Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

stefanovich

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

I have worked with two Harvard Grads (both White) not the nicest or best people in the world.
A bit of a "Master Race Complex" just because the went to Harvard.

Ah yes, similar to Oxford. They usually go on to be powerful people.

Omackeral

statesaver wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FirstThemNEWS/status/1360693006513315842

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

Just use a word in the dictionary rather than slang.

Asian.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

Funny though how “coloured” is offensive but “people of colour” is not.

I suppose it’s the historical use of the word coloured.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Just use a word in the dictionary rather than slang.

Asian.

Yellow is in the dictionary I’d have thought? I do use Asian. I was asking a question. I’ll look it up myself so.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Yellow is in the dictionary I’d have thought? I do use Asian. I was asking a question. I’ll look it up myself so.

Not with that meaning.

Omackeral

Just looked it up. Murky enough history to the term “yellow” but originally its linked to Homo Asiaticus and has translations to pale/sallow/yellow. It became a slur but some quarters within the East Asian-American quarters want to reclaim it in ways that others have done for “brown” and even “queer”. Probably wise to leave it off myself.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Not with that meaning.

It is actually. Listed as sometimes offensive according Merriam-Webster. So that answers my question. Thanks for all your brilliant help.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

It is actually. Listed as offensive. So that answers my question. Thanks for all your brilliant help.

Also marked as slang.

I suppose the litmus test is whether it is generally considered offensive.

It is.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Also marked as slang.

I suppose the litmus test is whether it is generally considered offensive.

It is.

You said it wasn’t in the dictionary. It is. Not listed under slang either. Stop being so cocksure.

Anyway I never use it. Was merely wondering.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

You said it wasn’t in the dictionary. It is. Not listed under slang either. Stop being so cocksure.

Anyway I never use it. Was merely wondering.

Remind me never to try to help you again.

Omackeral

Embarrassing

Omackeral

Some Asian Americans (it’s always the Americans isn’t it?!) don’t mind using the term to reclaim it or even to celebrate their difference. I just think it’s mad how language and descriptors change over time. When I was in school, calling someone queer was absolutely not acceptable. Now it’s a celebrated in the term LGBTQ but I’m still not comfortable saying it.

46 Long

46 Long wrote: »

The nazi comparison is pretty meaningless but Churchill was a genuine white supremacist in fairness.

"I do not admit...for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race...has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

You won't find me coming to the defense of the lad who oversaw the introduction of the Black & Tans to Ireland

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

The nazi comparison is pretty meaningless but Churchill was a genuine white supremacist in fairness.

"I do not admit...for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race...has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

He was a patriot, and an imperialist. Of course, he believed in the superiority of his culture, and people. They did manage to conquer/colonize a huge chunk of the world.

He was a man of his times. All the empires behaved in much the same way, whether it was the British Empire, the Belgians, or the Chinese. Cultures expanded and dominated those near, or those who were weaker than them. In most cases, they did so violently, and made little attempt at conversion.

The concept of race was very different back then.. as was the understanding and application of morality.

This is simply another attempt to apply modern thinking to history, and it shows a total ignorance for how society has developed over time.

You won't find me coming to the defense of the lad who oversaw the introduction of the Black & Tans to Ireland

It's not about defending Churchill. His use of chemical weapons in Africa, probably killed/hurt more people than the Black & Tans in Ireland.

It's about understanding and appreciating that people in the past lived in different times. We are (now) living at a point where a huge degree of moral advancement has been applied in our education, and used to steer society towards believing a 'right' way to live, and interact with other cultures/societies.

This superiority complex that many have about being 'enlightened' (compared to historical figures) is flawed, and merely seeks to avoid fixing the problems that continue to exist in modern society, instead, passing blame on to the past.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

He was a patriot, and an imperialist. Of course, he believed in the superiority of his culture, and people. They did manage to conquer/colonize a huge chunk of the world.

He was a man of his times. All the empires behaved in much the same way, whether it was the British Empire, the Belgians, or the Chinese. Cultures expanded and dominated those near, or those who were weaker than them. In most cases, they did so violently, and made little attempt at conversion.

