FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > white history month
white history month
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Living it would have to be Her Maj QEII. Quiet influence for over 60 yars. ................ " I misread that as 'quiet flatulence'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Living it would have to be Her Maj QEII. Quiet influence for over 60 yars. ................ I misread that as 'quiet flatulence'." That too.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill" There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something " The one who spawned a religion was probably not very white. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here goes, I hope I can put my choices down without being slated... HM Queen Elizabeth II Margaret Thatcher, Baroness of Kesteven Alice Pyne, BEM" Big  from me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something The one who spawned a religion was probably not very white." Oooooo controversial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something The one who spawned a religion was probably not very white. Oooooo controversial. " And also true..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something The one who spawned a religion was probably not very white." Very very few of us, if any, are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something The one who spawned a religion was probably not very white." Jews ain't white? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. " I've read the black history month thread and no-one has so far disagreed with any one person's choice of a person of influence...strange how it happens in less than 20 posts on a white history thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Katie Piper" I always get her mixed up with Katie Price so thought you were taking the piss at first! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. I've read the black history month thread and no-one has so far disagreed with any one person's choice of a person of influence...strange how it happens in less than 20 posts on a white history thread "I seem to remember some posts being removed at the time I started the thread and then it settled down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. " Churchill was the most influential, nobody did more to destroy the Nazis. I am bemused by the poster who says that he was backward thinking! No he wasn't, he was a great visionary.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I rather admire the late great Divine, sadly who left this world too early. Wish our lives had crossed over more. Charles Darwin - a great mind, and pioneer. " Darwin is the one we remember but it always reminds me of Alfred Russell Wallace of the Wallace collection fame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. I've read the black history month thread and no-one has so far disagreed with any one person's choice of a person of influence...strange how it happens in less than 20 posts on a white history thread
I seem to remember some posts being removed at the time I started the thread and then it settled down."Fair dos, I've just contributed this time round on both threads, hope it's similar on this one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The guy that put the "GREAT" in Britain." great in Britain refers to size as In greater | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" My mum. " What a great lady. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis" They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west." The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.." Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post?" Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? " I don't think that was implied. Of course not. Maybe Trotsky though, and certainly Marx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? " Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? I don't think that was implied. Of course not. Maybe Trotsky though, and certainly Marx "You are right I wasn't saying that..but lets not get confused..the op said white, not British..many historians agree that Stalin shaped and influenced the USSR from the thirties through to the early fifties, creating the cold war, and subsequently influencing global political strategies post war until the eighties.Churchill's influence was never global, indeed post war he was effectively marginalised. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill" The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on Y fronts..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war IN Y fronts..." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts..." Was responding to the claim that Churchill did most to destroy the Nazis, not how ethically that was achieved..2.7 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front..the numbers speak for themselves in indicating where the Germans were defeated...and if you interested in collateral damage not avoided, Churchill's part in the fiasco of Gallopoli is a good place to start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts... Was responding to the claim that Churchill did most to destroy the Nazis, not how ethically that was achieved..2.7 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front..the numbers speak for themselves in indicating where the Germans were defeated...and if you interested in collateral damage not avoided, Churchill's part in the fiasco of Gallopoli is a good place to start." The idea was Churchill's, to split the German army onto another front ... General Sir Ian Hamilton executed it badly.... With poor naval support....