The epitamy of british history and military lies.

csk

jmayo wrote:

Ould Vicky herself met him even though Disraeli didn't want to touch him with a barge pole.
He also tried to blame Col. Durnford for charging off after the Zulus even though that is what he had been ordered to do so.

She promoted him to full general and appointed him Lieutenant of the Tower of London, and he died in 1905 playing billiards at his club. He did a lot better than the poor sods he left to fight the Zulus.

Wellington did state "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse" when talking about his place of birth.
He was also supposed to have commented that "Our army is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth".
Nice fellow alright.

From what I can remember Chelmsford seemed a bit of a sliveen all right.

Wellington was a good general he had that going for him I suppose.:eek:

Fratton Fred

jmayo wrote:

He was also supposed to have commented that "Our army is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth".
Nice fellow alright.

that was after his army neglected their orders to carry on persuing the Fleeing French and chose to loot their possesions instead. He called those that did it Scum and claimed they only joined for the alcohol, or something like that.

Wellesley was very strict with regards looting etc. As far as he was concerned they were a liberating army and should not resort to the actions of the French.

I would be surprised if he was embarrassed about his Irish birth, he comes across as a very fair person, unusual for a nobleman of his era.

Snickers Man

odonnell wrote:

The British war effort was gargantuan, and anyone who uses the word 'peripheral' when describing it - is being disrespectful.

The two terms are not contradictory.

Britain's war effort was indeed "Gargantuan" in terms of Britain's own resources.

But what I said was "Britain's involvement in the grand scheme of things was peripheral" and this too is true.

Point of fact (and one easily researched): Even after D-Day when the British, American and Canadian armies landed in France and supplemented the British and American forces already in Italy, something like 80% of the German Army remained on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviets. It only needed 20% of its strength to resist the combined might of Britain, Canada and America (and of course the insurgents among the nations it occupied) to the extent that it took nearly a year to force a surrender of a country that effectively no longer had an air force and could be bombed at will.

So, taking the war as a whole, and not just looking at it from the narrow perspective of Britain's experience, your involvement in it was indeed peripheral. The real heavy work was done by others.

If you feel slighted by that, then how do you think it must feel for the citizens of places like Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway etc to hear, as they frequently do, that they were "Liberated" by the British and Americans? As if they had suffered nothing themselves.

And because many soldiers in the British army were Irish - it had to be you guys who 'kept it going' yeh? Dont be daft mate...id love to see the stats to show there were more irish soldiers than Scottish, Welsh, and English.

Irish soldiers served in the British Army in disproportionate numbers throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. There used to be a Website (can't find it any more) which categorised winners of the VC in terms of nationality, and distinguished between Irish, Scottish, English and Welsh.

Irish winners were the second most numerous after the English. More than the Scots, more than the Australians, more than the Welsh. Was it because we were braver? Or just because there were more of our nation serving in the army?

I think the latter.

Just as now, there are disproportionately more Scottish soldiers serving in the British army than English. Just as there are disproportionately more Sikhs serving in the Indian army than other religious affiliations. There is often a distinctive ethnic group that the ruling power is keen to recruit to serve in its army, allowing it to keep the trappings of its original identity whether that's a shamrock, a kilt, or a Sikh turban as long as they do the master's dirty work.

Which we did.

And which you continue to do. In Northern Ireland, until recently. In the Falklands. And in Iraq.

And as for Irvine Welsh - if you believe his little rant in Trainspotting through Ewan MacGregor - it is YOU who pays too much attention to BBC mate.

It's not a question of "believing" it. It's just a question of admiring the author's perception. And his courage to say it.

As far as i was aware, we have ALWAYS been an indipendant nation, one which entered into a union of our own free will.
We were never a British colony....thanks.

OK so you're a Scottish Unionist. That is your perogative. You will know of course, that when the major party in the Union of the two kingdoms imported a king that a lot of Scottish people didn't particularly care for, and that when they tried to assert what they thought was their right to choose their own king, they got pretty short shrift. At places like Glencoe. And Culloden. Not to mention the barabaric ethnic cleansing that followed the latter.

