Churchill was a prick

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Churchill was a prick

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 15 of 22 < 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 29 Jan 15 10.39pm
So did anyone see the programme? "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."
Alert a moderator to this post

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 29 Jan 15 10.39pm

So did anyone see the programme?

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 29 Jan 15 10.43pm
Quote pefwin at 29 Jan 2015 10.39pm So did anyone see the programme? Poufwind Schoolboy Giggle Sorry Peffers.... Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 29 Jan 15 10.43pm

Quote pefwin at 29 Jan 2015 10.39pm

So did anyone see the programme?

Poufwind *Schoolboy Giggle* Sorry Peffers....

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3 brighton 29 Jan 15 11.18pm
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jan 2015 8.59pm Churchill was indeed a multi-faceted individual with some aspects largely very much less focused on since his elevation to national saviour status post perhaps 1945.And even then,it was a beautiful aspect of our country relative to many others,that he could be rightly lauded as a hero,but kicked out at an election when the war was over and the focus could just be on politics, without affecting his "national hero" status. The Bengal famine is not something to be proud of nor was his treatment of the miners.And his military strategy re Gallipoli in world war 1 was a fiasco.Only 3 examples. ps.blackgirl 3.He didn't send the POW's we captured back to please the Americans.It was an awful thing but a deal was cut,at Soviet insistence,that all the allies must return their respective nationals found in territory liberated by another ally to their "home country".We had very large numbers of POW's in territories liberated by the Soviet Union.If that deal hadn't been cut,a lot less than did would have made it back. Did you know quite a few never came back,disappeared at the end of the war into thin air,probably killed or sent to the Gulag and have never been accounted for,even today? Most of the people being handed back to the Soviet Union against their will weren't liberated POW's but Soviet nationals who had fought with the Nazis post 1941.That doesn't make it right but...Wonder if we would have agreed to any of our allies refusing to hand over any of our nationals who had fought with the Nazis (and very small numbers did). As for anti-semitism in Britain in the 1930's,which the OP suggests we ignore in favour of still banging on about German anti-semitism in the 1930's, forgive me but there is perhaps a very slight difference between the support for it here and the near total support for the vilest form of it leading to the industrial slaughter of millions.And that ignores the many British people who took to the streets against Mosley's fascists here,hugely supported by the unions and left wingers. Bear in mind,in the 1930's Churchill was an anti-appeaser.It was appeasers,who tended to contain in their ranks the anti-semites. The main thing he's remembered for is the decision in 1940 not to cut a deal with the Nazis post-Dunkirk.If we had lost, he wouldn't be remembered well perhaps because we'd have all been indoctrinated to think of Hitler as a laudable figure(or indeed perhaps the opposite and he would have been a hero to the "underground resistance" and the general population.) The outcome had appeasement triumphed in 1940/early 1941 would have been being in reality an indoctrinated client state of Hitler like Vichy France,though not at first under partial occupation. The Soviet Union likely would have fallen back way way further east in 1941 with the Nazis controlling even vaster swathes of its territory for decades,and The US unable to invade France due to lack of a "floating island" air and sea base in Northern/Western Europe. So,lets get real.Do I agree with him politically including his rampant imperialism? No.Did he do some very bad things? Yes.Did he do some very good things? Yes.Did he do an amazingly great thing in being a superb people's war leader when it seriously counted? Yes So,yes a need for balance and seeing beyond "national myth",but those calling for more balance (fair enough) all need to be as balanced and realistic overall as anyone else,particularly when stakes are very high and alternatives bad too and one decision or another has to be made (and,as in Bengal, he got it very wrong more than once during the war). Edited by legaleagle (29 Jan 2015 10.08pm) [Link] here is a photo english people in londons pall mall doing the nazi salut at the funeral of the german ambassador in 1936 made up of englands ruling elite there are other photos of storm troops goose stepping up the mall as well with english guardsmen,as for the russians being sent back to there death in gulags or firing squads ,churchill could have stopped it from happening ,yes it was agreed at i think the[ yalta conferance] , between stalin and f.d,r that churchill attended but said deals were done behind his back ,but 100,000s polish people who forght with the nazi s were given asylum but most never saw there homeland or families ever again which was very sad ,but churchill was a highly sensitive and complicated man ,but in my opinion more of p,r man than a leader, i think lord halifax was more the power broker at that time than churchill , Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.22pm) Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.34pm) Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.51pm) Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.53pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3

brighton 29 Jan 15 11.18pm

Quote legaleagle at 29 Jan 2015 8.59pm

Churchill was indeed a multi-faceted individual with some aspects largely very much less focused on since his elevation to national saviour status post perhaps 1945.And even then,it was a beautiful aspect of our country relative to many others,that he could be rightly lauded as a hero,but kicked out at an election when the war was over and the focus could just be on politics, without affecting his "national hero" status.