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts... Was responding to the claim that Churchill did most to destroy the Nazis, not how ethically that was achieved..2.7 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front..the numbers speak for themselves in indicating where the Germans were defeated...and if you interested in collateral damage not avoided, Churchill's part in the fiasco of Gallopoli is a good place to start. The idea was Churchill's, to split the German army onto another front ... General Sir Ian Hamilton executed it badly.... With poor naval support.... "Two fronts!..thought that was Napoleon and Hitler's mistake..Churchill pushed it through the War council without really assessing what was required, it was an amateur strategy..he paid the price, losing his political reputation and office..by the way, I am not touting Stalin as a hero..he was a brutal and cruel totalitarian dictator..Churchill certainly wasn't, it is historically incorrect to say Churchill did more yo destroy the Nazis than anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill" Churchill held Britain together after defeat in France if that had not been the case the Russians may well of been defeated by the Germans Ahhh Stalin Hittlers buddy invading Poland with him Churchill a true Great | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. " But a deserving Nobel prize winner who could paint, write books, kept bees n suffered wiv his 'black dog '. And of course hid wonderful quips! (at s dinner a woman exclaimed ' Mr Churchill, you are d*unk! ' without missing a beat he riposted ' madam, I may be d*unk, but in the morning I shall be sober, whereas YOU will still be ugly! ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill Churchill held Britain together after defeat in France if that had not been the case the Russians may well of been defeated by the Germans Ahhh Stalin Hittlers buddy invading Poland with him Churchill a true Great " Whoa..Nobody is denying Churchill's contribution, but surely any objective _iew of the defeat of Germany has to acknowledge the overwhelming part played by the USSR. 28 million military and civilians lost their lives. Their war was a total war, no Stalag Luft, no Colditz. The sieges of Moscow, Leningrad, Moscow, and Leningrad were repulsed by a combination of ideological brutality by Stalin, and incredible bravery by their citizens defending the Mother country against the cream of The Wehrmacht and SS. The casualties inflicted on Germany then and in the drive to Berlin ripped the heart out of the German war machine and proved decisive in its defeat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill Churchill held Britain together after defeat in France if that had not been the case the Russians may well of been defeated by the Germans Ahhh Stalin Hittlers buddy invading Poland with him Churchill a true Great Whoa..Nobody is denying Churchill's contribution, but surely any objective _iew of the defeat of Germany has to acknowledge the overwhelming part played by the USSR. 28 million military and civilians lost their lives. Their war was a total war, no Stalag Luft, no Colditz. The sieges of Moscow, Leningrad, Moscow, and Leningrad were repulsed by a combination of ideological brutality by Stalin, and incredible bravery by their citizens defending the Mother country against the cream of The Wehrmacht and SS. The casualties inflicted on Germany then and in the drive to Berlin ripped the heart out of the German war machine and proved decisive in its defeat." Defeat of the Germans was a joint effort by the allies the Russians played a major part in that defeat . However without the Brits & yanks ? Back to the original thread Nelson IKB Wellington Thatcher Watt Darwin Fleming ........... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts... Was responding to the claim that Churchill did most to destroy the Nazis, not how ethically that was achieved..2.7 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front..the numbers speak for themselves in indicating where the Germans were defeated...and if you interested in collateral damage not avoided, Churchill's part in the fiasco of Gallopoli is a good place to start. The idea was Churchill's, to split the German army onto another front ... General Sir Ian Hamilton executed it badly.... With poor naval support....
Two fronts!..thought that was Napoleon and Hitler's mistake..Churchill pushed it through the War council without really assessing what was required, it was an amateur strategy..he paid the price, losing his political reputation and office..by the way, I am not touting Stalin as a hero..he was a brutal and cruel totalitarian dictator..Churchill certainly wasn't, it is historically incorrect to say Churchill did more yo destroy the Nazis than anyone else. "Incorrect? No. Arguable? Yes. I will put Churchill's case. Imagine this. Had Britain been defeated or sued for peace in the summer of 1940, that would have left Hitler with pretty much a free hand in the east. He would not have had to leave divisions of elite troops in France building and defending the Atlantic wall, nor the Afrika Corps fighting Mussolini's battles against the British in the dessert. The Royal Navy would have been neutralised therefore making it impossible to get supply's to the Red Army via the Arctic convoy's. The other question worth asking is. With a defeated or neutralised Britain, would America have even entered the war in Europe? and even if they did, would it have been possible to invade France without Britain as a springboard? By the end of 1941 the Red Army was almost defeated and the Germans had laid siege to Moscow and Lenningrad, the latter not being lifted until January 1944, and without Britain (led by Churchill) holding out in the west, keeping a sizable part of the Wehrmacht, pinned