The concept of race was very different back then.. as was the understanding and application of morality.

This is simply another attempt to apply modern thinking to history, and it shows a total ignorance for how society has developed over time.



It's not about defending Churchill. His use of chemical weapons in Africa, probably killed/hurt more people than the Black & Tans in Ireland.

It's about understanding and appreciating that people in the past lived in different times. We are (now) living at a point where a huge degree of moral advancement has been applied in our education, and used to steer society towards believing a 'right' way to live, and interact with other cultures/societies.

This superiority complex that many have about being 'enlightened' (compared to historical figures) is flawed, and merely seeks to avoid fixing the problems that continue to exist in modern society, instead, passing blame on to the past.

Yeah I agree for the most part about not trying to apply current views to figures of the past.

But.

I just said the man was a white supremacist. I think that's pretty inarguable given his rhetoric.

Furthermore even for his time he was more extreme than most:

Churchill's views on race as a whole were judged by his contemporaries, within the Conservative Party itself, to be extreme;[502] he once described Indians as "a beastly people with a beastly religion".[503] His personal doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races that: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin".[503] In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" because he opposed immigration from the West Indies.[504] Churchill held a hierarchical perspective of race,[505] believing white people were most superior and black people the least.[506][507][502] He advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Caribbean, the Americas and India, believing that British imperialism in its colonies was for the good of the "primitive" and "subject races".[507][508] During an interview in 1902, while discussing his views on the Chinese, Churchill stated that the "great barbaric nations" would "menace civilised nations", but "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph".[509]

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

Yeah I agree for the most part about not trying to apply current views to figures of the past.

But.

I just said the man was a white supremacist. I think that's pretty inarguable given his rhetoric.

Furthermore even for his time he was more extreme than most:

Of course he was a white supremacist.

The vast majority of people of his time would have been supremacists too. That was how they were educated. To believe that their culture was superior, and that they, as English (or whatever national/cultural group) people, had a duty to spread their culture abroad. You would have found a similar ideology in the powerful in Germany, or Japan during the same period. Even at a "worker" level, there would have been likely the same degree of superiority, as they read about their Empires expansion over barbarians, or their cultural enemies.

However, being a white supremacist meant different things back then, than it does today. It was far more connected to cultural superiority than actual race. We live in a world that has been shaped by the attempted genocide of the Jews. It has molded our thinking, our laws, and our morality. Churchill and others, didn't have that conditioning. They didn't live in an age of easy access to information. They were limited to the resources available to them, and those resources would have been controlled in a large degree by the forces within their own culture. (the Newspapers, 'approved' literature, the influence of the 'classics', etc)

We often take for granted the sheer amount of information that is available to us. We know what Marxism consisted of, because we have easy access to both the source material, but also accounts by others both within the movement, and externally. Few people at the time of Churchill would have had anything close to the same access that we do. Which is probably why National socialism or communism gained so much support. It wasn't easy to compare accounts of what it meant, and it's implications on the world.

But yes, he was a white supremacist. But then, I figure most people were. Or at least they viewed their own race or cultural group as being superior.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course he was a white supremacist.

The vast majority of people of his time would have been supremacists too. That was how they were educated. To believe that their culture was superior, and that they, as English (or whatever national/cultural group) people, had a duty to spread their culture abroad. You would have found a similar ideology in the powerful in Germany, or Japan during the same period. Even at a "worker" level, there would have been likely the same degree of superiority, as they read about their Empires expansion over barbarians, or their cultural enemies.

However, being a white supremacist meant different things back then, than it does today. It was far more connected to cultural superiority than actual race. We live in a world that has been shaped by the attempted genocide of the Jews. It has molded our thinking, our laws, and our morality. Churchill and others, didn't have that conditioning. They didn't live in an age of easy access to information. They were limited to the resources available to them, and those resources would have been controlled in a large degree by the forces within their own culture.

