Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "History Debunked"
channel.
-
526
-
329
-
210
-
185
-
170
-
163
-
143
-
110
-
84
-
84
-
82
-
75
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
65
-
60
-
58
-
56
-
55
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@jimmycampbell78 With the First Past the Post electoral system, the number of seats in the Commons is as follows, with the bracketed number being what it might have been, based on the percentages of those who bothered to vote, and ignoring the rest:-
Labour 411 (219) Conservative 121 (154) LibDem 72 (79)
Reform 5 (93) Green 4 (42).
This is what happens when a system designed to cater for two parties, Tory/Liberal and later Tory/Labour, remains in place when politics, and the number of parties, becomes more complex.
Of course, in the past, the Tories, similarly, have benefitted from this outmoded method, but as early signs suggest that the 2024 General Election may well be the last, isn't it ironic that a party which dropped some half a million votes between 2019 & 2024 should become so all-powerful?
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@HistoryDenied I didn't suggest that it did. However, are you trying to argue that, when slavery was widespread at the time, the English/British should have refrained from the practise? It was, and to a degree still is, endemic in Africa.
Moreover, compared to the Ottoman Empire and Portugal, the British were mere amateurs. They were, however, among the first to condemn and abolish it.
Alas, you are naively trying to impose 21st century values on people from an earlier time. Would you, for example, condemn Marcus Aurelius for not introducing Old Age Pensions into the Roman Empire?
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
In essence, from the late 1960s at least, politics ceased to involve principles, where individuals with widely differing opinions based on their different experiences of life could argue their cases against a background of mutual respect, and evolved into a profitable career which could be exploited by those with little or no such experience.
Basically, get a degree, become a researcher for an existing MP, then get parachuted into a safe seat. Ingratiate yourself with those already in authority, and before you know it you are a minister.
As most of this breed of MP had little or no understanding of the real world beyond the occasional undergraduate debate, they had no concept of the idea that opinions other than their own might just possibly be valid. Hence, the politics of enmity that has arisen.
Add to that, the fact that modern politics has become a nice little earner, with numerous extra sources of income, and it is understandable that these now well heeled individuals will put self interest before national interest'
I believe that either Plato or Aristotle argued that anyone who sought public office should be excluded from it for that very reason. It seems he was right.
10
-
10
-
I wonder if the reality is that the Dear Leader is unable to come to terms with the differences between being Leader of the Opposition and being Prime Minister? He has always, in Opposition, been able to say more or less anything he liked, as no one paid much attention, much like dear Angela, with her chants of 'Tory scum' etc. (whatever happened to Angela, by the way?)
Now he is realising that, as Prime Minister, his words and actions have consequences, and he seems not to like the idea much.
Perhaps the quality of people around him, such as Reeves, Rayner, Cooper, Lammy, and Miliband, are not much comfort, either?
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Be fair. Without David's enthusiasm for one of the first black people in Britain, Beachy Head woman, we would never have learned the facts, which were that she actually came from, er, Cyprus. Who previously knew that Cyprus had been moved since Roman times?
Still, as an alumnus of Manchester University who used to make financial contributions on a regular basis, when I read that, upon appointing him as a professor in 2019, the University of Manchester described him as an 'expert on military history, empire, race and slavery, and "one of the UK's foremost historians," ' I was able to cease those contributions.
Thank you, Professor David, for saving me money.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheAsa1972 The point is that not all 'legends' are good ones. Like the Time 'Person of the Year.'
To clarify what Kennedy thought of hitler, you really should look at what he actually said:-
Nearly two decades after 1945, Kennedy would address crowds in West Berlin as US president.
He gave Ms Henderson, his Research Assistant when he was a Senator, his diary in order to inform her of his views on foreign policy and national security, she said. She subsequently auctioned it.
In a description of the auction, she wrote: "When JFK said that Hitler 'had in him the stuff of which legends are made', he was speaking to the mystery surrounding him, not the evil he demonstrated to the world."