But then, it wasn't the English doing that. It was the Germans. With a little help from enthusiastic locals.

Mick86

csk wrote:

So what derogatory term was it for the Zulus.

Mr. Zulu maybe.

csk wrote:

So there were no contemporaries who saw Imperialism as bad?

Undoubtedly, but they dealt with the problems of their day in their own fashion. Because you think imperialism is bad in the 21st century doesn't mean that a 19th century opponent thinks so for the same reasons as you. It would be impossible.

csk wrote:

The thing to remember with all this is that us Irish were the first victims of British Imperialism.

Yeah, I'm reminded of Monty Pyton's "What have the Romans ever done for us sketch.":D

O'Leprosy wrote:

Two officers were rewarded Victoria Crosses for Isandlwana after fleeing the battle supposedly to save the regiment's colours. On hearing this, another officer publicly stated " It is monsterous trying to make heros out of those who tried to save their own skin while bolting".

Whoever the critic was his opinion must have been a minority one. Another escapee from Isandlwana was a Lt Horace Smith Dorrien. He finished his military career asa General.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

Undoubtedly, but they dealt with the problems of their day in their own fashion. Because you think imperialism is bad in the 21st century doesn't mean that a 19th century opponent thinks the same as you. It would be impossible.

Yes thanks for that gibberish it makes a world of sense.

The bottom line, though, with 19th century opponent and a 21st century opponent is that Imperialism is bad. Stating Imperialism is bad doesn't stop me from understanding the context of the time.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

Yeah, I'm reminded of Monty Pyton's "What have the Romans ever done for us sketch."

I don't see how it has any relevance unless you are just trolling for the sake of it.
There was nothing wrong about my statement.

Tchocky

Snickers Man wrote:

Point of fact (and one easily researched): Even after D-Day when the British, American and Canadian armies landed in France and supplemented the British and American forces already in Italy, something like 80% of the German Army remained on the Eastern Front fighting the Soviets. It only needed 20% of its strength to resist the combined might of Britain, Canada and America (and of course the insurgents among the nations it occupied) to the extent that it took nearly a year to force a surrender of a country that effectively no longer had an air force and could be bombed at will.

That last bit. Germany didn't need "only 20% to resist", they were fighting a two-front war, the Red Army was immeasurably larger than the Western forces, and the Eastern Front was about two thousand miles longer than the narrow strip of Norman beach. Also, check out the massive Allied supply shortage in late 1944/early45. The Germans divided their dwindling forces accordingly. You're painting the situation is an extremely misleading light.
(Come on, if they only needed 20% to resist, then surely we'd have had a German victory in Normandy)

So, taking the war as a whole, and not just looking at it from the narrow perspective of Britain's experience, your involvement in it was indeed peripheral. The real heavy work was done by others.

You are not taking the war as a whole.

Example - the German invasion of Norway. British naval operations sank many German cruisers and destroyers, crippling many of the surface raiders that were to operate in the Atlantic.
Example - Battle Of Britain. No explanation necessary
Example - North Africa

Of course there were other participants who fought longer and harder. (Actually, not longer)
An analysis of contribution could well award the Best Boy In School award to another country, but Britain's involvement was anything but peripheral.

If you feel slighted by that, then how do you think it must feel for the citizens of places like Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway etc to hear, as they frequently do, that they were "Liberated" by the British and Americans? As if they had suffered nothing themselves.

What? They were liberated. The Maquis wasn't going to free the country by itself, a foreign army liberated them from German occupation. Saying as much doesn't negate any suffering that the occupied went through.
I don't see what you're getting at. Perhaps there would be better feelings if they hadn't been liberated. Meh.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

You're possibly right with this. My beef is with the government who initiated these "greed wars" across the world more so than private joe bloggs from Manchester or somewhere who may have joined up with the British army primarily for socio-economic reasons.