The Bengal famine is not something to be proud of nor was his treatment of the miners.And his military strategy re Gallipoli in world war 1 was a fiasco.Only 3 examples.

ps.blackgirl 3.He didn't send the POW's we captured back to please the Americans.It was an awful thing but a deal was cut,at Soviet insistence,that all the allies must return their respective nationals found in territory liberated by another ally to their "home country".We had very large numbers of POW's in territories liberated by the Soviet Union.If that deal hadn't been cut,a lot less than did would have made it back. Did you know quite a few never came back,disappeared at the end of the war into thin air,probably killed or sent to the Gulag and have never been accounted for,even today? Most of the people being handed back to the Soviet Union against their will weren't liberated POW's but Soviet nationals who had fought with the Nazis post 1941.That doesn't make it right but...Wonder if we would have agreed to any of our allies refusing to hand over any of our nationals who had fought with the Nazis (and very small numbers did).

As for anti-semitism in Britain in the 1930's,which the OP suggests we ignore in favour of still banging on about German anti-semitism in the 1930's, forgive me but there is perhaps a very slight difference between the support for it here and the near total support for the vilest form of it leading to the industrial slaughter of millions.And that ignores the many British people who took to the streets against Mosley's fascists here,hugely supported by the unions and left wingers.

Bear in mind,in the 1930's Churchill was an anti-appeaser.It was appeasers,who tended to contain in their ranks the anti-semites.

The main thing he's remembered for is the decision in 1940 not to cut a deal with the Nazis post-Dunkirk.If we had lost, he wouldn't be remembered well perhaps because we'd have all been indoctrinated to think of Hitler as a laudable figure(or indeed perhaps the opposite and he would have been a hero to the "underground resistance" and the general population.)

The outcome had appeasement triumphed in 1940/early 1941 would have been being in reality an indoctrinated client state of Hitler like Vichy France,though not at first under partial occupation. The Soviet Union likely would have fallen back way way further east in 1941 with the Nazis controlling even vaster swathes of its territory for decades,and The US unable to invade France due to lack of a "floating island" air and sea base in Northern/Western Europe.

So,lets get real.Do I agree with him politically including his rampant imperialism? No.Did he do some very bad things? Yes.Did he do some very good things? Yes.Did he do an amazingly great thing in being a superb people's war leader when it seriously counted? Yes

So,yes a need for balance and seeing beyond "national myth",but those calling for more balance (fair enough) all need to be as balanced and realistic overall as anyone else,particularly when stakes are very high and alternatives bad too and one decision or another has to be made (and,as in Bengal, he got it very wrong more than once during the war).

Edited by legaleagle (29 Jan 2015 10.08pm)

[Link] here is a photo english people in londons pall mall doing the nazi salut at the funeral of the german ambassador in 1936 made up of englands ruling elite there are other photos of storm troops goose stepping up the mall as well with english guardsmen,as for the russians being sent back to there death in gulags or firing squads ,churchill could have stopped it from happening ,yes it was agreed at i think the[ yalta conferance] , between stalin and f.d,r that churchill attended but said deals were done behind his back ,but 100,000s polish people who forght with the nazi s were given asylum but most never saw there homeland or families ever again which was very sad ,but churchill was a highly sensitive and complicated man ,but in my opinion more of p,r man than a leader, i think lord halifax was more the power broker at that time than churchill ,

Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.22pm)

Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.34pm)

Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.51pm)