"Nowhere in this diary, or in any of his writings, is there any indication of sympathy for Nazi crimes or cause," she continued.
The diary also contains JFK's thoughts about the British election and Winston Churchill, who Ms Henderson called his "idol".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SMITHSONIAN33 Well, one of us needs to do some research, that is for sure. 'The lion symbolism was used right throughout Europe's Royal Houses.' Indeed it was. The Lion has appeared in Egyptian & Greek art from as far back as the third millennium BC, and probably even earlier.
Perhaps because at the time, and perhaps until as late as the 4th Century AD, Lions were to be found in Greece, Ukraine, and the Balkans, as well as the Middle East, or, if you prefer it, the area known by Crusaders as 'The Holy Land.' The Lion also appears in Buddhist & Hindu religious texts, and in Babylonian and Egyptian artwork, tomb paintings, and carvings going back as far as c3500 BC.
Your belief that 'only place with Lions is Africa' is, frankly, absurd.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@williams4434 As you seem disinclined to give a Biblical reference in support of your claim, let me help you out. The nearest thing to a discription of Jesus' physical appearance is in Revelation 1: 14-15, whic in the King James Bible reads :-
'His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.'
Not quite as you said, is it?
By the way, the Book of Revelation probably dates from the reign of Domitian, at around 96 A. D. and was attributed to John the Elder, or John of Patmos, an Ephesian Christian. Certainly, no-one who had seen Jesus would have contributed to it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the theories of Giulio Douhet, an Italian strategise who died in 1930, well before the flaws in his concept became obvious?
Douhet argued that bombing of civilian populations would result in, put simply, mass uprisings against governments, and the installation of new ones who would immediately make peace, at whatever cost. The idea was popular with such people as Goering, Le May, and the British Air Ministry. After all, it provided the raison d'etre for the large bomber fleets they craved.
Moreover, by mid 1940, there had been plenty of proof that hitler was willing to attack civilian targets by means of bombing. Aside from events in Spain, Warsaw was heavily bombed in September, 1939, on several occasions, as was Rotterdam on 14 May, 1940.
To suggest, or even imply, that German bombing of London was merely in response to British bombing of German towns & cities, is questionable at best.
I urge you to read Douhet's 'The Command of the Air' as it provided the (false) premises under which both the German & British (and later the USAAF) were working in WW2.
Indeed, Arthur Harris, to the end of his days, never managed to rid himself of the idea.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@HistoryDenied 'British imperialism brought civilisation?!' The fact is that that is a credible argument. Would, for example, Australia have been better off had the aboriginal inhabitants remained at a mesolithic level of development, with a life expectancy of 40 if they were lucky?
Or India if she had remained a network of warring Princely States, instead of becoming the largest democracy on earth, and benefitting from western medicine, civil administration, legal systems, transport networks, etc?
Oh, and In 1783, an anti-slavery movement began in Britain. That year a group of Quakers founded their first abolitionist organisation. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the campaign. By 1833, it had been abolished throughout the British Empire.
You seem to have profound difficulty in accepting than any nation other than Britain was ever involved in the practice, and still less ability to accept that Britain led the field in abolition.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@maciamay1393 Again, the absence of any scientific structure in your post is in itself proof of how 'impeccable' your 'science' is.
'Have you been highly successful in life sturdee? If not was it your own fault or was it someone else's fault? Bet I know that answer to that one too.' Is it part of your scientific method to make assumptions without evidence? As Sherlock Holmes said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” As, of course, you are trying to do, although I will now give you some data upon which to work below.
Actually, I have been very successful in life. A First in History from Manchester, then a career in logistics leading to Regional Operations Manager level. I am also a published author.
Oh, and as Holy Roman Emperor, the heir of Carolus Magnus, you should address me as 'Majesty' of course!!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Set-ri6rs I knew about the 'Battle of Bamber Bridge' many years ago, but there again I come from Bamber Bridge, and my mother knew of the events, as a young girl, immediately after they happened.
Acrually, I felt rather sorry for the presenter. She was lumbered with the asinine title. but was left floundering around tryiing, and failing, to justify it.