Well maybe some of you Unionists joined up for the love of the Crown. I'd wager the majority in Ireland joined up for socio-economic reasons, or to a lesser extent to see the world.

As to joining up to just join the army. I doubt many outside of Unionists would have done this. The British empire, who gained its power by the slaughter of peoples from smaller, more vulnerable nations was a repulsive institution to any right thinking Irishman whos countrymen had been on the receiving end of such a campaign of terror. The fenian movement was gathering pace around these years. Irelands militant young would have joined the IRB and the Fenian movement moreso given the choice.

I doubt anyone joined for the love of the crown across Britain... however without these conquests there would be no need for large armies. Then there would be no armies as a way out. Does that mean if the british aramy did not exist everyone in ireland would have starved??

But I have looked into why Irishmen joined the british forces as opposed to your depiction.

The British Army was traditionally seen as an area of potential employment for working class Irishmen. Many of the recruit's came from the urban poor, joining the army was seen as an opportunity to better oneself. The pay was good in comparison to what was available at home and an allowance was also paid to the spouse of the soldier while he was away on duty. This made the army financially attractive to the Irish poor. It is notable that despite many inducements (including setting up special battalions for clerks and office workers) recruitment proceeded at a much slower pace among the Irish middle classes.

from the waterford museum website

I have not found any references to starving Irishmen with no other options. They marched under a british flag on their own choice it was not the only way out. A lot of the benefits of colonialism arrived on irelands shores as a result of these conquests. As unfair as this seem to our 2007 senses this is how the world evolved.

If we dont aknowledge the efforts of Irish servicemen who served with distinction without any of the ideas a lot of republican minded people have today. Well then we effectivly disown them to the British. This contrasts to the way we defend the fact men like Bob Geldof and Eddie Irvine are Irish.

Is it that big a step to admit that Irish troops served the british army by choice?

odonnell

Snickers Man wrote:

OK so you're a Scottish Unionist. That is your perogative. You will know of course, that when the major party in the Union of the two kingdoms imported a king that a lot of Scottish people didn't particularly care for, and that when they tried to assert what they thought was their right to choose their own king, they got pretty short shrift. At places like Glencoe. And Culloden. Not to mention the barabaric ethnic cleansing that followed the latter.

But then, it wasn't the English doing that. It was the Germans. With a little help from enthusiastic locals.

Mate im no unionist - far from it... I would rather see (with all due respect fratton fred) Scotland removed from the union as quickly as possible. I am well aware of the 'attrocities' comitted during the highland clearances, Glencoe valley, culloden, (where i used to live) king george and all that etc and it isnt quite so simple as you put it.

It was nothing to do with a 'king of their choosing' (i presume you mean those later known as the jacobites in the 18th century....but dating back to the early 17th) - it was all to do with the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland mate, and that, at the time, would have been enough of a claim to be the heir to the throne of Britain. Like i said earlier though - the whole story is a web of lies, religion, money and aristocrats and politicians.

Nevertheless - we were never a colony.

Mick86

csk wrote:

Yes thanks for that gibberish it makes a world of sense..

Makes sense to me.

csk wrote:

The bottom line, though, with 19th century opponent and a 21st century opponent is that Imperialism is bad. Stating Imperialism is bad doesn't stop me from understanding the context of the time.

Bottom line is Imperialism has good and bad points. European imperialism did more good than harm to the peoples of India, Africa and America. It's a 21st Century knee jerk reaction that imperialism was and is immoral. A 19th century anti-imperialist might be worried about his tax Pounds being wasted on a shower of foreigners.

csk wrote:

I don't see how it has any relevance unless you are just trolling for the sake of it.
There was nothing wrong about my statement.

I find that "victims of imperialism" whining laughable. The Irish were no more victims of imperialism than any working class person in England through our history. As I've said before, the cult of victimhood is part of a national myth we've built up.

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

Mate im no unionist - far from it... I would rather see (with all due respect fratton fred) Scotland removed from the union as quickly as possible.

