FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > British history

British history

Jump to: Newest in thread

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Did anyone see the documentary on the above subject on C4 last night?

Briefly it was how famous British people had statues for their good work for the nation.

Colston very charitable but no mention he was a slave trader.

Rhodes conquered southern Africa but was responsible for thousands of black killings and racism.

Nelson again married a slave masters daughter and went against Wilberforce.

Churchill hated "Indians and racism.

The programme was suggesting that this information should be taught in history - that these hero's were not absolutely perfect.

JRM defended Churchill although acknowledged he got it wrong in India, but that he should be forgiven because he did did a lot of good in the war.

Hitler when he took power did a lot of good. Germany was on its knees and he improved living standards for the German people before the war, but he also did many bad things and the German people know this. So to conclude we should know ALL the facts - good and bad?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

Do you think this is unique to Britain?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Do you think this is unique to Britain?"

Well they quoted Germany and how they dealt with the Kaisers & Hitler era's and how's it's in the public domains. But to answer your question - no it's not unique to Britain. But should we know all the history not just the good bits? I was not aware of a lot of issues raised!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

"History is written by the winners."

I watched it and was reminded of that truism.

We celebrate people for achievements we are proud of, and conveniently overlook those aspects which shame us.

Unlike countries that have been vanquished and forced to confront their misdeeds as part of their rehabilitation.

The UK remembers what it wants to remembers, which isn't necessarily the same as what actually happened.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think it is time to include the fact the slaves were delivered to slave forts in Africa by Arab and black people making profit from there eninies or just different tribes that were weaker than them.

Slavery is always portrayed as a white mans evil. Go back to the bible and we know it has gone in far longer than the shameful explotation of African people.

The other shameful thing it still goes on in many shapes and forms.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

""History is written by the winners."

I watched it and was reminded of that truism."

Interesting, but I would say untrue as an absolute. Modern history is written by the winners, and there is always great resistance to changing modern history while the winners remain in ascendance. However over millennia history gains perspective and balance. The question really should be 'is it too soon?' I would suggest that with the rise of fascism today it most certainly is in the case of Churchill it is, and to destroy a persons reputation because of the deeds of the in-laws (or even blood relatives) is well beyond disgusting and I wonder how many of those clamouring to tear down monuments to our national heritage would be able to withstand even a cursory glance at their family histories.

I am also reminded of a truism:

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

You build a better future by learning from history.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"You build a better future by learning from history."

True, but if you strip a country of its great leaders and heroes (which is what is being attempted) when you find you need such heroes and leaders to step up and defend the country, those who could potentially fill the role have no heroic leaders to emulate. In fact what they have is a distinct disincentive to take up the mantle of leader in time of adversary because of how past leaders and heroes have been treated. Every nation needs it great leader myths, if the stories are based in truth all the better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

How many people have heard of colston and rhodes let alone what they did ?

And is colstson a hero or leader ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Much of the modern wealth of Bristol, London, Liverpool and Glasgow stems from profits made on the backs of slaves.

Colston made a fortune and his name is plastered across Bristol on streets and buildings.

It was one of the things I noticed when I moved here.

The absence of any recognition of the role Bristol played in the slave trade.

No memorial, no mock-up slave ship, no museum.

Nothing.

Just the money set in stone by those who profited.

Now the city has a mayor who is descended from slaves.

Why was the trade abolished?

Because those in power feared a revolt among the masses in Britain who were appalled by what they learned about the conditions Africans were being transported in.

If they can do that to Africans, they can do it to you.

Still, the establishment made sure they lined the pockets of the traders first.

In return for the loss of their "property", the UK Government borrowed 40 per cent of its entire annual budget and used it to pay compensation to the slave owners.

MPs, Bishops and the like.

The debt was paid off only in 2015.

Not a penny went to a slave.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"How many people have heard of colston and rhodes let alone what they did ?

And is colstson a hero or leader ?"

Yea, who has heard of Cecil Rhodes...

The man Rhodesia was named after...

Maybe most of us are slightly better educated than you.

Colston is dealt with in the post above, Ill take payment on the nail.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"How many people have heard of colston and rhodes let alone what they did ?

And is colstson a hero or leader ?

Yea, who has heard of Cecil Rhodes...

The man Rhodesia was named after...

Maybe most of us are slightly better educated than you.

Colston is dealt with in the post above, Ill take payment on the nail."

You assume I don’t know ... but I suspect many don’t. I suspect many couldn’t tell you which country Rhodesia *became*

And if you did you’d know there was some racial tension there.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orestersCouple over a year ago

The Forest

If every statue erected was done so on the basis of a person's entire life history, nobody would get one. Many statues are of people from different times, where different things were acceptable. I don't think they should be torn down if they did a small amount of bad but a big amount of good. Ghandi, for example, is still lauded as a great peacemaker and general all round good guy, but he was notoriously racist against black Africans.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

In school we were taught about Churchill ordering widespread bombing of civilians in Germany first, before UK blitzs yet how few people in the UK know that?, of how the bouncing bomb would have killed thousands of ordinary people, of flawed personalities. Of good and bad, worldwide problems. About the slave trade. Yet the UK has statues to the people who ordered great suffering.

Some of my ancestors were slaves- white ones from white slavers. Maybe some countries/schooling give better over views of modern history .

Some UK Victorian industrial cities still display their slaver roots in the city architecture- black boy slaves at the feet of white men. I think people should look, remember and reflect on the past.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"You assume I don’t know ... but I suspect many don’t. I suspect many couldn’t tell you which country Rhodesia *became*

And if you did you’d know there was some racial tension there. "

Funny how it is OK for you to assert that most would not know something but you feel my questioning why you would make such an assertion as insulting enough for you to respond to my assumption while doubling down on your original assertion. By the way my comment was predicated on the fact that your assertion implies you have only just learned something I had read about long before starting secondary school.

Maybe that was down to me learning geography and history through curiosity driven by wanting to know about the places the stamps I collected came from.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"In school we were taught about Churchill ordering widespread bombing of civilians in Germany first, before UK blitzs yet how few people in the UK know that?, of how the bouncing bomb would have killed thousands of ordinary people, of flawed personalities. Of good and bad, worldwide problems. About the slave trade. Yet the UK has statues to the people who ordered great suffering.

Some of my ancestors were slaves- white ones from white slavers. Maybe some countries/schooling give better over views of modern history .

Some UK Victorian industrial cities still display their slaver roots in the city architecture- black boy slaves at the feet of white men. I think people should look, remember and reflect on the past."

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"You build a better future by learning from history.

Nobody is suggesting stripping a nation of its hero's - but a true account of their deeds. Let's just be honest and informed before we decide how great they are. I had no idea that Churchill disliked India and it's population. It does give me a different outlook on the man. Should there be a statue - well that's not our decision - governments make those.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London? "

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

Hamburg was the biggest single loss of civilian life- 37,000 in only a few hours and more than half the city destroyed. All in all, Germany lost nearly 700,000 civilians (I think- long time since school) to targeted civilian area bombing.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I seem to remember something about a German bomb being dropped on a port near Edinburgh by mistake (think the aircraft was going down) and killing some civilians very early in the war and Churchill took it as a reason to bomb industrial targets in Germany with high numbers of surrounding civilians in early May 1940 the within days, the German planes hit London.

It seems churlish to define human suffering by collateral damage vs targeted damage. People died. Egos inflated. Psychopaths had free reign.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

Not a penny went to a slave.

Do you expect the Italians to pay reparations for the invasion of Britain? How about the French in 1066? What about the Danes, are they responsible for the crimes of the Vikings?

On this forum the other day people were arguing who had lived on the land that makes up modern day Israel the longest, the Jews or the Arabs. Well human history is made up of migration, immigration, conquerers and the the conquered.

Look at places like the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Central and South America, the Caribbean etc. How many of those have been invaded and had lands claimed as their own by non-natives.

It would be wrong to say that the transatlantic slave trade is more special than anything else, and that their descendents are deserving of reparations when others are not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I seem to remember something about a German bomb being dropped on a port near Edinburgh by mistake (think the aircraft was going down) and killing some civilians very early in the war and Churchill took it as a reason to bomb industrial targets in Germany with high numbers of surrounding civilians in early May 1940 the within days, the German planes hit London.

