What have the Brits ever done for us?

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

lol Yes, and no free press or elections, or freedom of speech. The RAF was Ireland's finest hour.

Ahm, I think you'll find the British military had previously done their level best to prevent those things in Ireland as well. :rolleyes:

LordSutch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is there a difference in essence between IRA fanboys and RAF fanboys, given both have committed mistakes/atrocities they regret?

The RAF were not only Britains saviours in WWII but Irelands saviours to! for without the RAF we in Ireland would ultimately have been targeted & inveded by the Germans Nazis. The IRA fanboys on here are just a blinkered old bunch of pro gits Nazi gits who don't know how lucky they are (thanks to the RAF & the Royal Navy). I wonder do any of the IRA supporters regret any of the long list of Provo atrocities?

FrancieBrady

LordSutch wrote: »

The RAF were not only Britains saviours in WWII but Irelands saviours to! for without the RAF we in Ireland would ultimately have been targeted & inveded by the Germans Nazis. The IRA fanboys on here are just a blinkered old bunch of pro gits Nazi gits who don't know how lucky they are (thanks to the RAF & the Royal Navy). I wonder do any of the IRA supporters regret any of the long list of Provo atrocities?

It wasn't our war, we were neutral.
Britain only did what they did because it was in their interests. And it doesn't absolve them from the atrocities they committed. Unless you are a fanboy that is.

Donald Trump

A Little Pony wrote: »

Without another front opened up by Britain and the US on June 6th 1944, Nazi Germany would have had a much better chance of fighting the Soviet Union. Once the Allies landed on Normandy, the war was over. Ireland should be thankful for the RAF protecting it.

Not quite true.

Brits and US delayed on delivering their promise of opening up a second front by something like 2 years. They fucked over the Soviets and left them more or less on their own in terms of confronting the Germans. There were people in their respective administrations were happy to let them wipe each other out.
Brits wanted to confront Axis only in North Africa and then via Italy. They didn't want to engage German war machine directly. And they wanted to maintain some control over the Mediterranean and access to the Suez so that they could retain power over, and continue to exploit East Africa and India.
Soviets had the back broken of the Germans on the Western front by D-Day stage and the momentum was with them. Allies knew that there was a possibility that Germans would sue for peace with Soviets. It was pure self preservation and to preserve their own power over smaller nations - not some idealistic sacrifice that they took on behalf of the "little guy". If they hadn't gotten involved when they did, the closure of hostilities on the Western front would have left them in the position they had abandoned the Russians to - facing the Germans alone. Germans would have crushed them -> No more Empire!

FrancieBrady

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not quite true.

Brits and US delayed on delivering their promise of opening up a second front by something like 2 years. They fucked over the Soviets and left them more or less on their own in terms of confronting the Germans. There were people in their respective administrations were happy to let them wipe each other out.
Brits wanted to confront Axis only in North Africa and then via Italy. They didn't want to engage German war machine directly. And they wanted to maintain some control over the Mediterranean and access to the Suez so that they could retain power over, and continue to exploit East Africa and India.
Soviets had the back broken of the Germans on the Western front by D-Day stage and the momentum was with them. Allies knew that there was a possibility that Germans would sue for peace with Soviets. It was pure self preservation and to preserve their own power over smaller nations - not some idealistic sacrifice that they took on behalf of the "little guy". If they hadn't gotten involved when they did, the closure of hostilities on the Western front would have left them in the position they had abandoned the Russians to - facing the Germans alone. Germans would have crushed them -> No more Empire!

Those kind of fairly obvious nuances are typically missed by an education system that has let the modern UK down badly.
Brexit IMO is a direct result of a system that ignores the truth in favour of the glorious.
The US has the same problem.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Those kind of fairly obvious nuances are typically missed by an education system that has let the modern UK down badly.
Brexit IMO is a direct result of a system that ignores the truth in favour of the glorious.
The US has the same problem.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

It's not worth ****, but you're entitled to it all the same.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

It's not worth ****, but you're entitled to it all the same.

Brexit is hardly the cumulation of progressive and outward looking educational advancement is it?

My 'opinion' would be fairly on the money therefore.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Brexit is hardly the cumulation of progressive and outward looking educational advancement is it?

My 'opinion' would be fairly on the money therefore.

