The epitamy of british history and military lies.

odonnell

Snickers Man wrote:

Australia. Gallipoli.

Britain. Dunkirk.

Well maybe not so much glorification, but certainly skilfull spinning of a humiliation into a moral victory.

There can be NOTHING humiliating about war, in victory OR defeat mate...lets not make a military defeat about embarassment or humiliation - as i doubt the poor souls who died that day pissing and ****ting in their breaches were too bothered about how they looked, and i doubt the military strategists were too concerned for saving face that week either.

I suspect in the long run the reason for spinning Dunkirk into something to be proud of was because it WAS something to be proud of - a flotilla of a couple of hundred thousand craft managed to rescue the larger part of the UKs army from German Blitzkerieg which had taken EVERYONE by surprise by not only breaking through the Maginot line - but coming through the dense forest to the north....catching everyone unawares. You probably know the story however i just wanted to point out that its seen as a proud moment because thats what it was.... not a humiliation, and from all the stories from my relatives - it hardly needed any 'spin' to convince anyone of that.

Lets remember too - that 'humiliated' army, then went straight back and helped liberate Europe.

[edit] on a more humourous note - i have noted very often since i have been living here that any time i get into a historical debate...or sporting debate...or ANY kind of debate really - my irish friends always hark back to the old "so in a way...it was the irish who....." - i just noticed jmayo pointing out irish born military leaders and that being adequate proof to say the irish kept the empire going.... sorry i just found that ridiculously funny, as it happens in every historically related conversation i have here! Christ, im not even allowed to be Scottish without being notified of my Irish roots.... "youre really all just irish you know fella....we came over there and....."

what is it with you lot!!??

Jmayo you make good points though mate... i just had to pick you up on that

O'Leprosy

jmayo wrote:

Isandlwana was a cock up highlighting the fact that the British army were led by arrogant aristocratic eejits (Lord Chelmesford), that made the mistake of underestimating their foe.
I managed to catch part of a documentary on the whole subject some time back and it made some points on both battles.

At Isandlwana, Chelmsford went chasing after some Zulu parties they spotted. They never thought of the Zulu tactic of "horns of the buffalo".
At the camp they spilt their units too far apart and too far from their supply wagons, something like quarter of a mile.
Then the best part was it stated that the sergants in charge of the supply wagons refused to hand out ammunition to the runners, if they were from the incorrect unit and if they did not have written authorisation from the unit officer.
In the end they had to try and break boxes open to try and get at the ammunition.
BTW something like 750 natives died in the service of the crown, so they were not all white guys.

Rorke's Drift was a galant defence but it was also talked up to cover up the major cockup that was Isandlwana. A little bit of spin by Victoria's Disraeli government. Maybe Allastir Campbell's forebearers were involved?
Chelmsford should have been hung out to dry, as wanted by Disraeli, but ould Vicy championed him because he "came form the right background".

Actually by all accounts the two officers (Chard and Bromhead) involved at Rorke's drift were supposedly incapable of leading a p*ss-up in a brewery and as usual with British army it was the NCOs that were the mainstay.
The supposed real hero was Commissary Dalton, another Irish name.

Regarding make up of British army, you will find they used lot of people from their colonies (Ireland, India, etc), although Scotland does not fall into this.
Poverty would have driven a lot of the lower ranks into the army, whereas the upper ranks were filled by military families and the non-inheriting sons of wealthy families. And yes some would have joined to see the world or was that just the navy?

Regarding famous British generals, Arthur Wesley, the Duke of Wellington was born in Dublin or Meath (take your pick), Kitchener of the Sudan was born in Kerry, Mongomery was from a Dongeal family.

So if you look at it one way, the Irish kept the Empire going.



The Indochinese (Vietnamesse, Cambodians, Laotians) had such a great time under French rule they welcomed them back after WWII. The Belgians were such great rulers in the Congo, Casement wrote glowing reports of their actions, the Italians of course did nothing wrong in Ethopia or Libya, the Dutch held onto power in the Dutch East Indias, Guiana by looking after the natives, after all some their descendents would be the mainstay of their soccer team in 1990s, 2000s.
The French Foriegn Legion loved by all the peoples of North Africa, they even threw a party for them when they were leaving their HQ in Algeria.

It is an interesting thread topic, but I do think the OP was trying to stir the pot and due to fact the poster always without fail, refers to anything or anyone "British" as "british" it does come across as bigotted.
That's my two cent worth.