It seems churlish to define human suffering by collateral damage vs targeted damage. People died. Egos inflated. Psychopaths had free reign."

During WWII, if your bomb hit within 5 miles of the target, it was considered a hit. Anymore than 5 miles was a miss.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

Not a penny went to a slave.

Do you expect the Italians to pay reparations for the invasion of Britain? How about the French in 1066? What about the Danes, are they responsible for the crimes of the Vikings?

Look at places like the US, Canada, Australia, NZ, Central and South America, the Caribbean etc. How many of those have been invaded and had lands claimed as their own by non-natives.

It would be wrong to say that the transatlantic slave trade is more special than anything else, and that their descendents are deserving of reparations when others are not. "
well said

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

What about the delightful Simon De Montfort who has a British University named after him and who murdered and expelled Jews from Leicester and stole whatever he could. Might as well call it Hitler University.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

I've no doubt Churchill was a racist, a tyrant and a bully. In a life and death struggle against fascism, it was what the country needed to survive.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"What about the delightful Simon De Montfort who has a British University named after him and who murdered and expelled Jews from Leicester and stole whatever he could. Might as well call it Hitler University. "

It's not as catchy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London?

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

You needed to pay more attention at school!

Rotterdam was attacked by the Germans in May 1940. Despite negotiations that the city would surrender peacefully, the Luftwaffe carried out the attack, killing some 900 civilians.

Bomber Command battle orders weren't changed in order to allow area bombing until December 1940. The first such attack was carried out against Mannheim on December 16th 1940, by which time some 20000 Londoners had already been killed in the ongoing blitz!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Much of the modern wealth of Bristol, London, Liverpool and Glasgow stems from profits made on the backs of slaves.

Colston made a fortune and his name is plastered across Bristol on streets and buildings.

It was one of the things I noticed when I moved here.

The absence of any recognition of the role Bristol played in the slave trade.

No memorial, no mock-up slave ship, no museum.

Nothing.

Just the money set in stone by those who profited.

Now the city has a mayor who is descended from slaves.

Why was the trade abolished?

Because those in power feared a revolt among the masses in Britain who were appalled by what they learned about the conditions Africans were being transported in.

If they can do that to Africans, they can do it to you.

Still, the establishment made sure they lined the pockets of the traders first.

In return for the loss of their "property", the UK Government borrowed 40 per cent of its entire annual budget and used it to pay compensation to the slave owners.

MPs, Bishops and the like.

The debt was paid off only in 2015.

Not a penny went to a slave.

When did you move to Bristol?

I remember seeing an exhibition at the M Shed on the role Bristol played in the transatlantic slave trade at least 25 years ago. It is still there today.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It seems churlish to define human suffering by collateral damage vs targeted damage. People died. Egos inflated. Psychopaths had free reign.

During WWII, if your bomb hit within 5 miles of the target, it was considered a hit. Anymore than 5 miles was a miss. "

Initially, the bombs just targeted ships at sea for that reason. Then quite quickly ( in the UK vs Germany) it was land based. More and more targets were near civilian hones but Churchill targeted Rotterdam as the first civilian-only target.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

So much bullshit in this post I need to break it down!

"Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill."

Really!

And there was me thinking that it was the Germans who bombed Rotterdam on the 14th May 1940 during their invasion in order to force the Netherlands (a neutral country to capitulate). How about I go back to the German bombing of Warsaw and other cities in the invasion of Poland that resulted in the UK and France declaring war on Germany? Guess they were mistakes too. I think I need to go back further even further and remind you of the GERMAN Condor Legion and their development of strategic bombing of civilian populations to force military capitulation and Guernica.

"The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental."

See above! Apparently he did order the formation of the einsatzgruppen, the building of the death camp or the extermination of those he considered racial inferiors either. He just provided the leadership and encouraged the atmosphere that lead to these things happening. But nothing to do with him! Give me a break you nazi appoligist!

"Hamburg was the biggest single loss of civilian life- 37,000 in only a few hours and more than half the city destroyed. All in all, Germany lost nearly 700,000 civilians (I think- long time since school) to targeted civilian area bombing."
And there was me thinking that over a million Jews were systematically murdered in Auschwitz Birkenau.

"It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

That is partially true, the raid was know about. Not through enigma but through the discovery of the German bomber navigation targeting system. A decision was made to not to evacuate Coventry because by the time the target was identified it was believed that more lives would be lost through panic if an evacuation was ordered than if preparations were made to deal with the bombing. Unfortunately it was not realised that the fire fittings used across the UK were all different as a result although there were 100's of fire appliances dispatched from around the country to fight the fires they were useless and a firestorm developed.

But hey, this post does not fit your Churchill was a murderous bastard who sacrificed for his aggrandisement and Hitler is so maligned shtick that I am sure you will ignore this post or just attack me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

It seems churlish to define human suffering by collateral damage vs targeted damage. People died. Egos inflated. Psychopaths had free reign.

During WWII, if your bomb hit within 5 miles of the target, it was considered a hit. Anymore than 5 miles was a miss.

And when did this supposed attack against Rotterdam by the RAF take place?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andACouple over a year ago

glasgow

It seems churlish to define human suffering by collateral damage vs targeted damage. People died. Egos inflated. Psychopaths had free reign.

During WWII, if your bomb hit within 5 miles of the target, it was considered a hit. Anymore than 5 miles was a miss.

I think you need to go back and read those history books. Germany bombed Rotterdamn in May 1940 destroying most of the city centre. Of course the Luftwaffe had previous for this having bombed Geurnica in the Spanish Civil War a few years beforehand.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They did but the distinction is that they were bombing legitimate targets. The allies bombed Rotterdam in 1943 and targeted the civilian population. As I said, the UK were first to bomb civilians rather than industrial or military targets.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So much bullshit in this post I need to break it down!

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

Really!

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

I take no sides.

I wasn't referring to Germany's blanket bombing of Europe, I was referring to the UK and the fact that Churchill ordered bombing of civilian populations first, rather than the English belief that England had the moral high ground. No country has in war.

As for Rotterdam, read above. I made the clear distinction that what I was referring to was civilian only targets rather than civilians being 'collateral damage', a cold hearted description if ever there was one.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orestersCouple over a year ago

The Forest

I take no sides.

Hang on a moment, this was a world war, not just England versus Germany. Churchill may have had a chequered past, but quite probably, his "type" of person was what the Allies needed to win the war. Wars involve loss, pain, death - all the nasty things and sometimes you need somebody nastier than the other guy to win them. The Allies, at various stages, included:-

France

Poland

Yugoslavia

Greece

Netherlands

Belgium

Luxembourg

Norway

Czechoslovakia

India

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

South Africa

Ethiopia

Brazil

Mexico

Philippines

Nicaragua

Panama

El Salvador

These nations, in general, have a lot to thank Churchill, and Britain, for regarding the war. Maybe not after, and possibly not before though

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Around Bristol most people know of Colston and how he made his money. Bristol has had several exhibitions about the role it played in the slave trade and I think in more recent years has been quite apologetic for it.

Cabot Circus was initially going to be called Merchants Quarter until somebody suggested this was honouring our slave trade past.

With regards to Colston hall/Street/school the notion of changing the names has been raised on a few occasions but has always been mooted by the public not wanting to airbrush over the history of Bristol. If they were ever to change these names then I'd imagine in two ir three generations time the name Colston and the role Bristol played in the slave trade would be long forgotten.

Ginger

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I take no sides.

very possibly but what I said was in reference to a comment preceeding it, specifically about Churchill, and how the victors write history.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

I take no sides.

very possibly but what I said was in reference to a comment preceeding it, specifically about Churchill, and how the victors write history.

I'm sorry but you are entirely wrong. The only things ever targeted in Rotterdam were the docks, shipping and motor torpedo pens. Allied forces carried out a total of 128 raids on Rotterdam, and civilian casualties numbered 884, most of these in a raid by the Americans that went wrong.

Trying to smear Churchill in this way is factually inaccurate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andACouple over a year ago

glasgow

"They did but the distinction is that they were bombing legitimate targets. The allies bombed Rotterdam in 1943 and targeted the civilian population. As I said, the UK were first to bomb civilians rather than industrial or military targets."