When someone is quite obviously anti everything and everyone British, then no, your opinion is not worth ****.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When someone is quite obviously anti everything and everyone British, then no, your opinion is not worth ****.

I'm not anti British, I have a healthy respect for what they have done in the world but I have something that is important too, a sense of perspective.

Fratton Fred

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm not anti British, I have a healthy respect for what they have done in the world but I have something that is important too, a sense of perspective.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

Donald Trump

Fratton Fred wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not quite true.

Brits and US delayed on delivering their promise of opening up a second front by something like 2 years. They fucked over the Soviets and left them more or less on their own in terms of confronting the Germans. There were people in their respective administrations were happy to let them wipe each other out.
Brits wanted to confront Axis only in North Africa and then via Italy. They didn't want to engage German war machine directly. And they wanted to maintain some control over the Mediterranean and access to the Suez so that they could retain power over, and continue to exploit East Africa and India.
Soviets had the back broken of the Germans on the Western front by D-Day stage and the momentum was with them. Allies knew that there was a possibility that Germans would sue for peace with Soviets. It was pure self preservation and to preserve their own power over smaller nations - not some idealistic sacrifice that they took on behalf of the "little guy". If they hadn't gotten involved when they did, the closure of hostilities on the Western front would have left them in the position they had abandoned the Russians to - facing the Germans alone. Germans would have crushed them -> No more Empire!

Those kind of fairly obvious nuances are typically missed by an education system that has let the modern UK down badly.
Brexit IMO is a direct result of a system that ignores the truth in favour of the glorious.
The US has the same problem.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

It's not worth ****, but you're entitled to it all the same.

Fratton Fred, can you clarify your stance. FrancieBrady's point was that the education system did not teach those things. Are you saying that the education system does in fact teach those things?

And then the other question would be what are your opinions on what I posted? Agree? Disagree? In whole or in part? Any evidence to back up if you disagree? Everything that I said is pretty well documented by proper historians. It may not have been highlighted in your history books in school, but there are other reasons for that.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

lol Yes, and no free press or elections, or freedom of speech.

Oh, like the 1918 general election, the results of which your British government overthrew and partitioned Ireland against the expressed wishes of the vast majority of the island's democratically-elected representatives?

Or the British overthrow of the electoral system in 1919 and imposition of the PR-STV system as a direct attempt to curb the rise of Sinn Féin and strengthen "minority parties" (i.e. unionists)?

Or the insistence that democratically-elected Irish people had to swear an oath of loyalty to an unelected, institutionally-sectarian British monarchy? Or the insistence upon the existence of a second, largely unionist and unelected parliament in the 1922 constitution?

Amazing how the electoral system was absolutely fine and only needed changing when Sinn Féin became the largest party. And let's not even mention the sectarian gerrymandered herrenvolk hovel that your British state financed and internationally defended until the native Irish got off their knees in 1969 and brought world attention to "democracy", British colonial style in the last remnant of England's Irish colony that is currently called "Northern Ireland".

A lecture on the glories of British colonial democracy in Ireland is typical of the nauseating shíte you, FrattonFred, LordSutch and other apologists for the Butcher's Apron come out with on this website. Overbearingly conceited as fúck, right until the end of your utterly rotten, putrid little colonial statelet in Ireland. I look forward to your post-Brexit decline being even faster than it already has been.

FrancieBrady

Donald Trump wrote: »

Fratton Fred, can you clarify your stance. FrancieBrady's point was that the education system did not teach those things. Are you saying that the education system does in fact teach those things?

And then the other question would be what are your opinions on what I posted? Agree? Disagree? In whole or in part? Any evidence to back up if you disagree? Everything that I said is pretty well documented by proper historians. It may not have been highlighted in your history books in school, but there are other reasons for that.

There will be no deviation from the glorious narrative.

That, by the way, is all I object to in regarding the British contribution to the world and us - the glorious narrative as pedalled here by the usual suspects.

LordSutch

Deleted User wrote: »

I look forward to your post-Brexit decline being even faster than it already has been.

A post Brexit decline is the last thing Ireland needs :cool:

A Little Pony

Cortina_MK_IV wrote: »

TireeTerror wrote: »

They also let you keep the Southern part of the Island of Ireland.  They could've just kept it all if they wanted to.

