Dynamo

[Eaststand]

Same old .Old. Old.
Wonder what people make if us then, with our history of slavery and empire-building and exploitation?

Powerful and awesome and the creators of the western world.

[The Tick]

The germans learnt a valuable lesson from WWII. Britain got drink on its moral but pyrrhic victory and has doted on it ever since. Like a drunk old actor who was once famous but now lives on that one hit many moons ago.

[antdad]

...and the "we" should really be "they" won the war. The tens of millions of Russians and Chinese that died, the U.S that fed, watered as well as armed the UK and it's allies. The UK was just a ring girl until the proper combatants decided to enter.

[Royal24s]

...and the "we" should really be "they" won the war. The tens of millions of Russians and Chinese that died, the U.S that fed, watered as well as armed the UK and it's allies. The UK was just a ring girl until the proper combatants decided to enter.

That's an entirely warped view which you may have got from George Galloway.
It's historically very wrong.

[Royal24s]

Same old .Old. Old.
Wonder what people make of us then, with our history of slavery ,empire-building and exploitation?

Dunno.. or our history of spreading literacy, transport, food sufficiency and the rule of law.

You're far less forgiving about Britain than you are of others aren't you ?

Recently you've written off German attrocities during WW2, ( including the holocaust), the enslavement of African Americans , the KKK and Russian spies working to make possible a nuclear strike on this country as quite piffling because they were 40 years ago, but you still want to vilify Britain for occasional slight excesses 140 years ago.

Have you ever stopped to think what the different things you support or excuse all have in common ?

[subsub]

...and the "we" should really be "they" won the war. The tens of millions of Russians and Chinese that died, the U.S that fed, watered as well as armed the UK and it's allies. The UK was just a ring girl until the proper combatants decided to enter.

That's an entirely warped view which you may have got from George Galloway.
It's historically very wrong.

But it's a given, isn't it, that without the support of the Allies, the UK would have been absolutely fucked?

[Eaststand]

well of course.

It was a team effort.

Thats not to denigrate the effort we put in.

In reality, we would have been all completely fucked if Stalin didnt throw millions and millions of his troops to their death.

[Hillman avenger]

Same old .Old. Old.
Wonder what people make of us then, with our history of slavery ,empire-building and exploitation?

Dunno.. or our history of spreading literacy, transport, food sufficiency and the rule of law.

You're far less forgiving about Britain than you are of others aren't you ?

Recently you've written off German attrocities during WW2, ( including the holocaust), the enslavement of African Americans , the KKK and Russian spies working to make possible a nuclear strike on this country as quite piffling because they were 40 years ago, but you still want to vilify Britain for occasional slight excesses 140 years ago.

Have you ever stopped to think what the different things you support or excuse all have in common ?

So you have done it again,
Making stuff up so you can criticise.
Of course I condemn what Germany did in the war. Never suggested anything else.
But I reject viewing them now through that prism. It is an entirely different society ( which, by the way, did NOT form the EU).
My point is that we cannot go on dealing with other nations based on what they did 75 years ago. And by the way, there was much in our treatment of people ( including our own) to be criticised much more recently than 130 years ago.

[subsub]

Same old .Old. Old.
Wonder what people make of us then, with our history of slavery ,empire-building and exploitation?

Dunno.. or our history of spreading literacy, transport, food sufficiency and the rule of law.

You're far less forgiving about Britain than you are of others aren't you ?

Recently you've written off German attrocities during WW2, ( including the holocaust), the enslavement of African Americans , the KKK and Russian spies working to make possible a nuclear strike on this country as quite piffling because they were 40 years ago, but you still want to vilify Britain for occasional slight excesses 140 years ago.

Have you ever stopped to think what the different things you support or excuse all have in common ?

So you have done it again,
Making stuff up so you can criticise.
Of course I condemn what Germany did in the war. Never suggested anything else.
But I reject viewing them now through that prism. It is an entirely different society ( which, by the way, did NOT form the EU).
My point is that we cannot go on dealing with other nations based on what they did 75 years ago. And by the way, there was much in our treatment of people ( including our own) to be criticised much more recently than 130 years ago.