Me too;)

odonnell wrote:

I am well aware of the 'attrocities' comitted during the highland clearances, Glencoe valley, culloden, (where i used to live) king george and all that etc and it isnt quite so simple as you put it.

It was nothing to do with a 'king of their choosing' (i presume you mean those later known as the jacobites in the 18th century....but dating back to the early 17th) - it was all to do with the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland mate, and that, at the time, would have been enough of a claim to be the heir to the throne of Britain. Like i said earlier though - the whole story is a web of lies, religion, money and aristocrats and politicians.

Nevertheless - we were never a colony.

from what I can gather, it was almost a dog eat dog situation and the bigger dog kind of won. Although, as you say, Scotland, or the Nobles ayway, decided that union was far more pofitable than conflict and entered into it of their own free will.

csk

Mick86 wrote:

Bottom line is Imperialism has good and bad points. European imperialism did more good than harm to the peoples of India, Africa and America. It's a 21st Century knee jerk reaction that imperialism was and is immoral. A 19th century anti-imperialist might be worried about his tax Pounds being wasted on a shower of foreigners.

"Knee jerk reaction". Good man great to see the debate here at Boards.ie as riveting as ever. :rolleyes:
I don't see any difference in the Imperialism of 19thCentury or its 21st century variance. Both are down to greed, power and natural resources.
Do you support Imperialism?

I find that "victims of imperialism" whining laughable. The Irish were no more victims of imperialism than any working class person in England through our history. As I've said before, the cult of victimhood is part of a national myth we've built up.

Yes indeed the Plantations were just dreamed up by de Valera one day in the 30's as some sinister plot to sully the name of our good neighbours. :rolleyes: There was absolutely no colonisation of Ireland, no they were here bringing civilisation to the dirty natives. :rolleyes:

Erin Go Brath

Zambia232 wrote:

from the waterford museum website
The British Army was traditionally seen as an area of potential employment for working class Irishmen. Many of the recruit's came from the urban poor, joining the army was seen as an opportunity to better oneself. The pay was good in comparison to what was available at home and an allowance was also paid to the spouse of the soldier while he was away on duty. This made the army financially attractive to the Irish poor. It is notable that despite many inducements (including setting up special battalions for clerks and office workers) recruitment proceeded at a much slower pace among the Irish middle classes.

Thats my point really. It was an area of potential employment. I'm pretty sure the IFSC wasn't around during this period to provide employment to the masses
Joining the British Army was an opportunity to put food on the table, and therefore was an attractive proposition.

Zambia232 wrote:

If we dont aknowledge the efforts of Irish servicemen who served with distinction without any of the ideas a lot of republican minded people have today. Well then we effectivly disown them to the British. This contrasts to the way we defend the fact men like Bob Geldof and Eddie Irvine are Irish.

Is it that big a step to admit that Irish troops served the british army by choice?

This verse of The Foggy Dew sums it up for me:

"Twas Britannia bade our Wild Geese go that small nations might be free
But their lonely graves are by Sulva's waves or the shore of the Great North Sea
Oh, had they died by Pearse's side or fought with Cathal Brugha
Their names we will keep where the fenians sleep 'neath the shroud of the foggy dew"

Snickers Man

Tchocky wrote:

You are not taking the war as a whole.

Example - the German invasion of Norway. British naval operations sank many German cruisers and destroyers, crippling many of the surface raiders that were to operate in the Atlantic.
Example - Battle Of Britain. No explanation necessary
Example - North Africa

Oh but I am. I said that after Dunkirk Britain's involvement with the war against Germany was peripheral. Up until then you had Germany on one side and Britain and France on the other eyeballing each other without actually doing much. Then in may 1940, the Germans said "Let's rumble" and they destroyed the British and French armies in a month.

The first two examples you give were both from 1940. the example of North Africa, which I've already dealth with, was one in which the Germans had peripheral involvement. that was a war between the British and Italian empires with the Vichy and Free French thrown into the mix to confuse things. German forces were always a small minority of the Axis forces in the desert, but the British don't like admitting that it was the Italians they were playing yo yo with all that time.