Legitimate targets? They were bombing the city centres targetting the population, not barracks, not dockyards, not airfields etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They were bombing the commercial centre of the city. Civilians were killed but were not the target, as such.

As far as I am concerned, there are no legitimate targets. The description is not mine and should have been put in quotation marks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"They were bombing the commercial centre of the city. Civilians were killed but were not the target, as such.

As far as I am concerned, there are no legitimate targets. The description is not mine and should have been put in quotation marks.

There are no legitimate targets in a war?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's not as catchy."

wouldnt do much for your CV

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So much bullshit in this post I need to break it down!

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

Really!

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

I take no sides.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"You assume I don’t know ... but I suspect many don’t. I suspect many couldn’t tell you which country Rhodesia *became*

And if you did you’d know there was some racial tension there.

Maybe that was down to me learning geography and history through curiosity driven by wanting to know about the places the stamps I collected came from. "
thats fair. My arguement comes from my belief this isn’t taught in schools etc. I’m Bristol burn and bees so knew about colston through that. You’ve leaned from extra curricular interest. Although you’re more likely to get a rounded view from self learning .... I’m guessing you learned about the flaws in their character as part of your research ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Wtf is burn and bees iPhone ?

Born and bred.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I’m guessing you learned about the flaws in their character as part of your research ?"

No, most I learned in school. Just as it was in school I learned that 'cash on the nail' came from the traders entering legal contracts by making cash transactions on the bronze flat head 'nails' outside the Bristol Corn Exchange.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I take no sides.

France

Poland

Yugoslavia

Greece

Netherlands

Belgium

Luxembourg

Norway

Czechoslovakia

India

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

South Africa

Ethiopia

Brazil

Mexico

Philippines

Nicaragua

Panama

El Salvador

These nations, in general, have a lot to thank Churchill, and Britain, for regarding the war. Maybe not after, and possibly not before though

Not really, the commonwealth countries were involved in the war to help Britain, not the other way round. They could just as easily have sat it out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"So much bullshit in this post I need to break it down!

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

Really!

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

I take no sides.

He didn't. The specific targets for each Bomber Command raid are well documented. It's a factually inaccurate smear campaign.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London?

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

Here we go again. Not sure how you manage to get so much wrong in thread after thread on here. There's a pattern to it all though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

That's the thing you cannot rewrite history good bad or indifferent x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London?

Rotterdam was the first attack on a specifically civilian population, ordered by Churchill.

The London Blitz wasn't ordered by Hitler and was actually against his express instructions. It was accidental.

It's also said the UK government knew of the impending bombing of Coventry but did nothing to alert the population (because they'd cracked the German code with the Enigma machine).

You needed to pay more attention at school!

Rotterdam was attacked by the Germans in May 1940. Despite negotiations that the city would surrender peacefully, the Luftwaffe carried out the attack, killing some 900 civilians.

You beat me to that about Rotterdam.

I didn't realise that Churchill had a few squadrons of Dorniers and Heinkels. LOL

However Bomber Command did attack many targets in the Ruhr long before December 1940. It was supposed to be "targetted" but the accuracy was so poor many civilians were killed.

The first deaths attributed to a British bombing raid were on the night of 3/4 September 1939 when a number of German navy sailors were killed at Wilhelmshaven in what was the first British air raid on Germany. BTW Chamberlain was still PM at the time. Not Churchill.

The first civilian killed in bombing raid was a shipyard worker at Scapa Flow killed in a German raid in October 1939.

Area bombing of cities pretty much started on day one of the war when Germany invaded Poland.

By May 1940 (when Churchill took the job) civilians had been killed in bombing raids by both sides.

To say that Churchill started it is absolute nonsense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We're talking about civilians being the primary target, not civilians being killed as a result of bombing of strategic targets. I stated that quite clearly.

Churchill bombed Berlin a day or so after a stray bomb at Rosyth caused the first death on the mainland. Before that, bombing had been light. Germany was hoping not involve the UK too much. A response on Berlin firmly nailed the UK flag to the mast.

What also isn't really understood is that England continued bombing civilian targets as a punitive exercise, rather than anything else, far longer than they might have. They did this in at least one other country and it resulted only in a hardening of attitudes towards the UK, as could be predicted.

War is a man's game. If they all learned to sit down and talk and leave each other alone, the world would be a safer place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"We're talking about civilians being the primary target, not civilians being killed as a result of bombing of strategic targets. I stated that quite clearly.

War is a man's game. If they all learned to sit down and talk and leave each other alone, the world would be a safer place. "

England didn't do anything, they don't have a military or a government.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"They were bombing the commercial centre of the city. Civilians were killed but were not the target, as such.

As far as I am concerned, there are no legitimate targets. The description is not mine and should have been put in quotation marks.

There are no legitimate targets in a war?"

Really?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Er no. Try again.

Maybe a stray bomb did kill someone in Rosyth but it had sod all to do with the RAF bombing Berlin.

The first British raid on Berlin was on the night of 25th August as a direct retaliation to the previous days (probably mistaken but nobody knew that then) raid on central and east London

By then the Germans had been deliberately bombing suburban areas around London for a couple of weeks, with the aim of creating a refugee problem prior to operation Sealion.

Maybe all of that doesn't fit the lets smear Churchill agenda, but facts have a very funny way of biting you on the arse.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Actually, Churchill ordered attacks on the Ruhr in May 1940 on industrial sites in the middle of cities but, being that there were no navigational aids to help the pilots actually target the precise areas, knew that a large amount of armament would fall in civilian areas. Within 2 weeks, they'd bombed 7 major cities and another 4 by the middle of June. Germany didn't begin to attack military or industrial targets in the UK until 6 weeks after their campaign in France had ended

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Actually, Churchill ordered attacks on the Ruhr in May 1940 on industrial sites in the middle of cities but, being that there were no navigational aids to help the pilots actually target the precise areas, knew that a large amount of armament would fall in civilian areas. Within 2 weeks, they'd bombed 7 major cities and another 4 by the middle of June. Germany didn't begin to attack military or industrial targets in the UK until 6 weeks after their campaign in France had ended"

If you look further up the thread you will find I beat you to that one.

Bombing of war effort industrial targets was legitimate and the Ruhr was, among other things, the centre of German coal and steel production.

Just for interest the first allied raid on Berlin was flown by a single French bomber.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

If you look further up the thread you will find I beat you to that one.

Bombing of war effort industrial targets was legitimate and the Ruhr was, among other things, the centre of German coal and steel production.

Just for interest the first allied raid on Berlin was flown by a single French bomber."

ABC doesn't believe ANY targets are legitimate in war

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

If you look further up the thread you will find I beat you to that one.

Bombing of war effort industrial targets was legitimate and the Ruhr was, among other things, the centre of German coal and steel production.

Just for interest the first allied raid on Berlin was flown by a single French bomber.

ABC doesn't believe ANY targets are legitimate in war

May as well not bother with the war and all go down the pub then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Just a small addition to the May 1940 raids on the Ruhr.

Those raids were the result of a direct request from the French in the (albeit mistaken) belief that it would draw men and equipment away from France.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

The"gloves came off" after the Luftwaffe attacked Rotterdam. Bomber Command was let off the leash and targets of importance were allowed. That DID NOT allow for targeted bombing of civilian areas.

It should be borne in mind that the RAF was ill equipped in 1940 to attack deep into Germany. Only when the "heavies" of Lancaster's, Stirling's and Halifaxes could they really take the war to Germany. The Luftwaffe could just hop over the channel from bases in France and the Low Countries, much easier for them especially with fighter escort.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So, you should, truthfully say, that Germany retaliated against England bombing them.

People died. That's all that really matters in all this.

I repeated the Rosyth story as I was taught it but accept that there are no online sources I can find and so, retract it, as it is something I have no evidence for.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" That DID NOT allow for targeted bombing of civilian areas."

Yes, it did. The RAF was directed to target industrial plants in civilian areas and did so wholeheartedly in at least 11 cities over May/early June. Civilians were known to be the 'collateral damage'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"So, you should, truthfully say, that Germany retaliated against England bombing them.

People died. That's all that really matters in all this.

I repeated the Rosyth story as I was taught it but accept that there are no online sources I can find and so, retract it, as it is something I have no evidence for."

