.
France left most of their colonies peacefully as well so what's your point?The point was that you had to use French ex-colonies, not British, to make your point. Vietnam in particular proving a smidgeon of a problem later. I just can't remember who for...
The point was that you had to use French ex-colonies, not British, to make your point. Vietnam in particular proving a smidgeon of a problem later. I just can't remember who for...
You're using IRAQ as an example of a successful even shining state? It was a brutal dictatorship, ya knob, who murdered many of it's people including thousands of Kurds- do you think that was justifiable? FFS.
...LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!11!!
imperialism is fundamentally a bad thing.
the last 30 years? well creating and arming the *beep* out of Al-Qaeda in the first place in the 1980s sure helped
yeah Turkey, Russia, China, the Arabs etc. all practised expansionism so as to create greater nations. it only seems to be western Europe though that feels its naturally entitled to every last remote corner of the globe and all the natural resources contained therein
India, like China, was a functioning civilization when we were still painting our faces blue and building stonehenge.
and British imperialism improved their lot by drastically reducing Irish, Indian, Chinese etc. people's lots.
back when you're talking about, the richest nation was 4 times richer than the poorest.
thanks to centuries of colonialism and neo-colonialism the richest nation is now about 70 times richer than the poorest
of course, we've gained from it. what benefits America benefits us, that's how alliances work. unless you think we're an American colony and have no independence at all.
your man there still says 50,000 died, half of them children, so yeah still mass murder nonetheless.
all you're saying there is that the Romans were good at architecture, engineering, art, philosophy, literature, etc. how does taking over other people's countries factor into that?
there I was thinking it was the USSR who destroyed a good 80-90% of the Wehrmacht, and who also defeated the Kwantung Army, contributing as much if not more to the Japanese surrender as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did
was Fred West no worse than the Yorkshire ripper?
MI6 and the SAS gave plenty of help
Britons would have broken bottles stuck up their asses before being castrated and having their eyes gouged out?
but wait a minute, they didn't have an empire back then! how could they possibly have achieved this without having other countries under their thumb?
Imperialism was human nature in the past. It wasn't unique to the British.
One can argue the Zulus were imperialists. One can argue that the Americans with their Manifest Destiny were imperialists in all but name. What they did in taking the continental US, trying to take Canada, warring with Mexico and Spain etc was a kind of 'imperialism'. Genghis Khan was an imperialist.
If we go back far enough the Celts invaded and conquered Ireland in the first place. Or maybe you would like to believe that the Celts never killed anyone and merely shook hands and said "hello" (in Celtic)? LOL.
You've already been refuted here.
I think you'll find that is NOT the mindset anymore. It used to be the mindset of humans in general (black, white, brown, yellow) but times have changed.
why India is today the democratic single country that it is.
25,000 plus children were mass murdered? Oh bullcrap. Do you really believe that?
Where is the actual PROOF for this?
Clueless.
If it wasn't for the British and Commonwealth there would be NO USSR.
Britain falls = the Axis have all of Europe, the eastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, sympathetic nations such as Turkey and Spain waiting to see which way the wind blows likely become Axis members, the Axis grows bigger and bigger, more troops and another entry point (via Turkey)into the Soviet Union south of the Caucasus.
The result = Soviet Union (at least European Soviet Union) falls.
The Battle of Britain and Britain/Commonwealth still in the war in 1941 was the most crucial strategic linchpin of the allies eventual victory over the Axis.
The Axis almost beat the Soviets as it was in 1941 and 1942 and that was with Britain and the Commonwealth still in the war.
And as for the Japanese, the Japanese were already losing against the USA, the British Commonwealth and the Chinese LONG before the Soviets attacked them.
In case you forgot, the Americans smashed their navy, took Okinawa and were obliterating Tokyo before the Soviets smashed the Kwantung army in Manchuria. They also had the A-bomb.
Neither were as bad as Andrei Chikatilo.
Small potatoes, and you said ARMED.
You didn't answer his question. Hotrodder asked:
"Many old ex-British colonies still use the British model for their courts complete with silly wigs. If it was so bad why would they?"
More to the point why did the vast majority, with only a few exceptions, chose of their own free will to remain closely tied to Britain in the Commonwealth? If Britain was so bad then you'd think everyone would have wanted to severe all ties and have nothing to do with the evil evil British. Right?
Your answer, then?
Other areas, not countries. There were not really 'countries' back then.
Wow, one line responses and swear laden bollocks.
You aren't really worth my time and effort, son.
mikeyg24:
Learn some of your own history buddy. The Amritsar massacre wasn't murder? Bloody Sunday wasn't murder? Britain claimed and subjugated through the barrel of a gun so don't have us believe it was all done with jugs and kisses.
Yes, some Britons committed atrocities and appalling things were done- who denies it? Not me.
[deleted]
[deleted]