O'Lep - " stir the pot "......" come across as bigotted ". I've been rumbled

odonnell

O'Leprosy wrote:

O'Lep - " stir the pot "......" come across as bigotted ". I've been rumbled

you mean you intentionally stirred that up?

I dont know whats worse man....that youd intentionally try for a rise...or that we are so predictable.

Snickers Man

odonnell wrote:

I suspect in the long run the reason for spinning Dunkirk into something to be proud of was because it WAS something to be proud of - a flotilla of a couple of hundred thousand craft managed to rescue the larger part of the UKs army from German Blitzkerieg which had taken EVERYONE by surprise by not only breaking through the Maginot line - but coming through the dense forest to the north....catching everyone unawares. You probably know the story however i just wanted to point out that its seen as a proud moment because thats what it was.... not a humiliation, and from all the stories from my relatives - it hardly needed any 'spin' to convince anyone of that.

Lets remember too - that 'humiliated' army, then went straight back and helped liberate Europe.

I humbly suggest that you need to learn some history, from sources other than BBC and ITV drama departments.

Why was it such a surprise that the Germans came through Belgium? Hadn't they done exactly the same thing 25 years previously? Hadn't the French and Germans (and their predecessors the Prussians) been fighting each other all over Belgium for centuries to the extent that that country was nicknamed "the cockpit of Europe"?

Dunkirk was a shattering British defeat. Their navy, helped by the "little ships" who shuttled back and forth from the beaches to the main transport craft, managed to rescue a couple of hundred thousand French and British combatants. Many more were left behind, as casualties or as POWs.(Including a relative of mine.) As for equipment: most of that was left on the beaches too.

What was brought back to Britain and deposited on village greens around the country was a defeated, disorganised, demoralised and frequently barefoot rabble. (I heard that last bit from somebody who witnessed their return from Dunkirk)

That was June 1940. Far from "going straight back to liberate the continent" the British didn't fight the Germans in any numbers again until 1943, when they invaded Italy and the Italian Fascist government surrendered. I'm not sure how many veterans of Dunkirk were involved in that.

Between 1940 and 1943 the British (in fact largely a Colonial Army) fought the Italians in their respective colonies in North and East Africa. The Italians were reinforced, slightly, by the German Afrika Korps. But from June 1941, most of the German army was in Russia fighting against the Soviet Union. And so it remained until the end of the war.

Britain's involvement, in the grand scheme of things, was peripheral from Dunkirk onwards.

Though British people find that hard to take.

odonnell wrote:

on a more humourous note - i have noted ...- my irish friends always hark back to the old "so in a way...it was the irish who....." - i just noticed jmayo pointing out irish born military leaders and that being adequate proof to say the irish kept the empire going

It was the Irish, pretty much, who kept the empire going because that's where many of its soldiers were recruited. Since we got our independence, however, that mantle has been taken up by you lot. The Scots.

It is a classic piece of oppressive psychology that the best way to keep recalcitrants in line is to get other recalcitrants to do it. The British Empire used Irish soldiers to brutalise and repress the Indians. Quite apart, of course, from getting a lot of Indian soldiers to do the same thing. Pitting Muslims against Hindus and Sikhs against just about everybody was quite easy to do given the existing animosities between peoples.

When the Irish were being starved at home in the 19th, their compatriots were joining the army in droves. They formed the backbone of imperial armies in Africa and India. In Ireland they were reviled peasants. Overseas, they were bwanas or sahibs with an entire population to look down upon and feel superior to. There is no greater disdain than that with which tuppence hapenny looks down on tuppence.

Or as those fine social commentators Niggas With Attitude put it in their charming ditty **** Da Police, for a young black dealing with the police
"don't let it be a black or a brown one
cos they will throw you down to the street top
Black police showing off for the white cop"

That fine Scottish author Irvine Welsh is pretty scathing about the effects of colonisation on the Scots too.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Britain's involvement, in the grand scheme of things, was peripheral from Dunkirk onwards.

Though British people find that hard to take.

I think you may want to refresh your own history there. I agree with a large portion of your post (Although I think you maybe crediting the British establishment with more intelligence than they actually had. I believe they just recruited soldiers, the fact it turned out like it did was a bonus) but to say Britains involvement was periperal is a joke.