She did, however, manage to compare the segregation in the US Army to German treatment of the Jews, and refer to the cruel treatment of the 'economic migrants' of the Windrush Generation, who apparently came to help rebuild Britain. Oger than that, and the occasional throw away reference to the 'White Supremacist' attitude of the British Empire, she had nothing.
Churchill was obliged to accept the American military system, of course. He also accepted an alliance with Uncle Joe and his Gallant Lads. Both out of necessity in order to defeat a greater evil. All the programme managed, however, was to demonstrate that neither Churchill, nor the British people, in any way sought to endorse the US system.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williams4434 'who said anything about Sub Sahara ?' I did, because those whom you describe as 'blacks' come from Sub-Saharan Africa, not fro Africa as a whole.
To put that into context, would you seek to argue that Europeans from Norway or Sweden look just like Europeans from Greece or Southern Italy? Good luck trying to make that case.
It seems you now accept that only North Africa was ever part of the Roman Empire. Good, that is a start. All you need to do now is grasp the indisputable fact that Africans from North Africa looked, and look, rather different from Africans of Sub-Saharan African descent. Your lumping everyone from the whole of the continent of Africa into the same 'black'' category seems rather like racism to me, and, I suspect, to most other people.
' by description Jesus was black, Bronzed feet who has hair like wool ? black folks, also many believe Jesus was black.' I have already answered this claim elsewhere, but will do so again:-
Revelation 1:14-15 ' His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.'
Not quite what you are claiming, is it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@colincampbell4261 Perhaps you aren't aware that, at the height of the Napoleonic wars, the Royal Navy had around 500 ships in commission, 200 of which were Ships of the Line. In total, the Royal Navy needed over 200,000 men to crew them. Do you really believe that there were 100,000 black crewmen?
Actually, I don't know what he does or doesn't know about the RN of the time, although I am sure he knows about press-ganging. Perhaps you might explain the difference, in essence, between press- ganging in the 19th century, and conscription in the 20th? What I am confident he does know, and what I assume you also ought to know, is that the reference to half of the Royal Navy being black is ludicrous.
In short, you haven't made a valid comment. You have simply demonstrated your lack of actual knowledge, either of this particular subject or, seemingly, of British & World history in general.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I doubt that any MP would put a salary of £91k p.a., almost limitless expenses, and the ability to make useful & lucrative 'contacts,' at risk for something as irrelevant (to the average MP) as mere integrity.
My own MP, a newly elected one, was, of course, unswervingly loyal to his Dear Leader, did an interview on the local radio station which was little short of a car crash, and then went into damage control mode, putting a cut and paste version of his party's press release on local sites, with the solemn assurance that anyone struggling with the loss of the fuel allowance should contact him, as he 'hoped' he might be able to help.
Still, at least he made clear to all constitutents what kind of calibre of MP he is likely to be.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rodsquad5764 You miss the point entirely. How Gensoul should have reacted to the British ultimatum was a political, not a military, decision. Moreover, there was no suggestion of 'surrendering' to a neutral power, but of transferring the fleet to French colonial ports in the West Indies.
The fact is that, for reasons which Gensoul never explained, he chose not to provide his own government with the full text of the British document. He thus chose to act totally beyond his authority.
The probability is that Admiral Darlan, with his keen concern for the honneur of the Navy, might well have agreed with the West Indian port option. The decision, put simply, was not Gensoul's to make.
1
-
@rodsquad5764 The actions Gensoul took had nothing to do with 'running a ship. Try to understand, I urge you. Are you even reading my posts?
Whether Gensoul's squadron should scuttle, fight, join the British, or re-locate to the West Indies, was entirely a judgement for his political masters, and in particular Admiral Darlan, now, and since 16 June, the Minister of Marine in the incoming Petain government.
Gensoul was a career naval officer, not a politician.
'You Saber rattle all you want but you would have made the same decision if you say not your just lying to yourself.' When have I 'sabre rattled,' out of interest?