Naaa, they couldn't have really.

Nothing could have stopped Britain if they wanted to keep it. Could have carpet bombed the place if they wanted to.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nothing could have stopped Britain if they wanted to keep it. Could have carpet bombed the place if they wanted to.

They were stopped and they didn't carpet bomb.

It's amazing how glorious narratives have convinced you otherwise.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nothing could have stopped Britain if they wanted to keep it. Could have carpet bombed the place if they wanted to.

They were stopped and they didn't carpet bomb.

It's amazing how glorious narratives have convinced you otherwise.

Maybe they should have been more aggressive against the rebels and used bombing.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

Nothing could have stopped Britain if they wanted to keep it. Could have carpet bombed the place if they wanted to.

I direct you to the lines 'Another martyr for old Ireland, Another murder for the crown,' an ultra rare recording of Kevin Barry sung by the inimitable and sublime Leonard Cohen on his 1972 European tour shortly after the Bloody Sunday massacre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG6D7-PAIKI

Fratton Fred

Donald Trump wrote: »

Fratton Fred, can you clarify your stance. FrancieBrady's point was that the education system did not teach those things. Are you saying that the education system does in fact teach those things?

And then the other question would be what are your opinions on what I posted? Agree? Disagree? In whole or in part? Any evidence to back up if you disagree? Everything that I said is pretty well documented by proper historians. It may not have been highlighted in your history books in school, but there are other reasons for that.

Teach what things?

What you wrote was spin, little more than that. The Eastern front was only ever going to end in defeat for one side or the other. The sea lanes needed to be kept open.

Please give me examples of historians backing up your claims.

BalcombeSt4

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

A lot of live ones as well, like the people who bombed Harrods.

Just to elaborate on this a bit, the people who bombed Harrods in 1993 were British wit no connections to Ireland all.

Fratton Fred

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Just to elaborate on this a bit, the people who bombed Harrods in 1993 were British wit no connections to Ireland all.

What about the scum that threw a bomb in to Scott's restaurant?

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Teach what things?

I think it would be good for the British public if they learned about the mass murder, slavery, famines, and whatnot, caused by the British Empire/colonialism down through the years. It could help balance the jingoistic, xenophobic, bollocks that pollutes the British media.

TireeTerror

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were stopped and they didn't carpet bomb.

It's amazing how glorious narratives have convinced you otherwise.

They were not stopped. They could have done a lot more but as they were far more civilized than the Irish terrorists who like to bomb woman and children, they decided they may as well let you have your potatoes back.

Despite all this shouting and balling, you still lined the streets to greet the Queen, in absolute awe that such a being would bother to grace your shores with her presence. God save the Queen!

FrancieBrady

TireeTerror wrote: »

They were not stopped. They could have done a lot more but as they were far more civilized than the Irish terrorists who like to bomb woman and children, they decided they may as well let you have your potatoes back.

Despite all this shouting and balling, you still lined the streets to greet the Queen, in absolute awe that such a being would bother to grace your shores with her presence.

Yes they were stopped, last time I checked they were gone. After centuries of colonisation and indiscriminate killing (civilised killing apparently, in the lexicon of glorious narratives) of all sexes and ages of the indigenous people.
The term 'terrorist' is just another word in that lexicon to describe people who stand up to them.
Anything else?

P.S. The monarchy is just a bit of gltzy frump to keep the imbecilic in their place, plenty of those in Ireland too.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think it would be good for the British public if they learned about the mass murder, slavery, famines, and whatnot, caused by the British Empire/colonialism down through the years. It could help balance the jingoistic, xenophobic, bollocks that pollutes the British media.

Yes, I'm sure you would. In fact I'm sure you'd like every Brit to learn nothing but the Sinn From version of history and constantly apologise for everything wrong ever committed in the past. That way your self righteous moral high horse attitude would be satisfied.

FFS.

Peregrine

TireeTerror banned and banned from the thread.

Tsipras

TireeTerror wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were stopped and they didn't carpet bomb.

It's amazing how glorious narratives have convinced you otherwise.

They were not stopped.  They could have done a lot more but as they were far more civilized than the Irish terrorists who like to bomb woman and children, they decided they may as well let you have your potatoes back.  