down, and able to help suply the Russians, WW2 could have had a completely different ending. So my vote goes to Churchill, along with Her Maj. Margaret Thatcher, William Shakespeare, and my Mother. Oh, and anyone who thinks Stalin should even get a mention may as well say the same about Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot. Mass murderers the lot of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill Churchill held Britain together after defeat in France if that had not been the case the Russians may well of been defeated by the Germans Ahhh Stalin Hittlers buddy invading Poland with him Churchill a true Great Whoa..Nobody is denying Churchill's contribution, but surely any objective _iew of the defeat of Germany has to acknowledge the overwhelming part played by the USSR. 28 million military and civilians lost their lives. Their war was a total war, no Stalag Luft, no Colditz. The sieges of Moscow, Leningrad, Moscow, and Leningrad were repulsed by a combination of ideological brutality by Stalin, and incredible bravery by their citizens defending the Mother country against the cream of The Wehrmacht and SS. The casualties inflicted on Germany then and in the drive to Berlin ripped the heart out of the German war machine and proved decisive in its defeat. Defeat of the Germans was a joint effort by the allies the Russians played a major part in that defeat . However without the Brits & yanks ? Back to the original thread Nelson IKB Wellington Thatcher Watt Darwin Fleming ..........." Must be my rubbish posts not making myself clear, but can't recall posting that Brits and Americans contribution wasn't crucial..iterating I know, but my original post was responding to the statement that Churchill did more than anyone to defeat Nazism..that point I disagree with... I like your list, because you are sticking with the brief..ie ..influential! Darwin, Thatcher, Wellington, yes...Watt maybe, but would like to put a word in for Thomas Newcomen(he's local)...his beam engine was a precursor to Watt's invention, and was the first mechanical producer of energy..the rest is history | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. I've read the black history month thread and no-one has so far disagreed with any one person's choice of a person of influence...strange how it happens in less than 20 posts on a white history thread " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think History tells a different story..Stalin and the USSR destroyed the Nazis They certainly played a large part in it. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the tide turned against the Third Reich. Germany was overrun in 1945 by the Soviets from the east and the other Allies from the west. The USSR lost 28 million plus lives ..Germany lost 3 million on the Eastern front.. Not sure on the point you're making here in relation to the original post? Fair comment..it was responding to the post by 'Bertie Bollocks' who thought Churchill was the leader who did most to destroy the Nazis..couldn't possibly agree with that Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill Churchill held Britain together after defeat in France if that had not been the case the Russians may well of been defeated by the Germans Ahhh Stalin Hittlers buddy invading Poland with him Churchill a true Great Whoa..Nobody is denying Churchill's contribution, but surely any objective _iew of the defeat of Germany has to acknowledge the overwhelming part played by the USSR. 28 million military and civilians lost their lives. Their war was a total war, no Stalag Luft, no Colditz. The sieges of Moscow, Leningrad, Moscow, and Leningrad were repulsed by a combination of ideological brutality by Stalin, and incredible bravery by their citizens defending the Mother country against the cream of The Wehrmacht and SS. The casualties inflicted on Germany then and in the drive to Berlin ripped the heart out of the German war machine and proved decisive in its defeat. Defeat of the Germans was a joint effort by the allies the Russians played a major part in that defeat . However without the Brits & yanks ? Back to the original thread Nelson IKB Wellington Thatcher Watt Darwin Fleming ........... Must be my rubbish posts not making myself clear, but can't recall posting that Brits and Americans contribution wasn't crucial..iterating I know, but my original post was responding to the statement that Churchill did more than anyone to defeat Nazism..that point I disagree with... I like your list, because you are sticking with the brief..ie ..influential! Darwin, Thatcher, Wellington, yes...Watt maybe, but would like to put a word in for Thomas Newcomen(he's local)...his beam engine was a precursor to Watt's invention, and was the first mechanical producer of energy..the rest is history" I'm not saying you did I was opening up the debate , I thought that was the idea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill The Soviets lost more people... But surely a successful leader is judged on the collateral damage he avoids.... Besides, Hitler himself did more to destroy his own Reich by trying to do what Napoleon tried and, similarly spectacularly, failed... To fight a war on two fronts... Was responding to the claim that Churchill did most to destroy the Nazis, not how ethically that was achieved..2.7 million German soldiers were killed on the Eastern front..the numbers speak for themselves in indicating where the Germans were defeated...and if you interested in collateral damage not avoided, Churchill's part in the fiasco of Gallopoli is a good place to start. The idea was Churchill's, to split the German army onto another front ... General Sir Ian Hamilton executed it badly.... With poor naval support....