Rosyth is in Scotland

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"So, you should, truthfully say, that Germany retaliated against England bombing them.

People died. That's all that really matters in all this.

I repeated the Rosyth story as I was taught it but accept that there are no online sources I can find and so, retract it, as it is something I have no evidence for."

The main German raids on Britain were part of operation Eagle which was primarily (at the start at least) to take the RAF out of the war.

Operation Sealion could not succeed without air superiority and the Germans fought pretty much the whole of the "Battle of Britain" with that aim. Bringing the RAF "up to fight" while destroying their bases and infrastructure was always the first consideration.

Prior to the Battle of Britain and what became known as the Blitz bombing raids between Britain and Germany were nothing more than minor skirmishes.

As said by another poster, the RAF didn't even have the aircraft at that time to do any serious damage to Germany.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

" That DID NOT allow for targeted bombing of civilian areas.

That's not the same as "targeting civilian areas"!

As we did during the London blitz, many women and children were moved out into the country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

" That DID NOT allow for targeted bombing of civilian areas.

Yep. Welcome to war.

Ever thought that Churchills idea of collateral damage was balanced with the thought of how many British civilians would be killed if Germany had actually invaded Britain? Or god forbid, we actually lost the war.

It's very easy to sit in 2018 with 20/20 hindsight and a keyboard. But have you ever thought about the people who were there at the time? The ones who didn't know if the Panzers were going to be rolling down Whitehall tomorrow or next week.

My mother always told me that her mother (my grandmother) told the kids that "if the Germans come we will all stick our heads in the gas oven" (quite ironic if you think about it)

But NO all you want to do is smear the name of the only man capable of holding the country together.

Remember from May 1940 to December 1941 Britain stood alone. The fear of invasion was very real and Churchill did what he had to do. Sometimes it was only a small token victory but public morale was all important, without it we were lost.

Churchill could see a much bigger picture and yes there was some "collateral damage" but the alternative didn't bear thinking about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The thread isn't about smearing names, it's about British history and, at least when I posted, it was about how history is written by the victors. Stick to that theme and understand the post in its context.

I have no doubt Churchill wanted to 'get in first', even though Germany was still hoping not to bring them in and what they did, is done. Nonetheless, he ordered attacks on civilians way beyond what is considered to be a war crime now.

There's a curious two-faced attitude about this in England right now, and I say England because I haven't come across it in the rest of the UK, between your hero Churchill and leaders of wars in other countries. Maybe Israel vs Palestine or Afghanistan vs US/USSR,the rest of the world. Who exactly merits the high ground in an all-out war? Neither side does but he who leads a country (especially if they win), despite what they do, is worshipped and the myths start

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"The thread isn't about smearing names, it's about British history and, at least when I posted, it was about how history is written by the victors. Stick to that theme and understand the post in its context.

Somehow I don't think Hitler occupied the high ground.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He did in Germany at that time and other parts of Europe, as did Churchill in the parts he was associated with. Don't forget Hitler was very popular and had massive support before the war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" That DID NOT allow for targeted bombing of civilian areas.

That's not the same as "targeting civilian areas"!

As we did during the London blitz, many women and children were moved out into the country."

I don't understand your point. The industrial plants were in civilian areas and with poor/no guidance at night, the bombs were certain to destroy large civilian areas.

However, I made it clear what I was initially referring to was Churchill's targeting of civilian areas in order to destroy as much as the population as possible. Initially to kill the work force, which didn't work as industrial production increased, but then just way beyond that, to punish.

There is no good and bad in war. Every leader orders awful things. Churchill was no different.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

Oh and here comes the familiar England bashing!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

Why not stick to historical facts rather than the assumption above that everything has been written by the victors (which is untrue anyway)? If that's the basis of your viewpoint then it's no wonder you struggle with the truth.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

Clcc it’s not worth talking to them they forget if it wasn’t for Churchill were would we all be now I think they wanted him to give hitter a cuddle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

There are COUNTLESS quotes from Churchill about his intentions which, even if put in context of a war, sound frankly, hideous and with the spectacles of present view, no less mad than some of Hitler's.

The historical FACTS are that in 1943, Bomber Command, under Churchill's control, unleashed an onslaught on German cities' populations, not targeting industrial or military targets, as had been done before, but purely on civilians. They broke the International Humanitarian Laws by bombing dams as well,(the intention being to cause massive loss of civilian life), something which the UK condemns other countries for doing now. Perhaps the UK has learned in 2018?

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Clcc it’s not worth talking to them they forget if it wasn’t for Churchill were would we all be now I think they wanted him to give hitter a cuddle "

No speed limit on the M6 and no immigration problem.Good beer and a great manufacturing and engineering sector.I think it wouldn't be all bad.Ok we would have to get used to the horrendously awful kraut cuisine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

Lmfaoooo ye but bob they wouldn’t get your crack tho

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Clcc it’s not worth talking to them they forget if it wasn’t for Churchill were would we all be now I think they wanted him to give hitter a cuddle

On that we agree. Anyone who has tasted the horrendous Sauerbraten will know what I mean.

To be fair the beer is very good though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told."

I've got over 50 books on WW2 in my library, some of them written by Russians, Germans etc. I know a lot about this subject.

Whatever though, we've been here before with your posts in this forum which lack any credibility or basis in fact. Your point about the RAF bombing civilians in Rotterdam before the Luftwaffe is just patently ridiculous and as usual you'll start moving goalposts when you realise you've been shown up (again).

Stay away from those conspiracy and hardcore Scottish nationalist websites. They're not really places to learn history from.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told."

We actually live in the heart of the Ruhr.

Compared to other parts of Germany it got off quite lightly. The Ruhr pocket, as it was known, was surrounded in early 1945 and surrendered without a fight.

Of course there was some damage and some civilian casualties but many parts of the "Ruhrpot" came away pretty much unscathed.

You still really haven't got a clue what the British people went through in those days.

What would you have done? invited Hitler for tea and cakes?

It was total war, a dirty war, started by the other side, and it had to be won.

Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt (later Trueman) all knew that it was never going to be won by being nice. How many more Jews do you think would have died in the camps if it had gone on for another 6 or 12 months? How many more British, American, and Russian soldiers would have died if had dragged on?

The strategic bombing campaign was part of the effort to defeat Germany as quickly as possible to, believe or not, SAVE lives.

There was a much bigger picture that for some (probably ideological) reason you refuse to see.

Your historically incorrect points are somewhere on the same level as Stan Boardmans "The Geermans bombed our chippy"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

I've got over 50 books on WW2 in my library, some of them written by Russians, Germans etc. I know a lot about this subject.

Stay away from those conspiracy and hardcore Scottish nationalist websites. They're not really places to learn history from.

Good post

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

I've got over 50 books on WW2 in my library, some of them written by Russians, Germans etc. I know a lot about this subject.

Stay away from those conspiracy and hardcore Scottish nationalist websites. They're not really places to learn history from.

I'm not sure what your problem is with comprehension but it's clouding your sanity, let alone judgement and frankly, that's a ridiculous statement.

I'm sorry if it damages your sense of self-importance or nationalism or whatever other nerve it touches but maybe you should keep this to within the thread and not let your reluctance or sheer inability to accept facts you don't like make you into someone I do hope you are not in real life.

It's not hard to find details about Churchill beginning the raids on civilians, either in Germany or Bulgaria. Why he did it is obvious and not my concern but the targeting of civilians goes against the belief and myth that England fought a fair war and 'did what was right' to protect itself. It did what it did to win. At any cost. That's an uncomfortable truth I find a lot of English unable to swallow. Peculiarly, not all the UK think that way. They see a man with faults who instructed terrible things and they frankly don't care that much what it took to win.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

I've got over 50 books on WW2 in my library, some of them written by Russians, Germans etc. I know a lot about this subject.

Stay away from those conspiracy and hardcore Scottish nationalist websites. They're not really places to learn history from.

What has scottish nationalist site have to do with this thread ? You seem obsessed about snp and come across as a troll

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Ah, paranoia. Probably why I found the difference lol.

Attack what you fear with exactly the kind of rhetoric you condemn. Says it all, really.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 31/05/18 19:10:33]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oncupiscentTonyMan over a year ago

Kent

Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads"

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some of my ancestors were slaves- white ones from white slavers. Maybe some countries/schooling give better over views of modern history .