We often take for granted the sheer amount of information that is available to us. We know what Marxism consisted of, because we have easy access to both the source material, but also accounts by others both within the movement, and externally. Few people at the time of Churchill would have had anything close to the same access that we do. Which is probably why National socialism or communism gained so much support. It wasn't easy to compare accounts of what it meant, and it's implications on the world.

But yes, he was a white supremacist. But then, I figure most people were. Or at least they viewed their own race or cultural group as being superior.

Japanese people still believe their own culture is better. Japanese society is insular

Chinese people commit to the greater good theory and the CCP is intertwined through business and personal life

Strict Muslim states and societies believe the path of Islam is the only one worth following and all disbelievers are infidels.

There are plenty more examples.

Whether political, societal or religious these beliefs of superiority still exist throughout the world but it's only the white man and woman who are wrong and must be sorry.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Whether political, societal or religious these beliefs of superiority still exist throughout the world but it's only the white man and woman who are wrong and must be sorry.

TBH I'm not quite sure what your point is. (in relation to my post)

It was western/white culture that originally pushed the idea, that White people should feel guilt over colonialism, slavery, imperialism, etc. The other racial groups have simply taken advantage of that movement for collective guilt, and double standards.

And within Asia, Japan are held up for guilt over their actions in China, just as the Germans are held up for guilt over their actions in WW2. I don't see anything similar in Africa, but then, they seem to have a different perspective on guilt over genocide. Probably because they've engaged in more of them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

silverharp wrote: »

deffo didnt see this coming lol

https://twitter.com/GarbyJooman3/status/1360524268979822595

There’s a storyline on Modern Family from around the second season where Cam and Mitchell are told they are a shoo-in for the last place at some exclusive nursery school because they are a gay couple with a adopted child from Vietnam. Until in through the door arrives a mixed race lesbian couple where one half of the couple is in a wheelchair and their adopted baby is African. They are trumped in the diversity stakes. So this was the kind of thing that was parody a decade ago but is now just happening. :pac: Rarely, I’m sure, and probably just in liberal bastions like San Francisco but still though, it’s amusing.

Barna77

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There’s a storyline on Modern Family from around the second season where Cam and Mitchell are told they are a shoo-in for the last place at some exclusive nursery school because they are a gay couple with a adopted child from Vietnam. Until in through the door arrives a mixed race lesbian couple where one half of the couple is in a wheelchair and their adopted baby is African. They are trumped in the diversity stakes. So this was the kind of thing that was parody a decade ago but is now just happening. :pac: Rarely, I’m sure, and probably just in liberal bastions like San Francisco but still though, it’s amusing.

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that haha

Rodney Bathgate

A bit like the CHAZ/CHOP committee selection criteria that was shared at the time.

MisterAnarchy

Perhaps the tide is turning ?

https://foxhole.news/2021/02/14/government-launches-war-on-woke-to-defend-free-speech-and-british-heritage/

Boris Johnson’s government is hitting back at woke culture warriors with a two pronged counter-attack that will rein in the politically correct virtue signalling of public bodies and protect academic freedom on British campuses.

The culture secretary Oliver Dowden is set to warn heritage groups to cut out the politically correct nonsense and focus on protecting Britain’s heritage at a major summit next week, according to reports in The Telegraph.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson is hitting back too, with plans to introduce a new Free Speech Champion with powers to protect open discourse on British campuses and sanction those who want to shut down others.

MisterAnarchy

The Equalizer Tv series has been reimagined, it now centers on an enigmatic woman (Queen Latifah) with a mysterious background who uses her extensive skills to help those with nowhere else to turn.
It is as bad as it sounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9BrCdQqIM

Agenda before logic.

Rodney Bathgate

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The Equalizer Tv series has been reimagined, it now centers on an enigmatic woman (Queen Latifah) with a mysterious background who uses her extensive skills to help those with nowhere else to turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws9BrCdQqIM

Agenda before logic.

There is a thread on this on TV forum. Apparently it is tripe and about to be cancelled. It has a 4.1 rating on IMDb.