Despite all this shouting and balling, you still lined the streets to greet the Queen, in absolute awe that such a being would bother to grace your shores with her presence.  God save the Queen!

Tell that to the children they murder in Iraq and Afghanistan or the millions of children who died in India because of them, i know you're trolling but I'm biting anyway

Tsipras

TireeTerror wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were stopped and they didn't carpet bomb.

It's amazing how glorious narratives have convinced you otherwise.

They were not stopped.  They could have done a lot more but as they were far more civilized than the Irish terrorists who like to bomb woman and children, they decided they may as well let you have your potatoes back.  

Despite all this shouting and balling, you still lined the streets to greet the Queen, in absolute awe that such a being would bother to grace your shores with her presence.  God save the Queen!

Tell that to the children they murder in Iraq and Afghanistan or the millions of children who died in India because of them, i know you're trolling but I'm biting anyway

Junkyard Tom

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure you would. In fact I'm sure you'd like every Brit to learn nothing but the Sinn From version of history

I guess the programme BBC aired about how the compensating of owners of slaves was a massive boost to the British economy, and whose effects could be traced to modern corporations, was the 'Sinn Fein version of history' too was it?

As far as I know German kids are all well schooled on what thier forefathers got up to - good enough for the Germans but not British? Ye could learn a thing or two from the Germans on taking responsibility for your historic crimes against humanity.

indioblack

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not quite true.

Brits and US delayed on delivering their promise of opening up a second front by something like 2 years. They fucked over the Soviets and left them more or less on their own in terms of confronting the Germans. There were people in their respective administrations were happy to let them wipe each other out.
Brits wanted to confront Axis only in North Africa and then via Italy. They didn't want to engage German war machine directly. And they wanted to maintain some control over the Mediterranean and access to the Suez so that they could retain power over, and continue to exploit East Africa and India.
Soviets had the back broken of the Germans on the Western front by D-Day stage and the momentum was with them. Allies knew that there was a possibility that Germans would sue for peace with Soviets. It was pure self preservation and to preserve their own power over smaller nations - not some idealistic sacrifice that they took on behalf of the "little guy". If they hadn't gotten involved when they did, the closure of hostilities on the Western front would have left them in the position they had abandoned the Russians to - facing the Germans alone. Germans would have crushed them -> No more Empire!

Nations engage in war to gain self serving advantages? This should not be surprising.
The Allies delayed D-Day by two years for political reasons - to screw the Russians? So why did the Americans supply so much war material to Russia?
The British were sending brand new aircraft and tanks to Russia and not to the far east.
How many divisions would you have in a cross channel invasion in 1942? What about the logistics? Would you control the air and the sea? And if it all went wrong? The large scale Dieppe raid in 1942 might give an inkling of what could happen.
Roosevelt wanted a cross channel invasion in 1942. Churchill asked him if he was prepared for the possibility of 100,000 fatalities. Roosevelt replied that he would accept this - Churchill would not.
The Americans wanted to invade in 1943 - they were persuaded to delay. Churchill was still anxious about an invasion in 1944 - but by then the power was in Washington not London.
The Americans were suspicious of Britain's war aims as regards it's empire - Churchill believed the empire would survive - events would rapidly prove him wrong - the war would hasten Britain's imperial decline.
Worth mentioning the war at sea, keeping the sea lanes open - and the strategic bombing of Germany - the morality of which is still argued, [and rightly so].
Self preservation and self interest are elements in the strategies of all combatant nations - the Soviets only fought the Third Reich when Hitler invaded Russia.

130Kph

@OP Oooooooh Matron
I don’t know,
Tee-hee, Tee-hee
Ladybird books about road safety is my answer… Tee-hee
Tee-hee :pac:
I hope this post is fitting in with other posts in the thread. I haven’t read the thread at all. I just place my trust in the joie de vivre that threads like these attract. Call me obnoxiously upbeat, LOL
I love it :pac:
I love it
I love it
I love it :pac:
I love it :pac:

Junkyard Tom

indioblack wrote: »

The Allies delayed D-Day by two years for political reasons - to screw the Russians?

I don't think it was so much to 'screw the Russians' as it was to let them soften up the target. There's also speculation that the rise of Nazi Germany was kinda ignored because it was useful to keep the Red Menace out of Europe. Who benefitted most from WWII in its aftermath?