Some UK Victorian industrial cities still display their slaver roots in the city architecture- black boy slaves at the feet of white men. I think people should look, remember and reflect on the past.

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London? "
.

Berlin, everybody knows that

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oxychick35Couple over a year ago

thornaby

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster"
so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong again...

In fact multiple posts above give you the dates for all events that contradict your assertion.

time for you to step away from the keyboard.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

[Removed by poster at 31/05/18 20:27:35]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *abioMan over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

erm..... i am a graduate of "HU".... can i call it that for short....

in our defence that was 750 years ago......

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenscentitCouple over a year ago

barnstaple

His story is just that- white male history. Same with statues on the whole - white men

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?"

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *imiUKMan over a year ago

Hereford

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster"

It's quite interesting how we need to make certain figures beyond criticism.

As I've said on other threads, plenty of my grandparents generation, who fought in WW2 despised Churchill.

I think it's possibly a cold war phenomenon.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him "

Exactly what sort of person do you think it takes to provide the backbone and leadership required to face down a tyrant like Hitler and then after him Stalin? do you really think a choirboy or nun would have the bloody-mindedness and ruthlessness needed? Or maybe you think that the world would be a better place if a Swastika was the predominant flag in the world and the blond headed Aryan people of the Third Rich ruled the world?

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

We actually live in the heart of the Ruhr.

Compared to other parts of Germany it got off quite lightly. The Ruhr pocket, as it was known, was surrounded in early 1945 and surrendered without a fight.

Of course there was some damage and some civilian casualties but many parts of the "Ruhrpot" came away pretty much unscathed.

You still really haven't got a clue what the British people went through in those days.

What would you have done? invited Hitler for tea and cakes?

It was total war, a dirty war, started by the other side, and it had to be won.

The strategic bombing campaign was part of the effort to defeat Germany as quickly as possible to, believe or not, SAVE lives.

There was a much bigger picture that for some (probably ideological) reason you refuse to see.

Your historically incorrect points are somewhere on the same level as Stan Boardmans "The Geermans bombed our chippy""

And which bit exactly is incorrect? It wasn't just the Ruhr that was targeted.

Of course war is dirty. However, you've lost track of my point,if you think it's based on some sort of ideology from me.

What IS it exactly that touches such a raw nerve to have it pointed out that he actually provoked the London Blitz? The thing that's seen as big bad Germany initiating? Or that Churchill was first to target a civilian population only? War is dirty, right?

In a war, a psychopath is the best person to lead and while I don't know if Churchill was- I suspect not- others certainly were on both sides. However, they're probably the last people to end it. Meanwhile, everyone else is just a means to an end and expendible.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him "

Who did he murder?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *edgehogMan over a year ago

Swansea

"I think it is time to include the fact the slaves were delivered to slave forts in Africa by Arab and black people making profit from there eninies or just different tribes that were weaker than them.

Slavery is always portrayed as a white mans evil. Go back to the bible and we know it has gone in far longer than the shameful explotation of African people.

The other shameful thing it still goes on in many shapes and forms."

White men weren't forced to buy slaves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Slavery would have been around as soon as there was enough of a population for one group to be aware of another ie, dawn of time. No population is free of it.

That Arabs were traders is well known but it was white people who bought Africans as slaves. Is the Arab input less than the white?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours. "

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

Slavery is always portrayed as a white mans evil. Go back to the bible and we know it has gone in far longer than the shameful explotation of African people.

The other shameful thing it still goes on in many shapes and forms.

White men weren't forced to buy slaves."

Black men weren't forced to sell them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd "

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?"

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Really? The atrocities are all there in black and white easy to find on google ,its just some dont like hearing the truth

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it "

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?"

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder? "

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders "

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?"

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia."

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language. "

So whats inaccurate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?"

Your use of the word murder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?

Your use of the word murder. "

Nah il stick by that,he was a murdering bstrd there you go cant make it any clearer than that for you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?

Your use of the word murder.

Nah il stick by that,he was a murdering bstrd there you go cant make it any clearer than that for you"

Yet you can't name the people he murdered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide. "

Well starving 3million is genocide and not forgetting all the other atrocities he committed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide.

Well starving 3million is genocide and not forgetting all the other atrocities he committed "

You really seem to be struggling with definition here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?

Your use of the word murder.

Nah il stick by that,he was a murdering bstrd there you go cant make it any clearer than that for you

Yet you can't name the people he murdered.

Thats probably the stupidest comment ive ever seen on the forum lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide.

Well starving 3million is genocide and not forgetting all the other atrocities he committed

You really seem to be struggling with definition here. "

Nah you just dont like the truth

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?

Your use of the word murder.

Nah il stick by that,he was a murdering bstrd there you go cant make it any clearer than that for you

Yet you can't name the people he murdered.

Thats probably the stupidest comment ive ever seen on the forum lol "

Yeah? You are sure that he murdered people, but you just don't know who? Try taking that to the police. It seems awfully strange that he was never arrested, charged or tried for murder.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide.

Well starving 3million is genocide and not forgetting all the other atrocities he committed

You really seem to be struggling with definition here.

Nah you just dont like the truth "

No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Beside the...

Eugenics

Bombing British Somaliland

Gassing Kurds in Iraq

Gallipoli

Black and Tans

Sending troops to break strikes in Glasgow

Bengal

Dresden

Indian independence

Oh and being a bit of a racist but other than that he was a great bunch of lads

Good to see someone tell the truth about churchill, he was a racist murdering warmongering monster so who would you of had leading us during the war then mother Theresa?

I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

Who did he murder?

If you read above youl see how many he murdered ,or just google and have a read about the atrocities he did,but im sure you already know all about it

Well there is a difference between an act of war and a murder. You specially said that he murdered people, so who did he, himself murder?

He gave the orders so he is responsible for the murders

I don't think you are grasping the legal intricacies and are being inaccurate with your use of language.

So whats inaccurate?

Your use of the word murder.

Nah il stick by that,he was a murdering bstrd there you go cant make it any clearer than that for you

Yet you can't name the people he murdered.

Thats probably the stupidest comment ive ever seen on the forum lol

Yeah? You are sure that he murdered people, but you just don't know who? Try taking that to the police. It seems awfully strange that he was never arrested, charged or tried for murder. "

Fck your scraping the barrel here,you know and i know he overseen the murders of so many ppl that makes him a murderer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I wouldnt have had a racist murderer but hey thats just my opinion of him

When one starts saying one would rather not have one leader in times of adversity one must consider the alternatives. A thing many refuse to do when making proclamations like yours.

If you read of the atrocities he done then he was just as bad as hitler,as i said earlier he was a murdering bstrd

Jesus, some people need to learn their history.

Oh pls say what part of what i said is wrong ?

Well the simple and most obvious one is that Hitler committee genocide, and Churchill didn't.

So starving 3million indians isnt genocide ?

"Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people(usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part"

Wikipedia.

Glad you understand so you agree he committed genocide

No, nothing Churchill did meets that definition. Hitler on the other hand did commit genocide.

Well starving 3million is genocide and not forgetting all the other atrocities he committed

You really seem to be struggling with definition here.

Nah you just dont like the truth

No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words. "

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong again...

In fact multiple posts above give you the dates for all events that contradict your assertion.

time for you to step away from the keyboard.

"
.

I seem to remember from the world at war series that the Berlin bombings started in August in a deliberate attempt to try to get the Luftwaffe to do the same and the blitz of London starting in September.

Hitler himself gave many speeches openly asking why Churchill is deliberately bombing Berlin and pointing out that if it continues retaliation will be inevitable?.

I think the bit most people miss is Churchill was indeed provoking Hitler into a civilian bombing campaign as civilians and civilian buildings are "not crucial" unlike airfields, radar towers, factories, generating stations etc etc, the more you blitz London the less resources you have to bomb stuff that we "need".

I could be wrong,I haven't watched the world at war for 20 years but that's how I remember it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?"

I think starving 3 million to feed an army in the field in order to stop the Japanese from successfully invading the Indian subcontinent then enslaving and killing 10's of millions of Indians is ruthless but not genocide. In fact it is because we had a leader who was willing to shoulder that sort of guilt and refuse to buckle that we and Europe are not part of the Third Rich or Greater Soviet State.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?