Invidious

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Apparently it is tripe and about to be cancelled.

Oh, the irony...

ExMachina1000

Invidious wrote: »

Oh, the irony...

Lol.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course he was a white supremacist.

The vast majority of people of his time would have been supremacists too. That was how they were educated. To believe that their culture was superior, and that they, as English (or whatever national/cultural group) people, had a duty to spread their culture abroad. You would have found a similar ideology in the powerful in Germany, or Japan during the same period. Even at a "worker" level, there would have been likely the same degree of superiority, as they read about their Empires expansion over barbarians, or their cultural enemies.

However, being a white supremacist meant different things back then, than it does today. It was far more connected to cultural superiority than actual race. We live in a world that has been shaped by the attempted genocide of the Jews. It has molded our thinking, our laws, and our morality. Churchill and others, didn't have that conditioning. They didn't live in an age of easy access to information. They were limited to the resources available to them, and those resources would have been controlled in a large degree by the forces within their own culture. (the Newspapers, 'approved' literature, the influence of the 'classics', etc)

We often take for granted the sheer amount of information that is available to us. We know what Marxism consisted of, because we have easy access to both the source material, but also accounts by others both within the movement, and externally. Few people at the time of Churchill would have had anything close to the same access that we do. Which is probably why National socialism or communism gained so much support. It wasn't easy to compare accounts of what it meant, and it's implications on the world.

But yes, he was a white supremacist. But then, I figure most people were. Or at least they viewed their own race or cultural group as being superior.

So we excuse Churchill and other British people from their genocidal crimes while holding up Germans who did similar as evil?

AckwelFoley

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

There is a thread on this on TV forum. Apparently it is tripe and about to be cancelled. It has a 4.1 rating on IMDb.

They can make this woke **** and try and feed it to people. But you can't force them to eat it

Rodney Bathgate

AckwelFoley wrote: »

They can make this woke **** and try and feed it to people. But you can't force them to eat it

Doesn’t stop them trying.

ExMachina1000

AckwelFoley wrote: »

They can make this woke **** and try and feed it to people. But you can't force them to eat it

Female Ghostbusters was where they should have learned their lesson.

Give the masses what they want not what the minority of screaming idiots demand

gw80

Batrachotox wrote: »

The nazi comparison is pretty meaningless but Churchill was a genuine white supremacist in fairness.

"I do not admit...for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race...has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

You won't find me coming to the defense of the lad who oversaw the introduction of the Black & Tans to Ireland

On the face of it then, Oswald mosley would have been a better PM,
He detested the black and tans and was vocal about it in the house of commons,
Didn't want a war with Germany that would have saved thousands of lives.
Didn't want mass migration into Europe but did want to see Africans and Indians to prosper in their own country's.
But yet Mosley is vilified and churchill an icon,

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

So we excuse Churchill and other British people from their genocidal crimes while holding up Germans who did similar as evil?

Auschwitz, Belson to name but two mass extermination centres that were spawned by Hitler's hatred.

So no you can't compare, before you jump in with the usual "but the British did X", remember the Nazis did the killing on an industrial scale, Stalin and Pol Pot were not too far behind

Wibbs

Zebra3 wrote: »

So we excuse Churchill and other British people from their genocidal crimes while holding up Germans who did similar as evil?

I would compare them in imperial ideology and much of their racial ideology too and attitudes to the "foreign". Where they differed is while the British had more than their fair share of massacres and atrocities, the German version went full genocide on top. As Dolanbaker notes they went industrial.

Just one correction, Belsen was a concentration camp, not an extermination camp. It was originally set up as a camp to hold prisoners, majority Jews, as hostages that might be exchanged for captured Germans. It was actually initially considered to be a "soft camp". Later on it took more and more from other camps, Russian POWs, Jews, Poles, Czechs, anti nazi religious people, Roma. Tens of thousands died from mistreatment, hunger and disease as the war progressed and towards its end supplies pretty much shut down. Over ten thousand men women and children died after liberation. They were too far gone to save.