Mick86

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I despair when I see posts like this. West Brit rubbish if ever I've seen it. :rolleyes:

Thank you, you've just backed up my point nicely.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Irish people entered the British army for the most part because it was a job which put food on the table, as csk has alluded to above. They took orders from crown forces, and did what they had to do to survive, and support their families. The Celtic Tiger wasn't roaring in them days you know, people had limited opportunities.

So what. They still participated in what we would now term atrocities. Doing it for the money isn't a defence.

Mick86

Snickers Man wrote:

How do you know? How many books have you read in French, German, flemsh, Dutch or Italian? There's plenty of opposition to colonialism in these countries. They just focus on their own first because that is what they know best. And they probably get criticised by people in their own country saying: "Why does nobody ever mention the Brits?" :rolleyes:

Quite possibly they do. However I have never seen anybody from this part of the world banging out about any imperialists except the British.

Mick86

odonnell wrote:

I suspect in the long run the reason for spinning Dunkirk into something to be proud of was because it WAS something to be proud of -

So it was. As was Gallipoli where lots and lots of Irishmen also fought. I hope you'll excuse us claiming the Munster and Dublin Fusiliers as Irish by the way.

odonnell wrote:

Lets remember too - that 'humiliated' army, then went straight back and helped liberate Europe.-

Not quite straight back but I take your point.

odonnell wrote:

on a more humourous note - i have noted very often since i have been living here that any time i get into a historical debate...or sporting debate...or ANY kind of debate really - my irish friends always hark back to the old "so in a way...it was the irish who.
what is it with you lot!!?? .-

National pride and a reaction to the Brits trying to nick our heroes both military and cultural. Maggie Thatcher once described Bob Geldof as being a true Brit for instance.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

being a hired gun is fine, but doing it of your own free will is not?

I would suggest that outside of the upper classes, most people who joined the British army did it to put food on the table.

You're possibly right with this. My beef is with the government who initiated these "greed wars" across the world more so than private joe bloggs from Manchester or somewhere who may have joined up with the British army primarily for socio-economic reasons.

Zambia232 wrote:

Sorry Utter horse crap to imagine every Irish serving soldeir joined due to poverty.

You could say the same about the Engilish Welsh and Scots. Some Irish soldiers would have joined the army just "to join the army" same way they do today in the Irish Army.

Well maybe some of you Unionists joined up for the love of the Crown. I'd wager the majority in Ireland joined up for socio-economic reasons, or to a lesser extent to see the world.

As to joining up to just join the army. I doubt many outside of Unionists would have done this. The British empire, who gained its power by the slaughter of peoples from smaller, more vulnerable nations was a repulsive institution to any right thinking Irishman whos countrymen had been on the receiving end of such a campaign of terror. The fenian movement was gathering pace around these years. Irelands militant young would have joined the IRB and the Fenian movement moreso given the choice.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

Sorry, are you talking about Catholicism or Protestantism? Britain brought both over.

Protestantism. Britain trying to inflict this on Ireland, and then setting up laws punishing people for remaining Roman Catholic is another one of the oppressive laws i was referring to earlier.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

As to joining up to just join the army. I doubt many outside of Unionists would have done this. The British empire, who gained its power by the slaughter of peoples from smaller, more vulnerable nations was a repulsive institution to any right thinking Irishman whos countrymen had been on the receiving end of such a campaign of terror. The fenian movement was gathering pace around these years. Irelands militant young would have joined the IRB and the Fenian movement moreso given the choice.

I think you may have a rose tinted view of Ireland. It was probably not that abhorrant to every "Right Thinking Irishman" as Ireland's history has been full of bloodshed as long back as history is recorded. Just because Ireland was under some else's boot, doesn't necessarily mean they were adverse to dishing it out themselves.

Erin Go Brath

Mick86 wrote:

So what. They still participated in what we would now term atrocities. Doing it for the money isn't a defence.

Being faced with starving to death, or doing something against your conscience, like joining the British Army on Imperialist duties is a tough call to make. I wouldn't judge people too harshly for taking the latter option out of necessity. It's easy for us sitting here, we've never had to show we possess the courage of our convictions in such situations!

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

I think you may have a rose tinted view of Ireland. It was probably not that abhorrant to every "Right Thinking Irishman" as Ireland's history has been full of bloodshed as long back as history is recorded. Just because Ireland was under some else's boot, doesn't necessarily mean they were adverse to dishing it out themselves.