The US emerged from WWII as the world's only nuclear armed superpower. Contrary to thier jingoism the British didn't win WWII they were decimated after it (as were the Soviets). The Americans won WWII or at least benefitted most geopolitically after its conclusion.

Donald Trump

indioblack wrote: »

Nations engage in war to gain self serving advantages? This should not be surprising.
The Allies delayed D-Day by two years for political reasons - to screw the Russians? So why did the Americans supply so much war material to Russia?
The British were sending brand new aircraft and tanks to Russia and not to the far east.
How many divisions would you have in a cross channel invasion in 1942? What about the logistics? Would you control the air and the sea? And if it all went wrong? The large scale Dieppe raid in 1942 might give an inkling of what could happen.
Roosevelt wanted a cross channel invasion in 1942. Churchill asked him if he was prepared for the possibility of 100,000 fatalities. Roosevelt replied that he would accept this - Churchill would not.
The Americans wanted to invade in 1943 - they were persuaded to delay. Churchill was still anxious about an invasion in 1944 - but by then the power was in Washington not London.
The Americans were suspicious of Britain's war aims as regards it's empire - Churchill believed the empire would survive - events would rapidly prove him wrong - the war would hasten Britain's imperial decline.
Worth mentioning the war at sea, keeping the sea lanes open - and the strategic bombing of Germany - the morality of which is still argued, [and rightly so].
Self preservation and self interest are elements in the strategies of all combatant nations - the Soviets only fought the Third Reich when Hitler invaded Russia.

I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or just adding extra information what I did not put into my post. Nothing in what you posted contradicts what I posted.

indioblack

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't think it was so much to 'screw the Russians' as it was to let them soften up the target. There's also speculation that the rise of Nazi Germany was kinda ignored because it was useful to keep the Red Menace out of Europe. Who benefitted most from WWII in its aftermath?

The US emerged from WWII as the world's only nuclear armed superpower. Contrary to thier jingoism the British didn't win WWII they were decimated after it (as were the Soviets). The Americans won WWII or at least benefitted most geopolitically after its conclusion.

These nations were allies out of necessity. There was speculation at the time that Russia might fold. Churchill was suspicious of Stalin and the Americans were wondering if all of Britain's war aims were purely idealistic.
Whilst acknowledging that Britain didn't win the war on it's own, [not exactly news, is it?], it's not unreasonable to state the effort Britain made against the Third Reich.

indioblack

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or just adding extra information what I did not put into my post. Nothing in what you posted contradicts what I posted.

I took it from your post that the Allies deliberately delayed the second front - that is, a cross channel invasion.
I was querying whether there could have been such an invasion two years before it actually happened.

130Kph

Actually, I change my mind.

Even though they did nothing for us, I pick red double decker London buses, ha ha

I only pick them because the mass murderer Gerry Adams TD & the late Iraqi mass murderer Saddam Hussein said the same thing in an interview, snigger :eek:

I love fun stuff…and pigtails…and daffodils….and fluffy things….:P

It’s all so fun

Who can resist

Ha ha

It’s great
Edit 1: still didn't read the thread. will read it in the am. so buzzing about that. ha ha
Edit 2: OMG what if the thread descended into awful nastiness due to caveman reactions to the plantation/troubles. Oh sweet Jesus, I hope that hasn't happened. It would be tragic & might interfere with my sleep overnight. I so, so, so hope that didn't happen. Hee-hee.
Edit 3: Getting paranoid now. Seriously thinking about changing to Patrick Kielty. But thats what the thread was probably about all evening. feeling conflicted, ha ha
Edit 4: what the hell, I'm going back to ladybird books ha ha

Junkyard Tom

indioblack wrote: »

it's not unreasonable to state the effort Britain made against the Third Reich.

It certainly isn't. The 'commonwealth' nations made up the majority of the manpower and supplied the bulk of the hardware that was used for D-Day if I recall correctly.

Junkyard Tom

130Kph wrote: »

@OP Oooooooh Matron
I don’t know,
Tee-hee, Tee-hee
Ladybird books about road safety is my answer… Tee-hee
Tee-hee :pac:
I hope this post is fitting in with other posts in the thread. I haven’t read the thread at all. I just place my trust in the joie de vivre that threads like these attract. Call me obnoxiously upbeat, LOL
I love it :pac:
I love it
I love it

130Kph wrote: »

Actually, I change my mind.