A relative of mine was there as part of the relief teams during the first weeks of liberation and the stories of what he saw... It haunted him to the marrow. He was a very gentle type of a man. A raised tone would come as a shock from his mouth. But he hated Germans until the day he died. He knew it was illogical and wrong, but he just couldn't get past that experience.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

So we excuse Churchill and other British people from their genocidal crimes while holding up Germans who did similar as evil?

Sure, we do. WW2 ended European attitudes towards a master race, and the acceptance of any degree of genocidal tactics.

What? You want to go back throughout history, and deal with all the genocides, ethnic cleansing, and mass deportations? Would you manage to do so unbiased and in a balanced manner? I doubt it.

You going to deal with the firebombing of Japanese cities specifically targeting civilians? Or jump back further to Shaka Zulu, with their complete destruction of huge regions of territory creating a deadzone and buffers? Or any of the Chinese Empire dynasties which squashed other cultural groups both within and outside their territories?

When do you start and when do you stop.. and whose morality do you apply? western morals and values?

History is history. Can't change it. It's too late to deal with the people involved..

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Auschwitz, Belson to name but two mass extermination centres that were spawned by Hitler's hatred.

So no you can't compare, before you jump in with the usual "but the British did X", remember the Nazis did the killing on an industrial scale, Stalin and Pol Pot were not too far behind

Of course you can compare the two.

The British and Germans both occupied foreign lands, committed ethnic cleansing and genocide.

The British killed about four million in India during WWII yet it never gets a mention in documentaries.

Genocide is genocide.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, we do. WW2 ended European attitudes towards a master race, and the acceptance of any degree of genocidal tactics.

What? You want to go back throughout history, and deal with all the genocides, ethnic cleansing, and mass deportations? Would you manage to do so unbiased and in a balanced manner? I doubt it.

You going to deal with the firebombing of Japanese cities specifically targeting civilians? Or jump back further to Shaka Zulu, with their complete destruction of huge regions of territory creating a deadzone and buffers? Or any of the Chinese Empire dynasties which squashed other cultural groups both within and outside their territories?

When do you start and when do you stop.. and whose morality do you apply? western morals and values?

History is history. Can't change it. It's too late to deal with the people involved..

WWII didn't end European attitudes towards a master race.

The French were straight back into Indo-China to continue their supremacist occupation. They also wanted to continue their occupation of Algeria. The British were happy to deposes the natives of the Chagos of their land, and they were happy enough to deny civil rights and one person one vote to Irish Catholics/nationalists within NI.

As for the rest of your ill-informed rant, I don't know what any of it has to do with pointing out that we shouldn't be excusing genocide, but if it made you feel better, I hope you enjoyed it.

Rodney Bathgate

gw80 wrote: »

On the face of it then, Oswald mosley would have been a better PM,
He detested the black and tans and was vocal about it in the house of commons,
Didn't want a war with Germany that would have saved thousands of lives.
Didn't want mass migration into Europe but did want to see Africans and Indians to prosper in their own country's.
But yet Mosley is vilified and churchill an icon,

Yeah, I’m sure the Jewish people in the UK would have been better off under Mosley. They would have been shipped to the Reich for ‘processing’ under any deal between Mosley and Hitler.

Not to mention that without Britain on the Allied side the convoys to supply the Soviets wouldn’t have happened, no defeat of Rommel, US may have focused all attention on Japan, likely no invasion of Sicily, no D-Day landings etc.

We’d probably all be speaking Russian.

FFS, we’ll see some Stalinists in here praising the Man of Steels virtues next. Worse than Hitler indeed.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

WWII didn't end European attitudes towards a master race.

What? On the day the war ended, all attitudes towards a master race dissolved? Hardly. But it became damn hard to justify having such beliefs, and created the foundation for social/cultural change.