It doesnt matter if it was to feed an army to me its genocide and if it was someone from another country who did it yous would all be saying the same

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *illwill69uMan over a year ago

moston

"It doesnt matter if it was to feed an army to me its genocide and if it was someone from another country who did it yous would all be saying the same "

No, I would not. I would examine what was done, why it was done and what the alternatives and their consequences would be and judge accordingly. I would hope that if I were faced with the same sort of ethical dilemma that I would have the strength of character to make the place the good of the many before the needs of the few regardless of the number of the few, I suspect I may well not pass such a challenge.

And if you scratch a little too deep you will find I am a real old school bastard!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong again...

In fact multiple posts above give you the dates for all events that contradict your assertion.

time for you to step away from the keyboard.

Hitler himself gave many speeches openly asking why Churchill is deliberately bombing Berlin and pointing out that if it continues retaliation will be inevitable?.

I could be wrong,I haven't watched the world at war for 20 years but that's how I remember it"

We declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland in September 1939...part of Germany's invasion strategy of Poland included the bombing Polish cities by the Luftwaffe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

Some of my ancestors were slaves- white ones from white slavers. Maybe some countries/schooling give better over views of modern history .

Some UK Victorian industrial cities still display their slaver roots in the city architecture- black boy slaves at the feet of white men. I think people should look, remember and reflect on the past.

And which city did Churchill order to be bombed before Germany turned its 1940 attack on London? .

Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong. Check the dates.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong again...

In fact multiple posts above give you the dates for all events that contradict your assertion.

time for you to step away from the keyboard.

Hitler himself gave many speeches openly asking why Churchill is deliberately bombing Berlin and pointing out that if it continues retaliation will be inevitable?.

I could be wrong,I haven't watched the world at war for 20 years but that's how I remember it"

Absolute tosh!

1939

1 September Germany bombs Poland

1940

16 March Germany bombs Orkneys

19 March Britain bombs seaplane base

9 April Germany bombs Norway

10 May Germany bombs France, Belgium, Holland

11 May Britain bombs areas immediately behind the German lines

14 May Germany bombs Rotterdam

15 May Britain bombs military targets in Western Germany

7 September Germany commences area bombing against British cities

16 December Britain commences area bombing against German cities

So tell me, who was provoking who?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

It's you who are struggling with the truth lol.

The real shame, the information is not hard to find, instead you rely on myths and ignorance and possibly conceit, to stop you learning.

Churchill 'saved' the UK is a strong belief. But from what? Losing face? They then joined the EU....

The Ruhr had a population of at least 4 million people. The stories of the massive civilian loss of life brought about by the UK and allies has never really been told.

We actually live in the heart of the Ruhr.

Compared to other parts of Germany it got off quite lightly. The Ruhr pocket, as it was known, was surrounded in early 1945 and surrendered without a fight.

Of course there was some damage and some civilian casualties but many parts of the "Ruhrpot" came away pretty much unscathed.

You still really haven't got a clue what the British people went through in those days.

What would you have done? invited Hitler for tea and cakes?

It was total war, a dirty war, started by the other side, and it had to be won.

The strategic bombing campaign was part of the effort to defeat Germany as quickly as possible to, believe or not, SAVE lives.

There was a much bigger picture that for some (probably ideological) reason you refuse to see.

Your historically incorrect points are somewhere on the same level as Stan Boardmans "The Geermans bombed our chippy"

And which bit exactly is incorrect? It wasn't just the Ruhr that was targeted.

Of course war is dirty. However, you've lost track of my point,if you think it's based on some sort of ideology from me.

As I, and others, have pointed out almost everything you have said is incorrect. Jeez you even started by saying Churchill bombed Rotterdam FFS.

You then stated that Churchill bombed Berlin because of some bloke who was killed in Rosyth which is just laughable (to be fair you later backed down on that one)

Now you say that Churchill provoked the London blitz. I suppose there is a small grain of truth in that one. It could be said that he did provoke the blitz. BY REFUSING TO SURRENDER!

Of course it wasn't just the Ruhr that was targeted, but it was you who brought it up as your prime example.

The May 1940 raids on the Ruhr were primarily aimed at rail heads and oil depots. Now cast you eyes to the west and tell me what else was happening in May 1940. As always there is a much bigger picture. Had I answered about Berlin or Dresden you would have probably accused me of changing the subject.

Just another point. More American bombs were dropped on German cities than British. However not one post on here has mentioned Roosevelt.

What you ignored are the questions that I asked you. So once again.

How many more Jews do you think would have died in the camps if it had gone on for another 6 or 12 months? How many more British, American, and Russian soldiers would have died if it had dragged on?

Think carefully before you answer.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

Just having a censored perspective is unhelpful and it's generally helpful to learning from our personal and cultural lessons/mistakes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

And what people forget is, that until the end of 1942, we were losing the war. We were in a fight for our very existence. In fact, it could be argued that only some serious blunders by Hitler let us back in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The Jewish question is not anything to do with what I'm saying. That was definitely NOT what was a driving factor in 1940.

Neither was bombing of other countries by Germany.

I said I'd been taught that a stray bomb had killed a civilian at Rosyth but I can't find online information about that.

The first bomb to hit the city of London, with that same criteria, was a stray one on 25/25th August 1940. On the 25th August, the RAF hit Berlin and did so 4x, I think. They did little damage but made a huge psychological impact and incensed Hitler so much, the London Blitz ensued.

This is not what I was talking about. In 1943, Churchill ordered bombing of civilian areas purely to kill civilians and not only in Germany. The UK broke International Humanitarian Law by bombing dams. Up until then, there were rules of warfare- a strange concept in brutal circumstances, where industrial and military targets were legitimate, civilian only were not.. He, via Bomber Command, who definitely were lead by psychopaths, then went on to cause punitive harm. That it was used to slow industrial production is wrong- it was to punish.

It's not the right or wrong of it, it's the perception that Churchill fought 'fair' when in fact, the UK ordered the first civilian targeted strikes to Germany, rather than Germany to the UK. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And to be frank, the Jewish issue wasn't what was driving them in 1943. I'm not sure it drove them in 1945, either. Countries are much too selfish to save a population of people they themselves had persecuted for a thousand years or more. Concentration camp were an English 'invention', in Churchill's military day.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"The Jewish question is not anything to do with what I'm saying. That was definitely NOT what was a driving factor in 1940.

Neither was bombing of other countries by Germany.

I said I'd been taught that a stray bomb had killed a civilian at Rosyth but I can't find online information about that.

250 civilians were killed by German bombing in July 1940. On the 15th August 1940, 60 civilians were killed when a soap factory was hit in Croydon, London.

Facts are facts, and Bomber Command records are available in the National Archive. The Luftwaffe also kept extensive detailed records.

You do realise that for the first part of the war, Bomber Command crews were ordered not to bomb unless they had clear sight of the target, and were not to jettison bombs over land yet you keep on with this ridiculous and factually incorrect assertion that we purposely "targeted civilian areas".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And before the righteous on here rise and say the Jewish comments are my views, rather than their's, they are not. Winning the war was about so much more than that for England. Let's not go down that route of discussion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 01/06/18 07:46:48]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The Jewish question is not anything to do with what I'm saying. That was definitely NOT what was a driving factor in 1940.

Neither was bombing of other countries by Germany.

I said I'd been taught that a stray bomb had killed a civilian at Rosyth but I can't find online information about that.

250 civilians were killed by German bombing in July 1940. On the 15th August 1940, 60 civilians were killed when a soap factory was hit in Croydon, London.

Facts are facts, and Bomber Command records are available in the National Archive. The Luftwaffe also kept extensive detailed records.

You're not quite getting it. 1943 was not the first part of the war.

Everything else you write is irrelevant. Civilians were collateral damage, mostly from stray bombs from port or industrial targets , not targeted. That's not what I'm talking about. 1943 was a completely different stance.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Also, the first properly documented bomb (1) to fall on the City of London was 24/25th August.

No one action can be taken in isolation and maybe we should document the whole nasty business from the year dot to now. They did this, we did that, we did this, they did that. An attack on Berlin must have been planned for longer than 12 hours so what happened when doesn't really have much point. But STILL, this is not what I'm talking about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Berlin, everybody knows that

Wrong again...