Not to denigrate Rommel or anything like that but his men were always in the minority.

Tchocky wrote:

Of course there were other participants who fought longer and harder. (Actually, not longer)

You're damn right. The Soviet Union lost 10 million people. Britain and America combined lost less than 1million. Peripheral involvement.

And proportionately the country that suffered the most was Poland. Cause they got the crap kicked out of them by both sides.

Tchocky wrote:

What? They were liberated. The Maquis wasn't going to free the country by itself, a foreign army liberated them from German occupation. Saying as much doesn't negate any suffering that the occupied went through.
I don't see what you're getting at. Perhaps there would be better feelings if they hadn't been liberated. Meh.

Who "Liberated" the Norwegians? Or the Danes? Or the Dutch? How many British or American soldiers fought their way through those countries?

So far as I know, none in the first two cases and very few in the last case.

Certainly the only American soldiers in Holland were the airborne troops during Market Garden and they left nearly as quickly as they got there.

So who did the "liberating"? You might well say that the Germans were forced to retreat because of the losses being inflicted by the Allies elsewhere which is true enough, but then you're back to saying who inflicted the most losses and tied up the most German troops. And it wasn't the Brits or Americans.
Peripheral involvement.

odonnell

im sorry mate.... but... i STILL have to say - peripheral involvement in the second world war? Complete and UTTER nonsense.

Snickers Man

odonnell wrote:

im sorry mate.... but... i STILL have to say - peripheral involvement in the second world war? Complete and UTTER nonsense.

Just look at the numbers.

The main war was the one on the eastern front.

And that was always Germany's intention.

Zambia

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Thats my point really. It was an area of potential employment. I'm pretty sure the IFSC wasn't around during this period to provide employment to the masses
Joining the British Army was an opportunity to put food on the table, and therefore was an attractive proposition.

Pretty much but I am not going to blame Britain for putting an attractive employment offer on the table. Like I said there was no conscription Irishmen joined the Britsh red coats of there own free will.

Erin Go Brath wrote:

This verse of The Foggy Dew sums it up for me:

"Twas Britannia bade our Wild Geese go that small nations might be free
But their lonely graves are by Sulva's waves or the shore of the Great North Sea
Oh, had they died by Pearse's side or fought with Cathal Brugha
Their names we will keep where the fenians sleep 'neath the shroud of the foggy dew"

Nice verse but written after the Zulu wars and more for the first world war and should not be a reflection. On the mood towards what was then the actually army of Ireland/Union. Even in the first world war several of the 180,000 citizen army created to bring about home rule (a policy that would have left military decisions with the British Parliment) joined and went to war for Britain. This demonstrates even nationalistic Irishmen would have not had a problem fighting for the union

I tell you what lets see if we can discover why the VC irish winners of Rourkes drift joined up...

jmayo

Snickers Man wrote:

The first two examples you give were both from 1940. the example of North Africa, which I've already dealth with, was one in which the Germans had peripheral involvement. that was a war between the British and Italian empires with the Vichy and Free French thrown into the mix to confuse things. German forces were always a small minority of the Axis forces in the desert, but the British don't like admitting that it was the Italians they were playing yo yo with all that time.

Not to denigrate Rommel or anything like that but his men were always in the minority.

You're damn right. The Soviet Union lost 10 million people. Britain and America combined lost less than 1million. Peripheral involvement.

And proportionately the country that suffered the most was Poland. Cause they got the crap kicked out of them by both sides.

Who "Liberated" the Norwegians? Or the Danes? Or the Dutch? How many British or American soldiers fought their way through those countries?

So far as I know, none in the first two cases and very few in the last case.

So who did the "liberating"? You might well say that the Germans were forced to retreat because of the losses being inflicted by the Allies elsewhere which is true enough, but then you're back to saying who inflicted the most losses and tied up the most German troops. And it wasn't the Brits or Americans.
Peripheral involvement.