The French were straight back into Indo-China to continue their supremacist occupation. They also wanted to continue their occupation of Algeria. The British were happy to deposes the natives of the Chagos of their land, and they were happy enough to deny civil rights and one person one vote to Irish Catholics/nationalists within NI.

haha.. no sorry.. I don't buy it. Colonialism.. is not always about supremacy. Sometimes it is... other times it's about prestige and economics.

"By and large, the mission civilisatrice was a thin facade. The real motive for French colonialism was profit and economic exploitation.

French imperialism was driven by a demand for resources, raw materials and cheap labour. The development of colonised nations was scarcely considered, except where it happened to benefit French interests.

In general, French colonialism was more haphazard, expedient and brutal than British colonialism. Paris never designed or promoted a coherent colonial policy in Indochina. So long as it remained in French hands and open to French economic interests, the French government was satisfied."

You might want to consider the demand for rubber in the world market during and following WW2. That's why France returned to Vietnam. To exploit their colonies, with the aim of feeding monies back into France to aid in redevelopment after the war.

The French had colonies in Vietnam and Algeria, which they returned to. I'm not seeking to excuse how they behaved either there or in Algeria, but you need to show a lot more to link it to "white supremacy". (and you're suggesting more than a link, but rather the purpose of their presence there was their supremacy)

As for the rest of your ill-informed rant, I don't know what any of it has to do with pointing out that we shouldn't be excusing genocide, but if it made you feel better, I hope you enjoyed it.

Well.. you could show me where I'm ill-informed, rather than simply claiming that I am. What is factually incorrect about what I said? And there's nothing of a rant in my post. You might want to recheck your understanding of the word.

It related directly to your previous post, which I quoted. Don't like what I wrote, deal with it rather than dismissing it.

Wibbs

Zebra3 wrote: »

WWII didn't end European attitudes towards a master race.

Oh it didn't, at least in the immediate aftermath, but what Hitler's rampage did do was effectively put the final nails in the coffin of Western European overseas empires and the US the Soviets took over that power vacuum(the war also killed off the Japanese imperial ambition). With the British empire while there had been various uprisings throughout(the Boer war an obvious one) the rise of Germany on the European stage leading to the first world war was one major stressor, even though the "British" won it. Ireland was the first to take her chance and kick them out and literally on their doorstep. The United Kingdom wasn't so united any more. Without WW1 it's likely that would have been on the long finger. In the inter war years India also saw her chance and gained some concessions, but the rise of Hitler really copperfastened the British decline.

The serious fear they had of Hitler and him winning and the desperate need they had to keep America on side led them to sign the '41 Atlantic Charter that was a brainchild of Roosevelt, which set out the rights of nations to be sovereign as they saw fit after the war was over. Bye bye British empire. That's how much they were crapping themselves over the Austrian Corporal. Post war up to their eyes in debt they were on rations watching nation after nation stand up and say feck off, we have our country back.

It went similarly enough for the French empire. The Japanese invading Indochina and the locals resistance to that, with little French help emboldened them to realise they could tell the French to feck off, just as much as the Japanese and post war they did. Then America came with freedom bullets and they told them to feck off too.

Hitler was a thunderous cnut of the highest order but he did two good things; he killed Hitler and he broke the back of western European imperialism. Ironically while he was trying to gain one for Germany closer to home.

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Yeah, I’m sure the Jewish people in the UK would have been better off under Mosley. They would have been shipped to the Reich for ‘processing’ under any deal between Mosley and Hitler.

Not to mention that without Britain on the Allied side the convoys to supply the Soviets wouldn’t have happened, no defeat of Rommel, US may have focused all attention on Japan, likely no invasion of Sicily, no D-Day landings etc.

We’d probably all be speaking Russian.

FFS, we’ll see some Stalinists in here praising the Man of Steels virtues next. Worse than Hitler indeed.

Actually, without Britain, Germany would likely have won... because the US would have remained neutral without Churchills attempts to get them involved. There wouldn't have been any submarine warfare in the Atlantic, so no excuse for the US to get involved. Which means no supplies being sent to supplement Soviet arms production. It would have been a war in the pacific rather than a war in Europe.