Examples of Irelands Imperialist past please???

odonnell

Thanks snickersman for illustrating what it is to be truly ignorant to a fellow poster. BBC and ITV dramas eh? Theres no need for that sort of thing...lets be civil.

The British war effort was gargantuan, and anyone who uses the word 'peripheral' when describing it - is being disrespectful.

Now, if its an excercise in nit-picking and date swapping - thanks, but I wont partake... If you re-read your post mate, you didnt actually seem to counter anything i had said - for example....why was it such a surprise that the Germans broke through the forest and not the open land in the north? Because it was a dense forest. Why was it a surprise that they Germans came through Belgium? It wasnt.... it was the SPEED at which they attacked from the south - through the forest, the minimal defense forces to the south, and a firm belief in the Maginot Line being inpenetrable that aided the Germans in their obliteration of the allied forces..... typical pincer was it not?

World War I hadnt seen a column of tanks rolling through a country at 30mph, with a squadron or three of Stukas softening up their path! THATS why it worked mate - and thats no secret. The french were still in WWI mode at that point which made the whole thing all the more pathetic, how can you debate this?

Shattering defeat - yes - and I never said it wasn't.
Humiliation? No - miscalculation and a swift kick up the erse...
Propoganda and spin made it bearable? No.... no way.

I take your point regarding the theatre Britain fought in afterwards, however, your discounting the Navy and the RAF who surely were two of the busiest and most effective machines of the war...continuously!

Secondly - which mantle exactly is it we (the Scots) have taken up since 1916 again? As far as i was aware, we have ALWAYS been an indipendant nation, one which entered into a union of our own free will. And because many soldiers in the British army were Irish - it had to be you guys who 'kept it going' yeh? Dont be daft mate...id love to see the stats to show there were more irish soldiers than Scottish, Welsh, and English.

And as for Irvine Welsh - if you believe his little rant in Trainspotting through Ewan MacGregor - it is YOU who pays too much attention to BBC mate. We were never a British colony....thanks.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Protestantism. Britain trying to inflict this on Ireland, and then setting up laws punishing people for remaining Roman Catholic is another one of the oppressive laws i was referring to earlier.

Oh, it's just that Britain brought Catholicism to Ireland as well, but that seems to have been ok.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Examples of Irelands Imperialist past please???

the same as Britain's, up to around 1921ish.

Fratton Fred

O'Leprosy wrote:

O'Lep - " stir the pot "......" come across as bigotted ". I've been rumbled

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

I like number three best

jmayo

odonnell wrote:

[edit] on a more humourous note - i have noted very often since i have been living here that any time i get into a historical debate...or sporting debate...or ANY kind of debate really - my irish friends always hark back to the old "so in a way...it was the irish who....." - i just noticed jmayo pointing out irish born military leaders and that being adequate proof to say the irish kept the empire going.... sorry i just found that ridiculously funny, as it happens in every historically related conversation i have here! Christ, im not even allowed to be Scottish without being notified of my Irish roots.... "youre really all just irish you know fella....we came over there and....."

what is it with you lot!!??

Jmayo you make good points though mate... i just had to pick you up on that

Ah now ODonnell I was just trying to remind the ones on here who always assume the British Empire was run just by those across the water and in particular the English.
If you were at any time to take a look at the British Army you would find a huge proportion of Irish, Welsh, Scotish, Indian, African, etc even the Nepalese.
Without the colonies the British Army in WWII would not have managed in all the different theatres of the war. So yes the British Army and thus her empire did rely on non-British joining.

This of course opens the can of worms about how conquered and opressed peoples still joined the oppressor and ended up fighting their wars and oppressing some other poor devils in another part of the empire.
Also can include Germany, Roman Empire, French Empire etc all in this block.

And from my limited knowledge of Scottish history, did the lowlanders tend to join the sassanachs and the highlanders tried to keep independence?
I suppose it was the old divide and conquer rule that the British employed so well all around the world. And in places such as Ulster and Fiji, they even imported the different ethnic/religious group to provide the opposition.