I have to take issue with couple of points here.
You can't say that the Afrika Korps had peripheral involvement in North African campaign. They may have been outnumbered by the Italians but their effect was totally disproportionate to the numbers of Italians.
Something you didn't really mention though was the breakdown of the Allies in the campaign. There was a high proportion of ANZACs and Indian soldiers.
This together with the Americans would eventually constitute the invasion foces of Sicily and Italy.
Look further down that campaign and note who fought at Monte Casino for instance. You had Poles, Kiwis etc.

From Dunkirk on, British ground troops were only involved in North Africa and the Far East against the Japanese, again hugely supplemented by forces from their colonies. And if you want to talk about forgotten men talk about the 14th army that trudged around the jungles of Burma fighting the Japanese with worse equipment and less supplies than their compatriots in Europe.

But where Britain affectively took the fight to German was on the seas and in the air. Yes the RAF was made up of English, Welsh, Scots, Irish, Poles, Canadians, South Africans, Kiwis, Aussies and anyone else that had the balls to fly bombers or fighters.

If you really want to be pedantic you could say that the Soviets were really the ones that beat the Germans, since they inflicted most casualities and wiped out most of it's armies. And the supposed casualty figure for Soviets is not 10 million but believed nearer 20 million. Then again they were fighting them on a front from the Black sea to the Baltic.

To the best of my knowledge, actually nobody really liberated the Norwegians since after the German surrender the German divisions in Norway surrendered without any fighting.

Anyway isn't this going off topic again?

I think one thing that hasn't been really mentioned is that a lot of people came to know of the Rorke's Drift battle from the film Zulu.
Now there are major historical inaccuracies in this film. The Zulus attacking Rorke's Drift did not have the Martini-Henry rifles taken at Isandlwana. They were not in the attack at Isandlwana, but were the reserve and they would not have had time to procure the rifles and go attack Rorke's Drift.

Nobody would have sang "Men of Harlech", since the regiment wasn't really Welsh at the time and the regiment song was about Warwickshire anyway.
The Zulus never gave them that salute at the end, they just buggered off since the relief column was approaching.
The British forves were almost out of ammuniton and the Zulus would probably have taken them if the relief column was not approaching.
The two main movie protagonists, the officers, were eejits and would not have been the ones organising the defence.
And yes they did leave out the part where they bayonetted the wounded Zulus left on the battlefield.
They did not touch the point that the Zulu warriors were probably as high as kites, since it is now believed a concotion they used to take before battle to give them strength, was in affect similar to some class A drugs.

But saying that it is a good ould shoot em up picture with good performances form the actors involved. Also it gave work to the native black South Aficans and helped the local economy at the time of it's making.

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

Just look at the numbers.

The main war was the one on the eastern front.

And that was always Germany's intention.

Hang on, we've had this discussion before.

Dead bodies do not equal points in the who done most game. a great many of the Russians that died were civilians, as with the French, the Poles, the Dutch etc. Britain was never actually invaded thanks to the gallent efforts of "The few" and the continued strength of the Royal Navy. A land battle in southern England would have meant a huge increase in the number of British civilian dead.

Britain managed to hold up the Germans and delayed the intended attack on Russia, giving the Russians some breathing space, Britain also provided supplies to Russia to help with their efforts (My Aunt has a set of Russian dolls my Grandad brought back from one such trip) and helped the Russians by providing air power to the Eastern front.

To say that Britains involvement was peripheral is, frankly, insulting to a great many people, most of whom are buried in Normandy, Dunkirk, Holland, Alamein or at the bottom of the Atlantic.

I know, Britain did not win the war alone. it was a massive effort by the allies, but without Britain's involvement (as with the Russians and the Americans) then Germany may well have won.

Zambia

Good post especially the off topic bit

jmayo wrote:

And yes they did leave out the part where they bayonetted the wounded Zulus left on the battlefield.