So, we'd probably be speaking English, under occupation by British forces.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, without Britain, Germany would likely have won... because the US would have remained neutral without Churchills attempts to get them involved. There wouldn't have been any submarine warfare in the Atlantic, so no excuse for the US to get involved. Which means no supplies being sent to supplement Soviet arms production. It would have been a war in the pacific rather than a war in Europe.

So, we'd probably be speaking English, under occupation by British forces.

Stalin showed that he was willing to sacrifice untold millions to stay in power. The supplies from the allies aided the soviet victory but the Soviet’s were always going to defeat Germany. Without the other allies, it might have taken an extra 2 years or more but defeat for Germany was inevitable once he invaded the Soviet Union.

gw80

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Yeah, I’m sure the Jewish people in the UK would have been better off under Mosley. They would have been shipped to the Reich for ‘processing’ under any deal between Mosley and Hitler.

Not to mention that without Britain on the Allied side the convoys to supply the Soviets wouldn’t have happened, no defeat of Rommel, US may have focused all attention on Japan, likely no invasion of Sicily, no D-Day landings etc.

We’d probably all be speaking Russian.

FFS, we’ll see some Stalinists in here praising the Man of Steels virtues next. Worse than Hitler indeed.

I'm not praising Mosley at all, I'm saying as bad as he was if we were to take his manifesto and his statements at face value he does come across as a better human than churchill' if you know what I mean

Rodney Bathgate

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Stalin showed that he was willing to sacrifice untold millions to stay in power. The supplies from the allies aided the soviet victory but the Soviet’s were always going to defeat Germany. Without the other allies, it might have taken an extra 2 years or more but defeat for Germany was inevitable once he invaded the Soviet Union.

I don't think so. There was too much in the way of resources/supplies, and information heading into the Soviet Union from the Allies, in addition to the naval support they received. Without fearing Britain or the US, Germany would have been able to free up a rather hefty chunk of it's forces, in addition to Italy being able to direct more forces to the theater.

The truth is nobody knows what could have happened. Had German forces freed and armed the Russian peasantry, they'd likely have won within months. As it is, they lost, but they lost more due to lack of equipment and resources than their initial ability to combat Russian forces. It took the Soviets a rather long time to change from a mob into a force capable of countering German advances.

Sir Oxman

"Our mission statement commits to preparing equity-minded leaders in the field of education"
We all should know what THAT means

i mean, how many here have had mandatory courses at work in DIE.
In Ireland.

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1359261711207964672/photo/2

biko

https://twitter. com/KilljoyLottie/status/1360307592883564547

This girl seems fine with a black actress playing a white part, until it hits here where she lives.

MisterAnarchy

biko wrote: »

This girl seems fine with a black actress playing a white part, until it hits here where she lives.

I dont really see the fuss about this.

Didn't we have a version of the The Three Musketeers back in the 80's where the whole cast was portrayed by dogs.
Not very historically accurate if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9J2ITspyU

biko

Of course now the voice actors must be the same colour as the dogs. White voice actors cannot portray black dogs anymore.

RandRuns

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I dont really see the fuss about this.

Didn't we have a version of the The Three Musketeers back in the 80's where the whole cast was portrayed by dogs.
Not very historically accurate if you ask me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9J2ITspyU

Do you think they made the Three Musketeers with animated dogs in order to make some point?

Because that's exactly what they do when they cast black actors to play white historical figures. If they weren't trying to make a point, then we'd see an equal amount (or any example at all) of historically black figures being played by white people in modern productions - and before you post some white guy in blackface from the 1930's, don't waste your time, as this would simply prove the point rather than disprove it - black actors playing historically white parts is the modern equivalent of blackface.

MisterAnarchy

RandRuns wrote: »

Do you think they made the Three Musketeers with animated dogs in order to make some point?

There could have been some intent in it.
I had a Red Setter at the time and I felt that he was very upset that the villain of the piece Cardinal Richlieu was portrated by a Red Setter .
Come to think of it the Man with the Black Moustache, that definitely could have racial connotations too.