Even though they did nothing for us, I pick red double decker London buses, ha ha

I only pick them because the mass murderer Gerry Adams TD & the late Iraqi mass murderer Saddam Hussein said the same thing in an interview, snigger :eek:

I love fun stuff…and pigtails…and daffodils….and fluffy things….:P

It’s all so fun

Who can resist

Ha ha

It’s great
Edit: still didn't read the thread. will read it in the am. so buzzing about that. ha ha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B436avtEXzs

.

KenjiOdo

The 'Brits" have done so many things to improve quality of life for the every denizen of earth over the centuries, a lot like other cultures..

Donald Trump

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Teach what things?

What you wrote was spin, little more than that. The Eastern front was only ever going to end in defeat for one side or the other. The sea lanes needed to be kept open.

Please give me examples of historians backing up your claims.

Ah c'mon now. Seriously? You're setting yourself up for an easy rebuttal.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not quite true.

Brits and US delayed on delivering their promise of opening up a second front by something like 2 years. They fucked over the Soviets and left them more or less on their own in terms of confronting the Germans. There were people in their respective administrations were happy to let them wipe each other out.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1942v03.p0582&id=FRUS.FRUS1942v03&isize=XL

US diplomatic papers from 1942. Read that page and then go to the next page - "The President then authorized Mr. Molotov to inform Mr. Stalin that we expect the formation of a Second Front this year."

Donald Trump wrote: »

Brits wanted to confront Axis only in North Africa and then via Italy. They didn't want to engage German war machine directly. And they wanted to maintain some control over the Mediterranean and access to the Suez so that they could retain power over, and continue to exploit East Africa and India.

I'm not sure what is spin here. You do know that after the fall of France, the war involvement of Brits and US was played out in North Africa? I'm not making this up? The reason that I'm using wikipedia is that you have your references there already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Campaign
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy

Donald Trump wrote: »

Soviets had the back broken of the Germans on the Western front by D-Day stage and the momentum was with them. Allies knew that there was a possibility that Germans would sue for peace with Soviets. It was pure self preservation and to preserve their own power over smaller nations - not some idealistic sacrifice that they took on behalf of the "little guy". If they hadn't gotten involved when they did, the closure of hostilities on the Western front would have left them in the position they had abandoned the Russians to - facing the Germans alone. Germans would have crushed them -> No more Empire!

What are you disputing here?
1) That the Russians had the back broken of the German invasion by D-Day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#/media/File:Eastern_Front_1943-08_to_1944-12.png

2) That the Germans might have sued for peace?
Well the Germans and Russians signed a agreement at the start of the war. Russians had gone through enormous suffering. Do you need a reference to the number of casualties? I'm not making that up. Tens of millions of Russians were killed. It did happen!

3) That the Germans could have crushed the British if they could divert from the Western Front?
In June 1944 there were 150 German divisions fighting on the Eastern Front and 66 on the Western front. Go back to Aug 1943 and you had 189 on the Eastern front and 46 on the Western Front. When the US and Brits landed in France, they were fighting less than half of the number of German soldiers that the Russians were forcing back in the East. Or to put it another way, if there was not Eastern front, they'd have been facing maybe 200 divisions of Germans rather than 66!
http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nations/134-campaigns-a-operations/campaigns-a-operations/2085-number-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

When Churchill and Stalin decide to carve up the Eastern Europe, Churchill insisted in having Greece. Stalin agreed. The reason for this was that Churchill wanted to have influence in Greece to control the Suez. Brits wanted to hold onto Empire despite US pushing for an end to it. They even did some dodgy things after the war in Greece to keep the rise of communism down there and to keep their "own men" in power. They were happy to hand over Albania, Hungary etc. to Stalin. They wanted to "save" the Greeks though. Why do you think that was? Were the Greek people just more deserving people of being saved from the evil bear from the East?

This is kind of basic stuff man. What did you learn in school? I genuinely asking. Was it just jingoistic "We beat Gerry on our own and saved the world" kinda crap?