Had I been a career officer in such a position, and knowing that I had a deadline some several hours away, I would have done what any sensible commander would have done, and referred the situation up the chain of command, to the French Admiralty and, through them, to my government.
I would most certainly not have chosen to sacrifice my fleet, and the lives of many of my men, on the altar of my personal dignity.
1
-
@Jugement Perhaps you might point me to my post where I suggested that the French should have surrendered their navy, as I don't recall saying anything of the sort?
The French had a credible alternative, which was that of sending Gensoul's ships to French West Indian ports, where they would be supervised by the neutral United States. Wouldn't that have been preferable to placing them under German 'supervision' as the Armistice/Surrender of 22 June demanded? Unfortunately, Gensoul's refusal to tell his own government the details of the British ultimatum never gave Darlan the chance even to consider it.
By the way, France & Britain had not been in conflict since 1815. They had fought as allies in the Crimea, and in WW1. Perhaps you missed those two skirmishes? Indeed, any emnity had largely become irrelevant since the Franco-Prussian war, and the unification of Germany. Miss that as well, did you? Or the Entente Cordiale of 1904?
'The French Navy also did hold their end of the bargain and scuttled much more at Toulon than what was destroyed in Mers El Kebir when the Germans tried to cease in 1941.'
It just shows how ignorant of history I must be. I always thought that the Toulon scuttling was on 27 November, 1942. How remiss of me.
Moreover, if you think that the war situation had not changed somewhat between July 1940, and November, 1942, then I respectfully submit that it is not my knowledge of history that is lacking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Porkypies6m No, he didn't. Whatever nonsense you choose to believe about Churchill, are you seriously stupid enough to believe that he would have done, or even contemplated, such an action when there were some 2.5 million Indian servicemen fighting for the Allied cause?
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda with which you have been indoctrinated. However, perhaps when you become a little more mature, you might be able to break your programming and learn to think for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emceedoctorb3022 Aside from my puzzlement about this reference :
' Come on, big brain, come at me. Let us see this supposed superior intellect you have bragged about ' I did reply to your response, as follows :-
'I am not disrespecting your father, I am disrespecting your claims, as they do not stack up.
Do you always threaten violence when you are questioned, by the way?'
Why would I 'come at you?' As I have said, I do not believe you. What more would you wish me to say?'
If it helps, from my own experience, I took my late father (69th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery, present at 2nd Alamein, Mareth, & Salerno, among other actions, to several post War Reunions, amd if the men I met there were typical, they were overwhelmingly proud of what they achieved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Although the reference in 'Inherit the Wind' is to the teaching of evolution, one of Henry Drummond's speeches, if applied instead to Islam, seems disturbingly apposite :-
“Can't you understand? ............. You may turn Catholic against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the mind of man. If you can do one, you can do the other. Because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding. And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating, we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind"
Have we actually taken the first steps on that path?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'1930's Germany - Paradise.' Unless you were disabled, a political opponent of the party, disabled, a Gypsy, a Jehovahs's Witness, a Slav, or, worst of all a Jew. of course.
By the way, upvoting your own post is not the done thing, old chap. Rather bad form, don't cha know?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toekneekerching9543 Then you tell me when I even referred to Mexico? I simply, in a three line reply, stated a fact, that until the end of WW1, the North Sea was called the German Ocean in British maps. That is BRITISH maps, not simply English ones.
The term fell out of use because, after 1918, it was politically unacceptable.
The part of the North Sea nearest to Germany, by the way, is still referred to as the 'German Bight.' I refer you to the 1493 map by Hartmann Schedel, by the way, on which the Baltic Sea is called "Mare Germanicum", and the North Sea "Oceanus Germanicus"
You do know that immediately resorting to insults is the distinguishing feature of someone with a weak argument, do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howardsanderson2520 You entirely miss the point. When the concept of Memorials for the Fallen was first considered in 1919, the principle of 'Equality in Death' was accepted. British & Commonwealth/Empire War Memorials in all parts of the world list names, and usually ranks, but they do not refer to religions.