In fact multiple posts above give you the dates for all events that contradict your assertion.

time for you to step away from the keyboard.

Hitler himself gave many speeches openly asking why Churchill is deliberately bombing Berlin and pointing out that if it continues retaliation will be inevitable?.

I could be wrong,I haven't watched the world at war for 20 years but that's how I remember it

Absolute tosh!

1939

1 September Germany bombs Poland

1940

16 March Germany bombs Orkneys

19 March Britain bombs seaplane base

9 April Germany bombs Norway

10 May Germany bombs France, Belgium, Holland

11 May Britain bombs areas immediately behind the German lines

14 May Germany bombs Rotterdam

15 May Britain bombs military targets in Western Germany

7 September Germany commences area bombing against British cities

16 December Britain commences area bombing against German cities

So tell me, who was provoking who?

"
.

It's impossible to talk with somebody who starts with the line absolute tosh!.... It's just too factual for me

Too be honest I thought we were talking about the deliberate bombing of civilians and civilian areas ie the blitz.

If that's not the case I bow to your superior knowledge of ww2 bombing raids

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"The Jewish question is not anything to do with what I'm saying. That was definitely NOT what was a driving factor in 1940.

Neither was bombing of other countries by Germany.

I said I'd been taught that a stray bomb had killed a civilian at Rosyth but I can't find online information about that.

Firstly it wasn't "a stray bomb" that hit London on the 24th August. It was a group of aircraft that dropped their full load. To be fair they were almost certainly off course and most believe that the pilots thought they were ditching their bombs over the Thames estuary. However that information only came to light after the war. At the time it was seen as a deliberate attack.

The British response on the 25th was a small raid which targeted Tempelhof airport and (I think) the Seimens factory. It wasn't a targeted attack on the civilian population.

While very little was known about the camps in 1940 the point is that shortening the war was the prime concern in the later years.

But back to 1940.

Britain was alone, there was no Russia, in fact at that time Stalin and Hitler were cosying up to each other and carving up Poland between them. The Americans didn't enter the war until December 1941 and did nothing of much use in Europe until well into 1942.

Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of tons of allied shipping was being sent to the bottom of the Atlantic by the U Boat packs. Technically merchant seamen were civilians as well.

What was Britain supposed to do? Sit there and wipe its mouth?

No we attacked. We attacked the infrastructure that supplied the U Boats and the Luftwaffe. We attacked the factories that were supplying the Afrika Corps who we were fighting in the desert. When you attack infrastructure and factories then of course civilians are going to be killed.

Also public morale played a very important part. People who were being attacked wanted to know that we were "giving some back" Sounds heartless now but I'm sure the families of the sailors, the people of the East End, and pretty much the whole population who were living on almost starvation rations didn't think so at the time.

So with the benefit of your 20/20 hindsight, what would you have done if you had been in Churchill's position then?

Now that is the question I would love to hear the answer to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"The Jewish question is not anything to do with what I'm saying. That was definitely NOT what was a driving factor in 1940.

Neither was bombing of other countries by Germany.

I said I'd been taught that a stray bomb had killed a civilian at Rosyth but I can't find online information about that.

250 civilians were killed by German bombing in July 1940. On the 15th August 1940, 60 civilians were killed when a soap factory was hit in Croydon, London.

Facts are facts, and Bomber Command records are available in the National Archive. The Luftwaffe also kept extensive detailed records.

You're not quite getting it. 1943 was not the first part of the war.

So now your moving away from "we deliberately bombed civilians" to "civilians were colleteral damage"?

Do you now agree that we killed less civilians in Rotterdam in 128 raids (884, nearly half when a USAAF raid went wrong) than the Germans did in 1 raid (over 1000) and that was only half a raid?

Do you know the difference between precision bombing, area bombing and saturation bombing?

Were Hitler's "terror weapons" , the V1 and V2 rockets indiscriminate weapons, something the Allies never had?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

We have moved away from the thread - should history tell the whole story - so you get a complete history not just what the establishment want you to see. I don't care about statutes being erected - just want the full story not half a story!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"So now your moving away from "we deliberately bombed civilians" to "civilians were colleteral damage"?"

Eh, no- that was exactly what my first post was about

. You just haven't grasped it.

And yes, this thread has gone WAY off topic so let's get back to it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andS66Couple over a year ago

Derby

"So now your moving away from "we deliberately bombed civilians" to "civilians were colleteral damage"?

Eh, no- that was exactly what my first post was about

. You just haven't grasped it.

And yes, this thread has gone WAY off topic so let's get back to it.

Was it you that said the blitz of London was an accident?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

History can only ever be viewed by the lense of the present.We progress and look back at a less civilised society.We will be judged the same and wit the same disdain we look back on those who owned slaves.If crimes were committed against your ancestors you have just cause to speak up.

Regards removing statues .George bush left a bust of Churchill on his desk when Obama took office.Obama had it removed due to crimes committed against his family in Kenya .Under Churchill's watch,Obamas grandfather was imprisoned without charge and tortured.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"So now your moving away from "we deliberately bombed civilians" to "civilians were colleteral damage"?

Eh, no- that was exactly what my first post was about

. You just haven't grasped it.

And yes, this thread has gone WAY off topic so let's get back to it.

Was it you that said the blitz of London was an accident?"

The blitz of London was no accident. However the first raid almost certainly was (see my post above).

Unfortunately it wasn't known at the time, it was seen then as a deliberate raid.

The real story didn't come out until the end of the war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Also, the first properly documented bomb (1) to fall on the City of London was 24/25th August.

That's correct that one bomb was the reason 12hrs later Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin by a hundred planes, the crew of the bomber that dropped that bomb was court martialed by the Luftwaffe.

You have to remember the context of the summer of 40, Churchill was only just in power, most of Europe was already conquered, Hitler had promised the German people there'd be no war with the UK, he'd offered a peace deal of giving up France and the Netherlands even Poland(kept secret till after the war) while keeping the bits that the Germans had claimed and lost in the first war, obviously part of the deal was to be left with alone to "deal" with the Soviets.

And then you have the UK population who really weren't wanting war either, peace marches were being held in London, what Churchill needed was a galvanisation of both the British people and the German people into a full on war for which he'd already talked about getting the Americans involved in (and let's not forget every poll in the US was massively against the war).

Well he got what he wanted and needed by initiating civilian bombing and that's factual.

The British archives have letters from Churchill to bomber command instructing them to bomb civilian targets (which bomber command refused to do for quite awhile) as it was against international law

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

[Removed by poster at 01/06/18 11:21:31]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Also, the first properly documented bomb (1) to fall on the City of London was 24/25th August.

Well he got what he wanted and needed by initiating civilian bombing and that's factual.

The British archives have letters from Churchill to bomber command instructing them to bomb civilian targets (which bomber command refused to do for quite awhile) as it was against international law"

OK Let's get it straight about the "one bomb" on London on the 24th August.

It was NOT one bomb.

I've done most of the above from memory (WW2 is one of my pet subjects) but just to try to finally clear this up below is from the Wiki page on the subject.

"On 24 August, fate took a turn, and several off-course German bombers accidentally bombed central areas of London".

Please pay particular attention to the words "several" and "areas" (plural)

Several bombers do not drop one bomb on areas.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

In Birmingham and Glasgow I think ,maybe other places, there are building facades with black slave children at their 'master's' feet. I'd like to hope people looking at it see and realise it was on their turf, not just on some far flung outpost. Not only that, to realise how past attitudes fuel racism.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Learn the difference between London area and City of London.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Learn the difference between London area and City of London."

Meaning what exactly?

"Central areas of London" aint the suburbs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

The first bomb dropped on the city of London was at 00.15 on the 25th August 1940. There is a plaque in Fore St EC2 to mark the spot. This was done by a German bomber losing its bearings, whilst on a raid to bomb London Docks, and jettonising it's payload. The crew believed that they were nowhere near London. This was against Hitler's express orders.