There's also a strong theory that the reason Hitler hesitated to cross the Channel was that he thought that he'd get the Brits on board and agree a peace and save their blushes. Strong links between the countries and similar ethics. Saxe-Coburg and Gotha anyone? I mean the Germans just had imperialist ambitions to be more like the Brits. You can't say "German Imperialism bad, British imperialism good". Take a look at the map of the British Empire in 1939 and a map of the German Empire at the same time. Pot-kettle-black :pac: . Do-as-I-say, not do-as-I-do! Why were the Polish so deserving of independence and the Indians not?

indioblack

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It certainly isn't. The 'commonwealth' nations made up the majority of the manpower and supplied the bulk of the hardware that was used for D-Day if I recall correctly.

Not a history buff myself - I've fallen foul of them several times - but I'd wonder if your post is correct.
For D-Day I'd be thinking of the US, the British and Canadians.
The British navy and air force would have made a significant contribution - most of the naval and merchant ships used would have been British.

Junkyard Tom

indioblack wrote: »

The British navy and air force would have made a significant contribution - most of the naval and merchant ships used would have been British.

That's what I was getting at. D-Day was mostly a British/Commonwealth endeavour albiet enabled by previous years of US support of Britain.

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

ddaymuseum.co.uk

indioblack

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's what I was getting at. D-Day was mostly a British/Commonwealth endeavour albiet enabled by previous years of US support of Britain.

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

ddaymuseum.co.uk

If you include the Americans then it's a fair point as regards numbers.

A Little Pony

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure you would. In fact I'm sure you'd like every Brit to learn nothing but the Sinn From version of history

I guess the programme BBC aired about how the compensating of owners of slaves was a massive boost to the British economy, and whose effects could be traced to modern corporations, was the 'Sinn Fein version of history' too was it?

As far as I know German kids are all well schooled on what thier forefathers got up to - good enough for the Germans but not British? Ye could learn a thing or two from the Germans on taking responsibility for your historic crimes against humanity.

They can hardly lie about Nazi Germany can they? It was pretty obvious what the Nationalist Socialist did.

BalcombeSt4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What about the scum that threw a bomb in to Scott's restaurant?

They were from the South, probably radicalized by the Dublin & Monaghan bombings.

But theres been lots of people in the IRA with British backgrounds & some with noIrish backgrounds. Sean MacStafoin himself was half English.

Fratton Fred

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or just adding extra information what I did not put into my post. Nothing in what you posted contradicts what I posted.

It does. It shows that the western front was not delayed to screw the Russians, as you put it. It was delayed because Britain was not capable of invading Northern France.

It was explains whybthe sea lanes, particularly the med, needed to be kept open. Not to "exploit India and South Africa" as you put it, but to help keep Britain supplied with the materials it needed to remain in the war.

Fratton Fred

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think it would be good for the British public if they learned about the mass murder, slavery, famines, and whatnot, caused by the British Empire/colonialism down through the years. It could help balance the jingoistic, xenophobic, bollocks that pollutes the British media.

You see, that's your mistake. Your only real knowledge of the British is through rags like the daily mail, which makes you no different to the people that read it and take it in.

Slavery was covered extensively when I was at school.

BalcombeSt4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You see, that's your mistake. Your only real knowledge of the British is through rags like the daily mail, which makes you no different to the people that read it and take it in.

Slavery was covered extensively when I was at school.

I'm a Republican I have more in common with British people who view the world the same way I do, like Arthur Scargall for example instead of Irish people who have noting in common with my world view.

I have much more greater admiration for Brit politicians like Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Michael Foot etc... than I would for the likes of Dev or even Martin McGuinness.

Capt'n Midnight

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

I have much more greater admiration for Brit politicians like Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Michael Foot etc... than I would for the likes of Dev or even Martin McGuinness.

Dev could have stopped the Civil War which lost us so much talent. Oherwise we'd have undermined the North.

Does anyone thing McGuinness wasn't on the Army Council ?


Compared to Benn and Foot, Corbyn is a disaster. Like the Tories and UKIP it's all about being the headman of a village than the second man in Rome.

A Little Pony

Corbyn is a disgrace and is wasting 4 years of time for Labour to organise themselves to compete in 2020. They don't stand a chance of even a hung parliament at the moment. Another Tory government is on the way.