BTW I knew Irish guys that served in British Army, one of which was captured in Singapore and had to serve as Japanese POW for over three years and another that was one of the lucky ones to be rescued at Dunkirk.
I also have a few relatives that spent the war working in UK including in Munitions factories where they got bombed every other night in the early stages of the war.
I do think it is condescending that some people come on here and question their loyalty to Ireland, since Ireland and it's rulers did not offer them a future, was quiet happy for them to take the boat and then questioned why they joined up to fight Hitler or the Japanese.
But of course the money they returned to this country was welcomed by the narrow minded insular jobsh*** that were running the country.

Actually some of my roots come from Scotland, so yes there has been intermixing between both countries. We gave you Billy Connolly and you gave so Ray Houghton and a couple of other soccer players. I think you got off best in the deal because I would rather listen to Billy Connolly anyday

And afterall didn't our monks go over and civilise ye during the dark ages
Anyway Britain steals all our sucessful/famous people just like England steals yours. :mad:

Mick86

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Being faced with starving to death, or doing something against your conscience, like joining the British Army on Imperialist duties is a tough call to make. I wouldn't judge people too harshly for taking the latter option out of necessity. It's easy for us sitting here, we've never had to show we possess the courage of our convictions in such situations!

I'm not judging them. But I'm not absolving them of responsibility by blaming the English for the world's woes either. Irish people were and are as nasty as anybody else. We have invented a national mythology of a colonised, peace-loving, everybody-loves-us-because-we're-great-crack, shower of party lovers. It's a lie.

odonnell

jmayo wrote:

Ah now ODonnell I was just trying to remind the ones on here who always assume the British Empire was run just by those across the water and in particular the English.
If you were at any time to take a look at the British Army you would find a huge proportion of Irish, Welsh, Scotish, Indian, African, etc even the Nepalese.
Without the colonies the British Army in WWII would not have managed in all the different theatres of the war. So yes the British Army and thus her empire did rely on non-British joining.

This of course opens the can of worms about how conquered and opressed peoples still joined the oppressor and ended up fighting their wars and oppressing some other poor devils in another part of the empire.
Also can include Germany, Roman Empire, French Empire etc all in this block.

And from my limited knowledge of Scottish history, did the lowlanders tend to join the sassanachs and the highlanders tried to keep independence?
I suppose it was the old divide and conquer rule that the British employed so well all around the world. And in places such as Ulster and Fiji, they even imported the different ethnic/religious group to provide the opposition.


BTW I knew Irish guys that served in British Army, one of which was captured in Singapore and had to serve as Japanese POW for over three years and another that was one of the lucky ones to be rescued at Dunkirk.
I also have a few relatives that spent the war working in UK including in Munitions factories where they got bombed every other night in the early stages of the war.
I do think it is condescending that some people come on here and question their loyalty to Ireland, since Ireland and it's rulers did not offer them a future, was quiet happy for them to take the boat and then questioned why they joined up to fight Hitler or the Japanese.
But of course the money they returned to this country was welcomed by the narrow minded insular jobsh*** that were running the country.

Actually some of my roots come from Scotland, so yes there has been intermixing between both countries. We gave you Billy Connolly and you gave so Ray Houghton and a couple of other soccer players. I think you got off best in the deal because I would rather listen to Billy Connolly anyday

And afterall didn't our monks go over and civilise ye during the dark ages
Anyway Britain steals all our sucessful/famous people just like England steals yours. :mad:

hah, mate i have to tell ya - i spent the better part of 2 minutes chuckling to myself reading that last portion...

youre absolutely right though, there has been a continuous flow of people from island to island as far as history is concerned...thats only natural isnt it and its completely normal that the war machine of the empire was made up of colonial sodiers... yep.

The story with Scotland is a wee bit complicated mate, but essentially it comes down to two or three main things - power, religion, and the bloody aristocracy. Thats another thread

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

hah, mate i have to tell ya - i spent the better part of 2 minutes chuckling to myself reading that last portion...

youre absolutely right though, there has been a continuous flow of people from island to island as far as history is concerned...thats only natural isnt it and its completely normal that the war machine of the empire was made up of colonial sodiers... yep.

The story with Scotland is a wee bit complicated mate, but essentially it comes down to two or three main things - power, religion, and the bloody aristocracy. Thats another thread

If I may butt into the Scottish/Irish love in for a minute Your last point pretty much captures European history for the past thousand years

csk

Zambia232 wrote:

Hang on at the time of the conscripton was not in force irish men like described here went and signed up. So Ireland played a direct hand in the imperilism you all are describing. At the time of the Zulu wars ireland was part of Britain.