Now, it seems our Chancellor, without discussion, seems to prioritise one group over another, which is an insult to those Hindus, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Athiests, Christians, and Jews, who also gave their lives in those wars.
A shame that you cannot understand this simple fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, the RAF sent Lancasters to bomb German cities in 1940, did they? That was clever, as the Lancaster only entered service in early 1942.
The RAF was never remotely near running out of aircraft, as aircraft production in Britain exceeded that of Germany from June 1940 onwards.
Operation Sealion would have gone ahead? Presumably, until the barges, towed at little above walking pace, encountered the Royal Navy's massed destroyer, cruiser, and supporting vessels, forces, as the barges reached the Channel?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rudithedog7534 'I can see why you have a grudge.' Why would you think that making a few factual points suggests that I have a grudge? I wonder if you know what a non sequitur even is?
Portugal also traded with Britain, on very favorable terms. U Boats certainly used Portuguese territorial waters, but, inless you believe the kind of nonsense produced by 'Hunting Hitler' style programmes, not Portuguese ports. Lisbon was indeed a hive of spies, but from both sides.
'Whereas Ireland supplied Britain with food supplies, civilian workers, volunteer soldiers military intelligence.' Food supplies, indeed. Had the Republic not done this, the entire economy would have collapsed.
Irishmen joined the allied cause on a individual basis, but this with without the approval of the government of the Republic.
You don't actually have much of an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erongi233 You must expect sarcasm, whether cheap or not in your opinion, when you equate an embargo with a military invasion. Moreover, the Soviet intention was to base nuclear missiles in Cuba.
Have NATO suggested basing nuclear missiles in Ukraine? Indeed, Ukraine is the only nation to have voluntarily given up a nuclear arsenal, and look what happened next.
I don't recall suggesting that the US are the good guys, but I do believe that they are less bad than the alternative.
If you insist upon your 'Russians good everyone else bad' approach then that is up to you, as, unlike in Russia, freedom of speech does, just about, still exist in the West.
I will not, however, bother replying to you again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SMITHSONIAN33 Remember your first post, mon brave? Didn't you write 'Iconoclasm, ask Mr Webb where did the three lions symbolism came from, only place with Lions is Africa ? Read more talk less ;)'
I simply pointed out that Lions were not restricted to Africa, as you apparently fantasised. Heraldry, by the way, is totally irrelevant, as it only seems to have appeared from the 12th Century AD., with the earliest documented example being when King Henry I of England presented a shield with a coat of arms to his future son-in-law, Geoffrey of Anjou, in 1127.
Oh, and if you seek to teach others, perhaps you might get a little aid with grammar and spelling, as this might not come amiss?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mannylikestoanimate The Amritsar Massacre was the result of an officer ignoring his orders. He was immediately replaced, sent back to Britain, condemned in Parliament, and never given command again.
The Irish Famine was much more complex than you seem to think, and many better-odd Irishmen were complicit in it.
The Partition of India was brought about by Jinnah, who demanded a separate Moslem state, and threatened civil war if it did not happen.
The Iraqi Revolution was a rebellion against the League of Nations Mandate given to the British for Mesopotamia. The British sought to restore order. The alternative was to withdraw, and allow anarchy.
Boer Concentration camps were certainly a failure by the British administration, but It has been argued that "this was not a deliberately genocidal policy; rather it was the result of a disastrous lack of foresight and rank incompetence on the part of the military". Scottish historian Niall Ferguson has also argued that "Kitchener no more desired the deaths of women and children in the camps than of the wounded Dervishes after Omdurman, or of his own soldiers in the typhoid stricken hospitals of Bloemfontein."
Still, I am sure that your indoctrinators will be pleased with you for retaining your programming
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not entirely relevant, but the attitudes of some teachers are interesting, to say the least. A few years ago, my daughter, then in her teens, was given a project to complete about the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. I helped her with it, and was annoyed to discover that she received an average mark.