Exactly. Saying that we need to keep our eye on Germany today because of Hitler's mob is a disgraceful thing to say, actually.

[Royal24s]

Same old .Old. Old.
Wonder what people make of us then, with our history of slavery ,empire-building and exploitation?

Dunno.. or our history of spreading literacy, transport, food sufficiency and the rule of law.

You're far less forgiving about Britain than you are of others aren't you ?

Recently you've written off German attrocities during WW2, ( including the holocaust), the enslavement of African Americans , the KKK and Russian spies working to make possible a nuclear strike on this country as quite piffling because they were 40 years ago, but you still want to vilify Britain for occasional slight excesses 140 years ago.

Have you ever stopped to think what the different things you support or excuse all have in common ?

So you have done it again,
Making stuff up so you can criticise.
Of course I condemn what Germany did in the war. Never suggested anything else.
But I reject viewing them now through that prism. It is an entirely different society ( which, by the way, did NOT form the EU).
My point is that we cannot go on dealing with other nations based on what they did 75 years ago. And by the way, there was much in our treatment of people ( including our own) to be criticised much more recently than 130 years ago.

Well you know Churchill got exactly the same sort of critisism when he issued similar warnings a couple of decades after Germany's previous attacks on mainland Europe, and during the last 2,000 years there have always been those who've believed that they'd changed their ways.
That's the danger of not studying history you see, and the reason why
" Hillman's 40 Year Rule" is such a terrifying delusion.

[antdad]

...and the "we" should really be "they" won the war. The tens of millions of Russians and Chinese that died, the U.S that fed, watered as well as armed the UK and it's allies. The UK was just a ring girl until the proper combatants decided to enter.

That's an entirely warped view which you may have got from George Galloway.
It's historically very wrong.

Which bit?

[Royal24s]

All of it really.
I wouldn't know where to start.
The Russians might well have succumbed to Barberosa in 1941 without the Atlantic conveys sending them arms, ammunition ,planes and tanks. Thus the reverse is perhaps the case.

The turning point came at Alamein without even American troops and certainly no Russian contribution. The Germans were going backwards from then on.

I don't feel up to writing a long explanation which you won't even read, but the likelihood is that we would certainly have beaten Germany eventually, although it probably would have run into the early fifties without the USA.

The Russians certainly drew German resources away from the Western front, but the reverse is equally true and their barbaric tactics killed far more of their own men in the process than the Germans ever could have. They hastened the end, but certainly never took the initiative or held the whip hand in the eventual outcome.

I mean, I don't wish to demean their undoubted courage and sacrifice, or disrespect their contribution, but this idea that they'd have beaten Hitler on their own or that we would not have done so without them is a ridiculous falsehood propogated by leftist propogandists after the event.

[The Tick]

It's also a myth that the UK won it by themselves. Without Soviet or American entry to the European theatre of WWII, the UKs chances of surviving the war were grim indeed.

[shabbado]

All of it really.
I wouldn't know where to start.
The Russians might well have succumbed to Barberosa in 1941 without the Atlantic conveys sending them arms, ammunition ,planes and tanks. Thus the reverse is perhaps the case.

The turning point came at Alamein without even American troops and certainly no Russian contribution. The Germans were going backwards from then on.

I don't feel up to writing a long explanation which you won't even read, but the likelihood is that we would certainly have beaten Germany eventually, although it probably would have run into the early fifties without the USA.

The Russians certainly drew German resources away from the Western front, but the reverse is equally true and their barbaric tactics killed far more of their own men in the process than the Germans ever could have. They hastened the end, but certainly never took the initiative or held the whip hand in the eventual outcome.

I mean, I don't wish to demean their undoubted courage and sacrifice, or disrespect their contribution, but this idea that they'd have beaten Hitler on their own or that we would not have done so without them is a ridiculous falsehood propogated by leftist propogandists after the event.

Contemptuous verbiage

[Royal24s]

Yeah, that's why I didn't bother to explain it in any detail. You just carry on thinking what you think about it.