Two fronts!..thought that was Napoleon and Hitler's mistake..Churchill pushed it through the War council without really assessing what was required, it was an amateur strategy..he paid the price, losing his political reputation and office..by the way, I am not touting Stalin as a hero..he was a brutal and cruel totalitarian dictator..Churchill certainly wasn't, it is historically incorrect to say Churchill did more yo destroy the Nazis than anyone else.
Incorrect? No. Arguable? Yes.
I will put Churchill's case.
Imagine this. Had Britain been defeated or sued for peace in the summer of 1940, that would have left Hitler with pretty much a free hand in the east. He would not have had to leave divisions of elite troops in France building and defending the Atlantic wall, nor the Afrika Corps fighting Mussolini's battles against the British in the dessert. The Royal Navy would have been neutralised therefore making it impossible to get supply's to the Red Army via the Arctic convoy's.
The other question worth asking is. With a defeated or neutralised Britain, would America have even entered the war in Europe? and even if they did, would it have been possible to invade France without Britain as a springboard?
By the end of 1941 the Red Army was almost defeated and the Germans had laid siege to Moscow and Lenningrad, the latter not being lifted until January 1944, and without Britain (led by Churchill) holding out in the west, keeping a sizable part of the Wehrmacht, pinned down, and able to help suply the Russians, WW2 could have had a completely different ending.
So my vote goes to Churchill, along with Her Maj. Margaret Thatcher, William Shakespeare, and my Mother.
Oh, and anyone who thinks Stalin should even get a mention may as well say the same about Hitler, Mao, or Pol Pot. Mass murderers the lot of them."Lots of ifs, and looking at history through Union Jack glasses....who is denying that Stalin was a mass murderer, but in case you have forgotten he was our ally in WW2..can't recall Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al ever be our allies.. and lest we forget 28 million Soviets died at the hands of the Nazis. Why be so defensive?..Churchill was a great war leader, and was pretty much the only UK politician to recognise the threat Hitler posed when appeasement was Uk Government policy, but my simple point, very simple, was in response to the post stating that Churchill did more than anybody to defeat Nazism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Following on from the black history month thread. Who is your most influential white person. Mine would be Churchill There are a hell of a lot of people who would profoundly disagree with that comment. A good war leader, a dreadfully conceited, backward-looking man who probably did more than any other to accelerate the loss of British influence in the world. I've read the black history month thread and no-one has so far disagreed with any one person's choice of a person of influence...strange how it happens in less than 20 posts on a white history thread "That may well be because perceived black history covers a much shorter time span than white history n therefore is subject to fewer choices of candidates?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maggie Thatcher for me a great leader this county as not been the same since she was in charge of the country "No, it hasnt- she ruined it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Lots of ifs, and looking at history through Union Jack glasses....who is denying that Stalin was a mass murderer, but in case you have forgotten he was our ally in WW2..can't recall Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et al ever be our allies.. and lest we forget 28 million Soviets died at the hands of the Nazis. Why be so defensive?..Churchill was a great war leader, and was pretty much the only UK politician to recognise the threat Hitler posed when appeasement was Uk Government policy, but my simple point, very simple, was in response to the post stating that Churchill did more than anybody to defeat Nazism" H'mmm. That's an interesting one. Stalin as an ally? I would argue that with friends like Stalin, who needs enemy's? Firstly, he did a cozy (but quite nasty) little deal with Hitler to carve up Poland and in the early days was an enthusiastic collaborator in the persecution of the Jews. I say that Churchill did do more than Stalin to defeat Hitler, if only because Britain stood alone while Stalin knifed everyone in the back. Secondly, one of the main reasons that the Wehrmacht went through Russia like a dose of salts in 1941 was because during the 30's Stalin's paranoia had decimated the officers and staff of the Red Army in his famous purges. Thousands of senior and junior officers were either executed or sent to the Gulags leaving very few experienced ones to face the Germans. It was only later that people like Zhukov, Konev, and others came to the fore. As a footnote, Zhukov didn't learn that Hitlers body had been found in Berlin and most of it (including Hitlers jawbone in a jewelry box) was spirited back to Moscow by the NKVD until almost 20 years later. Once again Stalin's paranoia kicked in and he had to make Zhukov look a failure. Lastly (for now) Stalin's behavior towards his allies and his own Red Army towards the end of the war was nothing short of despicable. Not only did he manage to deceive an ailing Roosevelt (and it has to be said Churchill) at Yalta about his intentions towards eastern Europe, but he sent tens if not hundreds of thousands of his own troops to their unnecessary deaths for nothing more than his own post war political ambitions (and ego) Oh, and the last unanswered question of WW2. Who killed George S. Patton?" But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one." Oh I dunno: I'm torn between Walt Disney and Hanna-Barbera! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one. Oh I dunno: I'm torn between Walt Disney and Hanna-Barbera! "I dribbled some juice down my chin just now, haha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one. Oh I dunno: I'm torn between Walt Disney and Hanna-Barbera!
I dribbled some juice down my chin just now, haha "
Wilberforce? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley" He makes nice Jam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley He makes nice Jam. " Didn't he write a rare "Flyfishing" book? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley He makes nice Jam. Didn't he write a rare "Flyfishing" book?" No, he wrote Lord of the Rings didn't he? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sir Frank Whittle "Shame his work on the jet engine was dismissed and he never got the full glory he deserved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No one. Oh I dunno: I'm torn between Walt Disney and Hanna-Barbera!
I dribbled some juice down my chin just now, haha
Wilberforce?"I'm Maroon, so nope! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. " Er actually I THINK u will find it was the weather that finally gazzumped the Germans in Russia. Just the same as it did for Napoleon! Stalin dismissed human lives as 'canon fodder ' - tactic he may have picked up from Britain's treatment of its infantry in WW1 trenches. N lets NOT forget Britain was the first country to build a concentration camp AND has a long history if our own of persecuting the Jews. From some time around 13th century til Cromwell there were no Jews in Britain having all been eradicated!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley He makes nice Jam. Didn't he write a rare "Flyfishing" book? No, he wrote Lord of the Rings didn't he? "No it was fly fishing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? " Yes if he did exist he certainly wouldn't n WHITE being from middle east!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? " It suited The Church to show the image of the Son of God to be white. That also has the effect of reinforcing the idea that white is superior. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. Er actually I THINK u will find it was the weather that finally gazzumped the Germans in Russia. Just the same as it did for Napoleon! Stalin dismissed human lives as 'canon fodder ' - tactic he may have picked up from Britain's treatment of its infantry in WW1 trenches. N lets NOT forget Britain was the first country to build a concentration camp AND has a long history if our own of persecuting the Jews. From some time around 13th century til Cromwell there were no Jews in Britain having all been eradicated!! " Bloody hell, this thread is becoming quite a history lesson. You are quite right, the Russian winter of 1941/42 was one of the worst since records began and made a huge contribution to stalling the German advance. However I've always wondered how it would have panned out if the Germans would have had the troops, equipment, and supply's that were tied up in North Africa and France during that time. As for the persecution of the Jews in Britain and the rest of Europe, that mostly happened in the mid 14th century when they were blamed for the black death. Religious zealots, most notably the flagellants in modern day Germany blamed the Jews for poisoning wells and generally spreading the disease. Because of this and the extermination of Jewish communities across Europe, the Jews emigrated east, many settling in modern day Poland where they were if not welcomed, not persecuted either. What happened to their descendants in the mid 20th century I don't have to repeat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? It suited The Church to show the image of the Son of God to be white. That also has the effect of reinforcing the idea that white is superior. " I think you may find most(if not all) artists at that time in Europe had never seen a person of a different colour. I'd be amazed to see old aborigine paintings depicting a white person wouldn't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? It suited The Church to show the image of the Son of God to be white. That also has the effect of reinforcing the idea that white is superior. I think you may find most(if not all) artists at that time in Europe had never seen a person of a different colour. I'd be amazed to see old aborigine paintings depicting a white