I made an appointment to see the teacher, whose response to my questioning was along the lines of 'I am a qualified & experienced teacher. What makes you think that you can possibly know more than me?'
I showed her two books which had been published about the very same subject, of which I was the author, and said ' I have a First in History. Checkmate, I suggest.'
My daughter was, of course, furious!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Isn't Reeves at least, post election, simply being honest by saying, in effect, 'We have a huge majority, and I can do whatever I want. I choose to look after the Labour core vote, and the rest of you, the ones who didn't vote for Labour, or didn't vote at all, will pay for it. Now, nurses, how much would you like 15%, 20%? Just name a figure, and I will find it.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HistoryDenied Well, the Indus civilization, the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. appear to date from be about 2500 B.C. By the time the British & French arrived, not much progress towards them seems to have been made, compared to the progress made during around 250 years of the British presence.
Incidentally, average life expectancy in India in 1800 was 25.4 years. Population in 1800 was 169 million.
By contrast, average life expectancy in India in 1900 was 35.0 years.
Population in 1950 was 357 million.
So, as a result of being exploited by the British, more than twice as many Indians as in 1800 were able to live, on average, ten years longer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So eager was your hitler to avoid war that his forces presumably invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, THe Netherlands and Belgium to prove his peaceful intent? Is that really what you think?
When did hitler make these offers of peace and restoration of borders? Where might the text be read? Which historical archive contains them?
'If I remember correctly, he received and rejected one such offer right before giving his famous "fight them on the beaches" speech. Which, if true, is particularly revolting.' Actually no, you don't remember correctly, even if that is what the neo nazi hymn sheet from which you chant says so.
By the way, Churchill only became Prime Minister in May, 1940, and held no political office at all between 1929 and September, 1939.
You really should try harder, herr obergruppenfuhrer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unibks4382 Whereever did you get that idea from?
In terms of numbers, Labour received 9,708,716 votes, or 23,622 votes per MP, Tories 6,828,925, or 56,437 votes per MP, LibDems 3,519,143, or 48,877 votes per MP, Reform 4,117,610, or 823,522 per MP.
Oh, the wonders of a First Past the Post system, when party can triumph with half a million less votes than it received in the Labour disaster election of 2019.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 Perhaps you don't know what a Capital Ship' is? It is a battleship, battlecruiser, or a fleet aircraft carrier. The figures I gave included the RCN & RAN, as I said.
Which ships 'defected' from Norway & Denmark? By September, 1940, there were eight French destroyers under RN control. Part of DF23, and based at Portsmouth & Plymouth.
Britain completed five more battleships in WW2, the King George V class, and six fleet carriers, the first & second group Illustrious class.
Germany in September 1939 had two battleships (the Scharnhorsts), three 'pocket battleships' the Deutschland class, and two long obsolete pre-dreadnoughts, Schleswig-Holstein, and Schlesien. Both built in 1908 and totally out of date.
Italy in 1939 had two modernised battleships, two new 15 inch gunned battleships almost completed, and two older battleships also in the throes of modernisation.
In short, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Why not simply buy a book?
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 'It matters not if you include or exclude Cruisers as we had 66 of them too.' Yes, it does. Because cruisers, heavy, light, or AA, are not capital ships. Just as destroyers are not capital ships.
I have pointed out more than once that my figures included the Dominion navies of Canada and Australia, Why do you find it so difficult to grasp?
There were indeed Norwegian ships at D-Day. HNoMS Stord & Svenner. Both British built destroyers supplied to the Royal Norwegian Navy. British 'S' class vessels, with Norwegian crews and commissioned by their Norwegian crews in late 1943. Also HNoMS Glaisdale, a British built 'Hunt' class escort destroyer supplied to the Norwegian Navy in June, 1942.
AS a naval historian, I do not seek to play down the Royal Navy. In fact, quite the reverse. But nor do I wish to indulge in the kind of fantasies, hopefully only based upon ignorance, that so inspire you, and which will only result in ridicule.