The same night, a cobbled up force of 70 bombers went to Berlin and bombed fields and parkland. No one was even injured but it proved an embarrassment to Goering. Further raids during the following week proved as equally ineffective but it prompted Hitler to make a speech at a rally..."if they drop 100 bombs, we'll drop a 1000 etc. The same day, orders went out to The Luftwaffe bomber commanders to area bomb London. The Blitz started on September 7th 1940.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

I'm not sure what your problem is with comprehension but it's clouding your sanity, let alone judgement and frankly, that's a ridiculous statement."

I'm not the one with the problem. You're trotting out lines that many hardcore Scottish nationalists do and you have a history of following that line in this forum.

If we take your own posts as evidence it's very telling that you keep referring to bombing by England and opinions in England being different from the rest of the UK (which they aren't). This idea of having to believe you are better than another area because of nationality is ridiculous. Here are your own posts:

"I was referring to the UK and the fact that Churchill ordered bombing of civilian populations first, rather than the ENGLISH belief that ENGLAND had the moral high ground."

"What also isn't really understood is that ENGLAND continued bombing civilian targets as a punitive exercise"

"There's a curious two-faced attitude about this in ENGLAND right now, and I say ENGLAND because I haven't come across it in the rest of the UK, between your hero Churchill and leaders of wars in other countries."

"the targeting of civilians goes against the belief and myth that ENGLAND fought a fair war and 'did what was right' to protect itself. It did what it did to win. At any cost. That's an uncomfortable truth I find a lot of ENGLISH unable to swallow. Peculiarly, not all the UK think that way."

"Winning the war was about so much more than that for ENGLAND."

The evidence is all there

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

"No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?

It doesnt matter if it was to feed an army to me its genocide and if it was someone from another country who did it yous would all be saying the same "

Exactly! It meets YOUR definition of genocide, not the definition used by the rest of the world!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ercuryMan over a year ago

Grantham

"No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?

It doesnt matter if it was to feed an army to me its genocide and if it was someone from another country who did it yous would all be saying the same

Exactly! It meets YOUR definition of genocide, not the definition used by the rest of the world! "

Grain was not used to feed the army. The stockpiles were in Canada and Australia, shipping was scarce and it couldn't be moved. In fact, Churchill appealed to the Americans for ships but Roosevelt wasn't forthcoming, as his ships were needed for the military build up in Europe.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I think I'm probably like most of the general public in the fact that I don't have excessive views on Churchill either way, horrible and good at times but I neither think he was a saint or a maniac just a man of the time and a very interesting historical individual just like Napoleon, Lenin or Mao

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS over a year ago

Glasgow

If anyone is interested in a good biography of Churchill from 1939 onwards I'd recommend The Last Lion by William Manchester and Paul Reid. It's the 3rd book in a 3 volume series that took 20 years to complete.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *LCCCouple over a year ago

Cambridge

I'm not sure what your problem is with comprehension but it's clouding your sanity, let alone judgement and frankly, that's a ridiculous statement.

I'm not the one with the problem. You're trotting out lines that many hardcore Scottish nationalists do and you have a history of following that line in this forum.

"I was referring to the UK and the fact that Churchill ordered bombing of civilian populations first, rather than the ENGLISH belief that ENGLAND had the moral high ground."

"What also isn't really understood is that ENGLAND continued bombing civilian targets as a punitive exercise"

"Winning the war was about so much more than that for ENGLAND."

The evidence is all there

You're not the only one who has noticed!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The word England was used because it was about England. How much of the rest of the UK had input? After all, English shores were a stone's grow away from the continent.

You are fooling yourself if you think that England's survival was not foremost.

The UK was very much thought of as just being England and to be fair, England thought that way too.

Again, you cannot put modern outlooks on history. That was how it was then.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm not sure what your problem is with comprehension but it's clouding your sanity, let alone judgement and frankly, that's a ridiculous statement.

I'm not the one with the problem. You're trotting out lines that many hardcore Scottish nationalists do and you have a history of following that line in this forum.

"I was referring to the UK and the fact that Churchill ordered bombing of civilian populations first, rather than the ENGLISH belief that ENGLAND had the moral high ground."

"What also isn't really understood is that ENGLAND continued bombing civilian targets as a punitive exercise"

"Winning the war was about so much more than that for ENGLAND."

The evidence is all there

Trolling again. How sad.

Your post is wrong from every single angle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"The word England was used because it was about England. How much of the rest of the UK had input? After all, English shores were a stone's grow away from the continent.

You are fooling yourself if you think that England's survival was not foremost.

The UK was very much thought of as just being England and to be fair, England thought that way too.

Again, you cannot put modern outlooks on history. That was how it was then. "

There you have it. Absolutely correct. You cannot put modern outlooks on history. But hold on, isn't that what you have been doing for the whole of this thread?

As for the rest, I've read some nonsense on this thread but that just about takes the biscuit.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, I'm pretty keen on the truth, that's why I call people out for incorrectly using words.

No incorrect words from me he committed genocide or maybe you think starving 3 million isnt genocide ?

It doesnt matter if it was to feed an army to me its genocide and if it was someone from another country who did it yous would all be saying the same

Exactly! It meets YOUR definition of genocide, not the definition used by the rest of the world! "

Really so how would the rest of the world define genocide ?or are we all to beleive wikipedia because you say so

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm not sure what your problem is with comprehension but it's clouding your sanity, let alone judgement and frankly, that's a ridiculous statement.

I'm not the one with the problem. You're trotting out lines that many hardcore Scottish nationalists do and you have a history of following that line in this forum.

"I was referring to the UK and the fact that Churchill ordered bombing of civilian populations first, rather than the ENGLISH belief that ENGLAND had the moral high ground."

"What also isn't really understood is that ENGLAND continued bombing civilian targets as a punitive exercise"

"Winning the war was about so much more than that for ENGLAND."

The evidence is all there

There you go again bringing scottish nationalists into a topic that has nothing to do with them you really are obsessed and quite bitter person

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't like putting modern peace time morality onto 80 year old wartime context either, it's a pointless exercise however I do have to agree with the ABC lady, Churchill did fully initiate a civilian bombing practise, it's on record in the national archives for anybody to read, I double checked this afternoon, Churchill felt out with Charles portal over his inability to follow Churchills orders of bombing civilian targets, Churchill believed it would demoralise the enemy but portal suspected it was more to do with ending any hope of a truce!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackwithabang2000Couple over a year ago

Stoke

Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?"
.

Tell us your thoughts and we'll jump in

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrsWestMidsCouple over a year ago

Dudley

"Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?"

It was a necessary evil!

Read about what the Japanese did in places like Nanking and how badly they treated prisoners.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

"Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?"

Saved far more lives than it cost, and it could be argued showed the world the power of nukes and may have helped stop a far bigger use of them during the cold war.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *otlovefun42Couple over a year ago

Costa Blanca Spain...

"Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?

Saved far more lives than it cost, and it could be argued showed the world the power of nukes and may have helped stop a far bigger use of them during the cold war."

Very true.

It was estimated that 250,000 Amercan soldiers could be lost if America was forced into a full invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The Japanese losses were virtually incalculable but after the experience of Okinawa, 100,000 Japanese dead including many civilians who committed suicide just to take a very small island, many thought that it could run into millions.

As someone said above. The A bombs were a necessary evil.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Love seeing the same old people falling out on here.

All going on about WW2

Genocide etc

So did you think hiroshima and nagasaki was fine?"

On the money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They were a complete waste of time, the Japanese were willing to die for they're emperor (who's actually as close to God for the Japanese as it gets).

They lost way more people in the two week long fire bombing of several cities.

What they actually wanted was a terms of surrender that let them keep there emperor which the Americans had firstly denied, and later relented on and which is the real reason why the Japanese surrendered.

No Americans would have died invading Japan because it was completely unnecessary to do it, coming North from Manchuria was the red army and the Japanese were totally and completely disarmed by the means of having no fuel at all anywhere, they couldn't make bullets let alone drive a tank or fill a plane, it's part of the reason they started the kamikaze the year before as they didn't have enough fuel for the trip home!.

So yes, they could and would have fought on to the death throwing knifes and saucepans in hand to hand combat but how an earth you'd conclude that a fully equipped American navy and army would lose 250,000 troops fighting against that is beyond me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Tts a convenient lie to keep telling that the bomb was the best option.It helps you and your people sleep better.

We've told that lie long enough it's become a truth written in stone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)