person wouldn't you?" The organised church hadn't yet taken Christianity to Australia. Countries where people hadn't seen white people were given images of Christ as a white person. Trade with the near East where skin tones are darker was not unknown. Christ is often depicted as blonde and blue eyed. You'll have your _iews and I'll have mine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? It suited The Church to show the image of the Son of God to be white. That also has the effect of reinforcing the idea that white is superior. I think you may find most(if not all) artists at that time in Europe had never seen a person of a different colour. I'd be amazed to see old aborigine paintings depicting a white person wouldn't you? The organised church hadn't yet taken Christianity to Australia. Countries where people hadn't seen white people were given images of Christ as a white person. Trade with the near East where skin tones are darker was not unknown. Christ is often depicted as blonde and blue eyed. You'll have your _iews and I'll have mine. " Indeed we do and long may that be the csae. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. " OK, try looking at it the other way around..the Soviet Union tied down in their own country the vast majority of the Wermacht ground forces for the best part of 4 years making them unavailable for operations in other theatres..... I'll try putting the stats in a different way... 80% of German losses in WW2 were incurred on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviet Union.... The Soviet regime was indeed an 'evil empire', but not to recognise the huge sacrifice made by millions of Soviet men and women in the defeat of Nazi Germany is baffling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Margaret Thatcher Sheldon cooper Bomber Harris" love the sheldon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wot no Ceasar? "You mean: Quid, nec Caesar?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain hardly "stood alone", as the more than half a million troops from India, the Caribbean, Australia, Canada etc would testify. The Polish flyers weren't half bad either - thousands of whom were shipped back to Stalin after the war never to he heard of again - on Churchill's direct intervention." 1,000s?? 139 Polish airmen fought in the Battle of Britain.They were fearless and had an exceptional success rate. But 1,000s? No chance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simon Cowell" Certainly influential. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That geezer that said stuff Got nailed to a cross of something " not white I'm afraid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologies for the confusion. Not just flyers, but thousands of Polish men (all arms) who had fought on the side of the Allies, including many of the heroic flyers who fought in the Battle of Britain were shipped from Britain post-war on Churchill's orders, even though he could be in little doubt as to their fate." Indeed.The Poles have never been recognised for their huge contribution in the war effort. However, I don't understand why the Labour Gov't carried out the repatriation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Britain hardly "stood alone", as the more than half a million troops from India, the Caribbean, Australia, Canada etc would testify. The Polish flyers weren't half bad either - thousands of whom were shipped back to Stalin after the war never to he heard of again - on Churchill's direct intervention." In Europe Britain a nation stood alone and as for the others you mention they were all part of the then British Empire or what was to become the Commonwealth. As for the Poles, along with free French, Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians and many others they were in very small numbers who had escaped to Britain after their own countries were overrun. Bottom line, no Britain, no Polish pilots. Many of the Poles returned voluntarily after the war, and many, including the CO of my old ATC squadron, stayed in Britain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apologies for the confusion. Not just flyers, but thousands of Polish men (all arms) who had fought on the side of the Allies, including many of the heroic flyers who fought in the Battle of Britain were shipped from Britain post-war on Churchill's orders, even though he could be in little doubt as to their fate.Indeed.The Poles have never been recognised for their huge contribution in the war effort. However, I don't understand why the Labour Gov't carried out the repatriation. " Fair point, Churchill didn't really have much time as PM. to send anyone back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jerry Springer he paved the way for others to come through like Jeremy Kyle. No seriously that is a tough question would struggle to answer that one about any race. " when I hear those 2 names mentioned together I hear a voice in my head shouting. ' with a belt of 20 rounds '  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley He makes nice Jam. Didn't he write a rare "Flyfishing" book? No, he wrote Lord of the Rings didn't he?