Your numbers for carriers are also nonsense. At the end of WW2, the RN had nine fleet carriers, assuming that Argus and the repair carrier Unicorn are included. A further four fleets were planned, and four light fleets joined the Pacific Fleet immediately after the end of the war.
There were also 36 American built Escort Carriers, which were returned at the end of the war, as well as 4 British built Escort Carriers. The Escorts were not Fleet vessels, although some did serve with the main fleets from time to time. They were certainly not 'Capital Ships.'
As I said, please buy a book. I would recommend 'British & Empire Warships of WW2' by Lenton & Colledge.
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 I agree. It isn't a competition, as there is no contest. You are utterly outclassed, and my facts are totally correct.
Have I ever suggested that Germany was not hugely inferior to the largest navy in the world? Especially after the catastrophe the Kriegsmarine experienced during the Norwegian campaign?
'I am making a very clear point.' No, you aren't. When you say, as you did, that the British had 92 capital ships and 340 destroyers, you are posting utter nonsense, and you render any claim you might seek to make meaningless.
The actual numbers I stated are more than adequate to make such an argument, even if they, for no clear reason, annoy you.
Ludicrous hyperbole serves no purpose. Nor does arguing that accurate information is 'sneering and pompous.'
Do some proper reading, or just go away.
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 'Sorry if figures from the top of my head are a bit broad brush. But they are a good reflection of the overall figures 1939-45.' By 'broad brush' I assume you mean 'made up?' Still.at least you seem to admit your ignorance, such as not actually knowing what a 'Capital Ship' really was.
'Nitpicking?' Correcting 92 to 22, and 340 to 193 is hardly nitpicking. It is simply correcting ludicrously false statements. By the way, I chose September 1939 as an obvious starting point. As I have access to the Royal Navy's Pink Lists, I know the nature and size of the fleet throughout the war. If you would like to know the Fleet strength in August, 1945, you only need to ask. Politely, of course.
'The fact that nobody has agreed with you shows that your efforts to play down the Royal Navy are pointless.' You mean unlike you, with one upvote per post? Didn't you know that upvoting your own comments is rather bad form?
Show me where I have 'played down' the Royal Navy? I have simply tried to educate you in the silly errors you continue to make. Why not simply tefer to any book about the RN in the Second World War for some actual facts?
Actually, as a naval historian with a number of books and articles about the naval war of 1939-1945, I have never come across such an accusation before. Those US writers I have encountered, as well as British writers of a light blue persuasion, generally accuse me (wrongly) of exaggerating the role of the Foyal Navy in the defence of Britain in the early years, and in bringing about the final victory.
Still, fantasise away to your heart's content. Put simply, my information is entirely correct, and your claims are wholly bogus.
Please note that I will not upvote my own post. I do not need to.
1
-
1
-
@stephfoxwell4620 No, you idiot. Anyone reading my posts (seemingly, you haven't) would have been able to understand how consistent and accurate they are. Or, if they weren't sure, they could have checked in moments.
Unlike yours which vary from post to post, and are entirely unsupported by any source.
'Exaggerate the strength of the Nazi Navy, play down the strength of the Royal Navy or merely score points for a more in depth knowledge of detail than most laymen.' I have referred to the Kriegsmarine once, in response to a comment of yours. I have been strictly and precisely accurate about the actual strength of the Royal Navy. I have certainly not 'played down' how strong the RN was. Nor have I indulged in lunatic ravings, which I can happily leave to you.
I do have greater knowledge than most people. It comes from a First in Modern History, a specialism in 20th Century Naval Warfare, and the publishing of a number of books & articles on the subject.
To quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle :-
“My dear Watson," said [Sherlock Holmes], "I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one's self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one's own powers.”
'Anyone can see that Britain was a bigger power than Germany.
For Germany to wage war on the British Empire was a disaster for Germany. A catastrophic error.' Please show me where I have ever written anything which disagrees with that. Good luck.
My whole purpose in replying to you was to correct your initial ignorant comments about the Royal Navy. That you are unable to accept criticism, or even try to check the facts, says rather a lot about you.
1
-
1
-
1