Edited by blackgirl3 (29 Jan 2015 11.53pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 29 Jan 15 11.55pm
Sorry,not in the mood for an ongoing load of interactions with you, but going to point you towards the first part of a book called "The Iron Cage" by Nigel Cawthorne about the situation of British POW's liberated in Soviet controlled areas and the impact of this upon British dealings with Stalin/The Soviet Union in 1944-46. Yes,loads of Polish people came here or in the case of the many who'd fought in our armed forces,stayed here.They weren't from the Soviet Union,hadn't fought on behalf of Nazi German armed forces as many of the Soviets (you wrongly describe them as Russians) you refer to.And to repeat myself again,not that it makes it right.But not worth no mention. Lord Halifax was influential in the appeasement-oriented Neville Chamberlain government.Churchill was only asked to be in that government once the war started. After May 1940,thankfully Churchill got to take over from Chamberlain,and Halifax "bottled it" seemingly realising he wasn't up to it.Arch appeaser Lord Halifax had little meaningful influence compared to Churchill from then on....so can't agree your theory of things about that. Just to balance out your observations on fascism here a little bit, read this link re the turning point of the fall of a potential for mass support here for fascism at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936.Very proud that my father and uncles were active participants on the day. Of course there were some pro-fascists within the Establishment,ie the Duke of Windsor and support at times by the Daily Mail.Plus, a whole load of very nasty BUF fascist bully boys.But as a mass movement,it never got to tipping point thanks to people like those stood up for what was right at and near Cable Street in 1936. [Link] Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 12.24am)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

29 Jan 15 11.55pm

Sorry,not in the mood for an ongoing load of interactions with you, but going to point you towards the first part of a book called "The Iron Cage" by Nigel Cawthorne about the situation of British POW's liberated in Soviet controlled areas and the impact of this upon British dealings with Stalin/The Soviet Union in 1944-46.

Yes,loads of Polish people came here or in the case of the many who'd fought in our armed forces,stayed here.They weren't from the Soviet Union,hadn't fought on behalf of Nazi German armed forces as many of the Soviets (you wrongly describe them as Russians) you refer to.And to repeat myself again,not that it makes it right.But not worth no mention.

Lord Halifax was influential in the appeasement-oriented Neville Chamberlain government.Churchill was only asked to be in that government once the war started. After May 1940,thankfully Churchill got to take over from Chamberlain,and Halifax "bottled it" seemingly realising he wasn't up to it.Arch appeaser Lord Halifax had little meaningful influence compared to Churchill from then on....so can't agree your theory of things about that.

Just to balance out your observations on fascism here a little bit, read this link re the turning point of the fall of a potential for mass support here for fascism at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936.Very proud that my father and uncles were active participants on the day.

Of course there were some pro-fascists within the Establishment,ie the Duke of Windsor and support at times by the Daily Mail.Plus, a whole load of very nasty BUF fascist bully boys.But as a mass movement,it never got to tipping point thanks to people like those stood up for what was right at and near Cable Street in 1936.

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 12.24am)

Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3 brighton 30 Jan 15 12.24am
Quote legaleagle at 29 Jan 2015 11.55pm Sorry,not in the mood for an ongoing load of interactions with you, but just going to point you towards the first part of a book called "The Iron Cage" by Nigel Cawthorne about the situation of British POW's liberated in Soviet controlled areas and the impact of this upon British dealings with Stalin/The Soviet Union in 1944-46. Yes,loads of Polish people came here or in the case of the many who'd fought in our armed forces,stayed here.They hadn't fought on behalf of Nazi German armed forces as many of the Soviets (you wrongly describe them as Russians) you refer to.And to repeat myself again,not that it makes it right.But not worth no mention. Lord Halifax was influential in the appeasement-oriented Neville Chamberlain government.Churchill was only asked to be in the government once the war started. After May 1940,thankfully Churchill got to take over from Chamberlain,and Halifax "bottled it" seemingly realisling he wasn't up to it.Arch appeaser Lord Halifax had little meaningful influence compared to Churchill from then on....so can't agree your theory of things about that. Just to balance out your observations on fascism here a little bit, read this link re the turning point of the fall of a potential for mass support here for fascism at the Battle of Cable Street in 1936.Very proud that my father and uncles were active participants on the day. [Link] Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 12.11am) why the harsh reply ,i never gave an observation on fascism only a link to a historical event ,i am not very literate like your self as you can tell, but my knowledge of that period in history is more than likely as good as yours ,and thanks for adding to my information of the time ,and you should be very proud of your father and uncle ,and i would like to think i would have done the same if i had lived then Edited by blackgirl3 (30 Jan 2015 12.28am)
Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3

brighton 30 Jan 15 12.24am

Quote legaleagle at 29 Jan 2015 11.55pm

Sorry,not in the mood for an ongoing load of interactions with you, but just going to point you towards the first part of a book called "The Iron Cage" by Nigel Cawthorne about the situation of British POW's liberated in Soviet controlled areas and the impact of this upon British dealings with Stalin/The Soviet Union in 1944-46.