So what part of my post did you disagree with? Thanks for proving my point!:D

csk

Mick86 wrote:

That was the Sudan.

So what derogatory term was it for the Zulus.

You're judging a historical event by contemporary standards.

So there were no contemporaries who saw Imperialism as bad?

csk

jmayo wrote:

Isandlwana was a cock up highlighting the fact that the British army were led by arrogant aristocratic eejits (Lord Chelmesford), that made the mistake of underestimating their foe.
I managed to catch part of a documentary on the whole subject some time back and it made some points on both battles.

At Isandlwana, Chelmsford went chasing after some Zulu parties they spotted. They never thought of the Zulu tactic of "horns of the buffalo".
At the camp they spilt their units too far apart and too far from their supply wagons, something like quarter of a mile.
Then the best part was it stated that the sergants in charge of the supply wagons refused to hand out ammunition to the runners, if they were from the incorrect unit and if they did not have written authorisation from the unit officer.
In the end they had to try and break boxes open to try and get at the ammunition.
BTW something like 750 natives died in the service of the crown, so they were not all white guys.

Rorke's Drift was a galant defence but it was also talked up to cover up the major cockup that was Isandlwana. A little bit of spin by Victoria's Disraeli government. Maybe Allastir Campbell's forebearers were involved?
Chelmsford should have been hung out to dry, as wanted by Disraeli, but ould Vicy championed him because he "came form the right background".

Actually by all accounts the two officers (Chard and Bromhead) involved at Rorke's drift were supposedly incapable of leading a p*ss-up in a brewery and as usual with British army it was the NCOs that were the mainstay.
The supposed real hero was Commissary Dalton, another Irish name.

Indeed I saw the same documentary. Wasn't Chelmsford honoured subsequently?

Regarding make up of British army, you will find they used lot of people from their colonies (Ireland, India, etc), although Scotland does not fall into this.
Poverty would have driven a lot of the lower ranks into the army, whereas the upper ranks were filled by military families and the non-inheriting sons of wealthy families. And yes some would have joined to see the world or was that just the navy?

Regarding famous British generals, Arthur Wesley, the Duke of Wellington was born in Dublin or Meath (take your pick), Kitchener of the Sudan was born in Kerry, Mongomery was from a Dongeal family.

And these "upper ranks" saw themselves as Irish? Just to take Wellington. He wasn't proud of the Fact he was Irish.

So if you look at it one way, the Irish kept the Empire going.

As victims of Imperialism yes I agree.

csk

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Irish people entered the British army for the most part because it was a job which put food on the table, as csk has alluded to above. They took orders from crown forces, and did what they had to do to survive, and support their families. The Celtic Tiger wasn't roaring in them days you know, people had limited opportunities.

The thing to remember with all this is that us Irish were the first victims of British Imperialism.

csk

Originally Posted by odonnell
The story with Scotland is a wee bit complicated mate, but essentially it comes down to two or three main things - power, religion, and the bloody aristocracy. Thats another thread

Your last point pretty much captures European history for the past thousand years

Way to miss the point!:D

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Way to miss the point!:D

I'm still missing it then.:o

religion, Power, Greed, what more has there been to European history, certainly in a colonial sense.

jmayo

csk wrote:

Indeed I saw the same documentary. Wasn't Chelmsford honoured subsequently?

And these "upper ranks" saw themselves as Irish? Just to take Wellington. He wasn't proud of the Fact he was Irish.

Ould Vicky herself met him even though Disraeli didn't want to touch him with a barge pole.
He also tried to blame Col. Durnford for charging off after the Zulus even though that is what he had been ordered to do so.

She promoted him to full general and appointed him Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and he died in 1905 playing billiards at his club. He did a lot better than the poor sods he left to fight the Zulus.

Wellington did state "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse" when talking about his place of birth.
He was also supposed to have commented that "Our army is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth".
Nice fellow alright.

csk

O'Leprosy wrote:

O'Lep - " stir the pot "......" come across as bigotted ". I've been rumbled

I would feel sorry for you if it were not so sad. Having an all consuming hate for someone you only come across on the internet is not good for you. You should get out more.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'm still missing it then.:o

religion, Power, Greed, what more has there been to European history, certainly in a colonial sense.

Sorry I didn't mean you or the other fellow.

It was just two interesting points side by side that summed up everything.