No it was fly fishing "No he was big in oil ...Dallas way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"J.R. Hartley He makes nice Jam. Didn't he write a rare "Flyfishing" book? No, he wrote Lord of the Rings didn't he?
No it was fly fishing
No he was big in oil ...Dallas way "Lol Milkman.Class. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enoch Powell " That's torn it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enoch Powell " It's all down hill from now.........  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simon Cowell Certainly influential. " N certainly an eejit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would you think that jesus was white? It suited The Church to show the image of the Son of God to be white. That also has the effect of reinforcing the idea that white is superior. I think you may find most(if not all) artists at that time in Europe had never seen a person of a different colour. I'd be amazed to see old aborigine paintings depicting a white person wouldn't you? The organised church hadn't yet taken Christianity to Australia. Countries where people hadn't seen white people were given images of Christ as a white person. Trade with the near East where skin tones are darker was not unknown. Christ is often depicted as blonde and blue eyed. You'll have your _iews and I'll have mine. " Lmao!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enoch Powell It's all down hill from now......... "Don't think those were his exact words .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. OK, try looking at it the other way around..the Soviet Union tied down in their own country the vast majority of the Wermacht ground forces for the best part of 4 years making them unavailable for operations in other theatres..... I'll try putting the stats in a different way... 80% of German losses in WW2 were incurred on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviet Union.... The Soviet regime was indeed an 'evil empire', but not to recognise the huge sacrifice made by millions of Soviet men and women in the defeat of Nazi Germany is baffling." Been out and just got back in, I meant to answer this one earlier. I certainly recognise the contribution of the Russian people in the defeat of Nazi Germany. What I strongly object to is the belittling of Churchill and the attempted canonisation of the evil butcher Stalin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"After a bit of thought and the debate on this thread. I suppose the most influential man of the 20th century would have to be, Gavrilo Princip." Was he the real cause of WW1 or just the excuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threads on race make me laugh. A simple question always turns into one massive long debate HA!" Yeah funny that. I wonder why....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. OK, try looking at it the other way around..the Soviet Union tied down in their own country the vast majority of the Wermacht ground forces for the best part of 4 years making them unavailable for operations in other theatres..... I'll try putting the stats in a different way... 80% of German losses in WW2 were incurred on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviet Union.... The Soviet regime was indeed an 'evil empire', but not to recognise the huge sacrifice made by millions of Soviet men and women in the defeat of Nazi Germany is baffling. Been out and just got back in, I meant to answer this one earlier. I certainly recognise the contribution of the Russian people in the defeat of Nazi Germany. What I strongly object to is the belittling of Churchill and the attempted canonisation of the evil butcher Stalin." Well I strongly challenge you to point where in any of my posts have I attempted to canonise Stalin or belittle Churchill, I thought we were having a mature discussion., sadly that's not the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enoch Powell It's all down hill from now.........