Yes,loads of Polish people came here or in the case of the many who'd fought in our armed forces,stayed here.They hadn't fought on behalf of Nazi German armed forces as many of the Soviets (you wrongly describe them as Russians) you refer to.And to repeat myself again,not that it makes it right.But not worth no mention.

Lord Halifax was influential in the appeasement-oriented Neville Chamberlain government.Churchill was only asked to be in the government once the war started. After May 1940,thankfully Churchill got to take over from Chamberlain,and Halifax "bottled it" seemingly realisling he wasn't up to it.Arch appeaser Lord Halifax had little meaningful influence compared to Churchill from then on....so can't agree your theory of things about that.

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (30 Jan 2015 12.11am)

why the harsh reply ,i never gave an observation on fascism only a link to a historical event ,i am not very literate like your self as you can tell, but my knowledge of that period in history is more than likely as good as yours ,and thanks for adding to my information of the time ,and you should be very proud of your father and uncle ,and i would like to think i would have done the same if i had lived then

Edited by blackgirl3 (30 Jan 2015 12.28am)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 30 Jan 15 12.27am
Not harsh at all. I've had enough of Churchill ,returned POW's etc for now. Off to bed.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

30 Jan 15 12.27am

Not harsh at all. I've had enough of Churchill ,returned POW's etc for now. Off to bed.

Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3 brighton 30 Jan 15 12.30am
Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 12.27am Not harsh at all. I've had enough of Churchill ,returned POW's etc for now. Off to bed. night night
Alert a moderator to this post

blackgirl3

brighton 30 Jan 15 12.30am

Quote legaleagle at 30 Jan 2015 12.27am

Not harsh at all. I've had enough of Churchill ,returned POW's etc for now. Off to bed.

night night

Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles 30 Jan 15 1.27am
Quote crystal balls at 29 Jan 2015 10.03pm Quote jeeagles at 29 Jan 2015 7.16pm Churchill was stubborn and ruthless which could lead to some criticism which some people will inevitably manipulate for their own purposes but his stand helped saved the free world. Many people would say Chamberlain was a "nice man of peace" but his appeasement strategy was a catastrophe. The choice for the next prime minister was between Attlee, Halifax and Churchill. Many people think had Attlee or Halifax became prime minister Britain May have struck a deal with Hitler after France fell and the Dunkirk evacuations. That would have left a dominate Germany, Soviet Union and Japan vs the United States. Britain stood alone against the German's until the US entered the war. There's no doubt that Churchill's determination and belligerence helped this. Another man might have done the same thing, but Churchill was the one that did it. That is why he is our greatest hero, they offered him the Dukedom of London and made him (possibly the first) honorary citizen of the United States. Some might question his views on Ireland and India, rightly so, but the simple fact is he was the person the stood up for Britain and the world against the Nazi's. People also may critise him for wanting to go to war with the Soviets, but that was a despicable regime as well. He famously said in the Channel Islands that he would let the people starve. The islands weren't defended in the war and weren't liberated until after VE Day but people here understand that the Nazi's were monsters and it took a hard line tactics to beat them. Alone.. yes...except for the thousands of servicemen from other countries who fought alongside British servicemen. Of around 3,000 pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain, nearly 600 were foreigners, 150 Poles, nearly 100 Czechs, Belgians, French and many others from Commonwealth countries. And you could say that the Russians made a bit of an effort too. AS you probably know, his mother was American, so no real surprise. Something I didn't know until recently; Churchill was only 5'6" tall; short man, big personality! Your right, all those who served their country against the Nazi's were hero's and very brave. Possibly braver than Churchill, he wasn't on the front line so a like for like comparison is impossible. What I would stress is that Churchill was the leader, and without a leader like him those service men may have been stood down by there governments which would have lead to a Nazi victory. After France fell Britain was alone in the war until the US were convinced to join the cause and the Germans declared war on Russia. It's the period when Britain was alone which makes him stand out. Many of the servicemen might have taken the same stance as Churchill but Churchill was the man that took that stand. At the time it may have seen a futile and worthless effort fighting against the Nazi juggernaut with no support - possibly sending good men to there death which may turn out to be a futile effort, but Churchill's effort meant Britain held out against the Nazi's for long enough to turn the tide of the war effort.
Alert a moderator to this post

jeeagles

30 Jan 15 1.27am

Quote crystal balls at 29 Jan 2015 10.03pm

Quote jeeagles at 29 Jan 2015 7.16pm

Churchill was stubborn and ruthless which could lead to some criticism which some people will inevitably manipulate for their own purposes but his stand helped saved the free world.

Many people would say Chamberlain was a "nice man of peace" but his appeasement strategy was a catastrophe. The choice for the next prime minister was between Attlee, Halifax and Churchill. Many people think had Attlee or Halifax became prime minister Britain May have struck a deal with Hitler after France fell and the Dunkirk evacuations.

That would have left a dominate Germany, Soviet Union and Japan vs the United States.

Britain stood alone against the German's until the US entered the war. There's no doubt that Churchill's determination and belligerence helped this. Another man might have done the same thing, but Churchill was the one that did it. That is why he is our greatest hero, they offered him the Dukedom of London and made him (possibly the first) honorary citizen of the United States.

Some might question his views on Ireland and India, rightly so, but the simple fact is he was the person the stood up for Britain and the world against the Nazi's.

People also may critise him for wanting to go to war with the Soviets, but that was a despicable regime as well.

He famously said in the Channel Islands that he would let the people starve. The islands weren't defended in the war and weren't liberated until after VE Day but people here understand that the Nazi's were monsters and it took a hard line tactics to beat them.

Alone.. yes...except for the thousands of servicemen from other countries who fought alongside British servicemen. Of around 3,000 pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain, nearly 600 were foreigners, 150 Poles, nearly 100 Czechs, Belgians, French and many others from Commonwealth countries.

And you could say that the Russians made a bit of an effort too.

AS you probably know, his mother was American, so no real surprise.

Something I didn't know until recently; Churchill was only 5'6" tall; short man, big personality!

Your right, all those who served their country against the Nazi's were hero's and very brave. Possibly braver than Churchill, he wasn't on the front line so a like for like comparison is impossible.

What I would stress is that Churchill was the leader, and without a leader like him those service men may have been stood down by there governments which would have lead to a Nazi victory. After France fell Britain was alone in the war until the US were convinced to join the cause and the Germans declared war on Russia. It's the period when Britain was alone which makes him stand out. Many of the servicemen might have taken the same stance as Churchill but Churchill was the man that took that stand.

At the time it may have seen a futile and worthless effort fighting against the Nazi juggernaut with no support - possibly sending good men to there death which may turn out to be a futile effort, but Churchill's effort meant Britain held out against the Nazi's for long enough to turn the tide of the war effort.

Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit Lincoln 30 Jan 15 2.15am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Jan 2015 6.46pm Quote Joe Bloggs at 29 Jan 2015 5.20pm It is one thing to discuss Churchill and wartime Britain after the event but so many things went on during those times that censorship and propaganda removed so much of the truth. We heard of Coventry and the London docks,even more bombs fell on South London--but we never heard of the bombing which Hull suffered, possibly the worst in the country and yet people living through those dreadful times were kept in ignorance of those facts. The real crime is that nothing has been done to improve Hull since... Whilst true,Jamie, it could be argued that the bombings themselves were responsible for £manyM worth of improvements. Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

lankygit

Lincoln 30 Jan 15 2.15am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 29 Jan 2015 6.46pm

Quote Joe Bloggs at 29 Jan 2015 5.20pm

It is one thing to discuss Churchill and wartime Britain after the event but so many things went on during those times that censorship and propaganda removed so much of the truth.

We heard of Coventry and the London docks,even more bombs fell on South London--but we never heard of the bombing which Hull suffered, possibly the worst in the country and yet people living through those dreadful times were kept in ignorance of those facts.

The real crime is that nothing has been done to improve Hull since...

Whilst true,Jamie, it could be argued that the bombings themselves were responsible for £manyM worth of improvements.