Don't think those were his exact words .. "wasn't that Eddie The eagle ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threads on race make me laugh. A simple question always turns into one massive long debate HA! Yeah funny that. I wonder why.... "Brilliant if you're a history buff though and haven't got the History channel! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Opera Is mine , oops wrong thread" Yep, Mozart and others is a good call. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kenny Everett " In the best possible taste. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. OK, try looking at it the other way around..the Soviet Union tied down in their own country the vast majority of the Wermacht ground forces for the best part of 4 years making them unavailable for operations in other theatres..... I'll try putting the stats in a different way... 80% of German losses in WW2 were incurred on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviet Union.... The Soviet regime was indeed an 'evil empire', but not to recognise the huge sacrifice made by millions of Soviet men and women in the defeat of Nazi Germany is baffling. Been out and just got back in, I meant to answer this one earlier. I certainly recognise the contribution of the Russian people in the defeat of Nazi Germany. What I strongly object to is the belittling of Churchill and the attempted canonisation of the evil butcher Stalin. Well I strongly challenge you to point where in any of my posts have I attempted to canonise Stalin or belittle Churchill, I thought we were having a mature discussion., sadly that's not the case." Really? Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? " "Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill" "You are right I wasn't saying that..but lets not get confused..the op said white, not British..many historians agree that Stalin shaped and influenced the USSR from the thirties through to the early fifties, creating the cold war, and subsequently influencing global political strategies post war until the eighties.Churchill's influence was never global, indeed post war he was effectively marginalised" Mission accomplished. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""But the USSR was our ally..2.4 million German troops perished on Soviet soil.. fact!...That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted the one of the most destructive dictatorship of the twentieth century doesn't alter that" On that you are correct. Stalin was our "ally" ( I just don't think he was a particularly good one) and if you use body count as the only measure then I suppose it could be argued that he or (as I would argue) the Russian people in spite of him, made the largest contribution. However Britain led by Churchill fought Nazi Germany for longer, in more theatres, and stood alone for more than a year. My measure of who made the largest contribution would certainly reflect that, and the certainty that Russia would have been totally defeated in late 1941 or early 1942 if Germany, free from its war against the British, would have been able to put the FULL might of the Wehrmacht against it. OK, try looking at it the other way around..the Soviet Union tied down in their own country the vast majority of the Wermacht ground forces for the best part of 4 years making them unavailable for operations in other theatres..... I'll try putting the stats in a different way... 80% of German losses in WW2 were incurred on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviet Union.... The Soviet regime was indeed an 'evil empire', but not to recognise the huge sacrifice made by millions of Soviet men and women in the defeat of Nazi Germany is baffling. Been out and just got back in, I meant to answer this one earlier. I certainly recognise the contribution of the Russian people in the defeat of Nazi Germany. What I strongly object to is the belittling of Churchill and the attempted canonisation of the evil butcher Stalin. Well I strongly challenge you to point where in any of my posts have I attempted to canonise Stalin or belittle Churchill, I thought we were having a mature discussion., sadly that's not the case. Really? Are you saying that Stalin is a greater white historical figure than Churchill..?? " "Well he certainly was if you were a Soviet citizen!..but that wasn't my point..i was simply making the point that his Soviet Union did more to destroy the Nazi regime than Churchill" "You are right I wasn't saying that..but lets not get confused..the op said white, not British..many historians agree that Stalin shaped and influenced the USSR from the thirties through to the early fifties, creating the cold war, and subsequently influencing global political strategies post war until the eighties.Churchill's influence was never global, indeed post war he was effectively marginalised" Mission accomplished." My posts 'Why be so defensive?..Churchill was a great war leader and was pretty much the only UK politician to recognise the threat posed by Hitler when appeasement was UK policy' 'That Stalin did, before the war and after, arguably fronted one of the most destructive dictatorships of the 20th century' 'The Soviet Union was indeed an'Evil empire' Hardly belittling Churchill or canonising Stalin! I won't say mission accomplished because I'm not on a childish mission, just attempting to have a rational discussion. I haven't, and wouldn't deny for one moment, that the contribution by the the UK, USA, and others was crucial in the defeat of Germany, indeed the opening of a second front by the Western Allies was desperately requested by the Soviets, but no matter how great a war leader Churchill was, and he was! and no matter how cruel, evil, mass murdering, Stalin was, and he was!..the facts are that 80% of German losses incurred in WW2 was on the Eastern Front. For the best part of four years the Soviet Union tied down the majority of the Wehrmachts ground forces making them unavailable for operations in other theatres. These are facts that Churchill himself acknowledged as decisive in the defeat of Nazism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Top gear team, The Queen, " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roald dahl newton einstein hitler" Hitler and roald Dahl in the same list pmsl | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boudica - queen of the Iceni. The first truly great woman." Still waiting for the second one... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"James Douglas Morrison. He cleansed the doors of perception apparently.." And the cold meats are the best from any supermarket. Paul Foot. Amazing satire and brave journalist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