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

SwalecliffeEagle Swalecliffe 30 Jan 15 4.03am
Quote palace64 at 29 Jan 2015 4.01pm Quote SwalecliffeEagle at 29 Jan 2015 3.04pm I believe the OP would benefit from drawing distinctions between concentration camps and extermination camps. The latter, with the twisted use of Zyklon B, was most certainly NOT an idea 'nicked from us'. we invented concentration camps in sth africa in the late 1800s Edited by palace64 (29 Jan 2015 4.03pm) I am aware of that. I'll explain again... There is a distinction to be drawn between concentration camps (Dachau etc) and extermination/death camps (Sorbibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau etc). The former (which you and the OP are talking about) were camps for the purpose of enforcing labour, albeit under awful conditions. The second - extermination camps - were constructed specifically with wholesale murder in mind, or were developed as such from having once been a concentration camp; this was the case with Auschwitz under Hess. During the early years of the Third Reich only concentration camps existed. With designs for war and grandiose visions for the future (Germania etc), the free labour was obviously useful. Then war broke out, a eugenics programme gathered pace, a military-industrial complex developed (IG Farben, for example) and so began the construction of the extermination camps that the OP got muddled up with. Just to illustrate the difference between labour and death camps: over 90% of those arriving at Treblinka train station would be dead within 30 minutes. 1%, on average, would be alive after three hours. It was nothing more than a field with a modest brick-built gas chamber in the middle. There were no other buildings in sight except for accommodation for personnel. The assertion that the Nazi industrial-scale killing of minority groups originated from our campaigns in South Africa is ludicrous. No evidence can point to a 19th c. version of the Wannsee Conference. No British concentration camp, and not one of Stalin's gulags, were comparable in nature to the co-ordinated efforts of the Nazi extermination camps. The Holocaust was a one off and it leaves with it a legacy of shame that only Germans have to live with. I say this without having even addressed the whole "Britain had a huge antisemitism problem in the 30s, too!" bulls***. The BUF were defunct by 1940 ffs. After Cable Street exposed them they lost all credibility. Small businesses loved Mosley for his early, credible policies. Once he went all Hitler-esque and the Black Shirts got a bit wild everyone went off them. There were a couple of other parties, sure, but they had a matter of a few thousand members at the very most. It's only spoken about because it makes for a trendy shock-doc or newspaper article. Good luck to the OP if he was on a wind-up because he's got my knickers in right a twist. Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (30 Jan 2015 4.24am)
Alert a moderator to this post

SwalecliffeEagle

Swalecliffe 30 Jan 15 4.03am

Send a Private Message to SwalecliffeEagle

Quote palace64 at 29 Jan 2015 4.01pm

Quote SwalecliffeEagle at 29 Jan 2015 3.04pm

I believe the OP would benefit from drawing distinctions between concentration camps and extermination camps. The latter, with the twisted use of Zyklon B, was most certainly NOT an idea 'nicked from us'.

we invented concentration camps in sth africa in the late 1800s

Edited by palace64 (29 Jan 2015 4.03pm)

I am aware of that. I'll explain again...

There is a distinction to be drawn between concentration camps (Dachau etc) and extermination/death camps (Sorbibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau etc). The former (which you and the OP are talking about) were camps for the purpose of enforcing labour, albeit under awful conditions. The second - extermination camps - were constructed specifically with wholesale murder in mind, or were developed as such from having once been a concentration camp; this was the case with Auschwitz under Hess.

During the early years of the Third Reich only concentration camps existed. With designs for war and grandiose visions for the future (Germania etc), the free labour was obviously useful. Then war broke out, a eugenics programme gathered pace, a military-industrial complex developed (IG Farben, for example) and so began the construction of the extermination camps that the OP got muddled up with.

Just to illustrate the difference between labour and death camps: over 90% of those arriving at Treblinka train station would be dead within 30 minutes. 1%, on average, would be alive after three hours. It was nothing more than a field with a modest brick-built gas chamber in the middle. There were no other buildings in sight except for accommodation for personnel.

The assertion that the Nazi industrial-scale killing of minority groups originated from our campaigns in South Africa is ludicrous. No evidence can point to a 19th c. version of the Wannsee Conference. No British concentration camp, and not one of Stalin's gulags, were comparable in nature to the co-ordinated efforts of the Nazi extermination camps. The Holocaust was a one off and it leaves with it a legacy of shame that only Germans have to live with.

I say this without having even addressed the whole "Britain had a huge antisemitism problem in the 30s, too!" bulls***. The BUF were defunct by 1940 ffs. After Cable Street exposed them they lost all credibility. Small businesses loved Mosley for his early, credible policies. Once he went all Hitler-esque and the Black Shirts got a bit wild everyone went off them. There were a couple of other parties, sure, but they had a matter of a few thousand members at the very most. It's only spoken about because it makes for a trendy shock-doc or newspaper article. Good luck to the OP if he was on a wind-up because he's got my knickers in right a twist.

Edited by SwalecliffeEagle (30 Jan 2015 4.24am)

Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 30 Jan 15 8.18am
I love the Thread title, Churchill was a prick. I have no inclination to debate with anyone who comes out with such purile bollicks. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"
Alert a moderator to this post

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 30 Jan 15 8.18am