Where is this reported , as I can find no mention of it. I can imagine it happening but just cant find a report on it. Besides I cant see any other option

jmayo wrote:

They did not touch the point that the Zulu warriors were probably as high as kites, since it is now believed a concotion they used to take before battle to give them strength, was in affect similar to some class A drugs.

Yes this still happens in Somalia Today , africans have lots of natural drugs

jmayo wrote:

But saying that it is a good ould shoot em up picture with good performances form the actors involved.

Agreed

jmayo wrote:

Also it gave work to the native black South Aficans and helped the local economy at the time of it's making.

The blacks by law could not be paid on par with the white actors at the time so I believe at the end of filming the director gave them all the cattle to circumvent this

jmayo

Zambia232 wrote:

Good post especially the off topic bit

Where is this reported , as I can find no mention of it. I can imagine it happening but just cant find a report on it. Besides I cant see any other option

Yes this still happens in Somalia Today , africans have lots of natural drugs

The blacks by law could not be paid on par with the white actors at the time so I believe at the end of filming the director gave them all the cattle to circumvent this

I came across references to the bayonetting of wounded in a web site detailing the truth (or supposed truth) about Rorke's Drift.
It was probably a normal thing to do at the time and they were also probably a bit miffed after Isandlwana.
But film producers would not want to include something like that, because audiences would not be like it, as it would give the wrong impression of their galant lads.

I caught part of an interesting interview with the wife of one of the actors, Stanley Baker I believe.
She stated they did indeed try and circumvent the old apartheid rules.
Surprising the South African regime allowed the film be made as it was, since after all it did show their boer ancestors leaving the British Army to it's own devices at Rorke's Drift.
Also it protrayed the Zulus as brave and galant warriors.
Although in later years the Zulus under Buthelezi were in affect an arm of the apartheid regime and fighting against the ANC.
But that is another story altogether.

Snickers Man

jmayo wrote:

Something you didn't really mention though was the breakdown of the Allies in the campaign. There was a high proportion of ANZACs and Indian soldiers.

I actually did acknowledge in another post that many of those in the desert were Colonial troops.

jmayo wrote:

But where Britain affectively took the fight to German was on the seas and in the air.

I think it's true to say that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force saved Britain from invasion in 1940. But I also think it's true that if Hitler REALLY wanted to invade Britain, he would have. However, the RAF in particular, upped the ante and made him realise it would be more trouble than it was worth. So he turned east. Because that was ALWAYS his major objective.

The Western front campaign, just like the original Schlieffen Plan of 1914, was to put Britain and France back in their boxes and allow the Germans to concentrate on Russia/Soviet Union.

As for "taking the war to the Germans". Germany didn't have much of a navy or much need for one. It's purpose was to disrupt British supply chains, which it largely did with submarines. In that sense, the Germans took the war to the British at sea, not the other way round.

As for the Air Force, apart from the magnificent defensive operation achieved by Fighter Command in 1940, the bomber offensive didn't really get going until 1942 and didn't hit its stride until late 1944. By this stage both America and more importantly the Soviet Union were in the war so Britain's share of the overall effort was being diluted.

Bomber Command really inflicted the most damage and destroyed most lives (mainly civilians) in the last months of the war when Germany's defenses were practically down. In fact, German industrial production continued to rise steadily during the whole bomber offensive until the end of 1944, by which time their armies were in full retreat.

(Read Max Hastings--no Irish whinger he-- on Bomber Command for a devastating expose).

It has been the way of war since time immemorial that at the point of defeat, your civilians get massacred. That holds true for Drogheda 1649 and for Dresden 1945, about ten weeks before Germany's final surrender.

jmayo wrote:

If you really want to be pedantic you could say that the Soviets were really the ones that beat the Germans, since they inflicted most casualities and wiped out most of it's armies. And the supposed casualty figure for Soviets is not 10 million but believed nearer 20 million.

Pedantic???

More like a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Because it is simply, self evidently and undeniably true.

It might be hard to stomach if one has absorbed one's interpretation of what the war was all about from BBC and ITV drama serials, a point I've made before and which somebody suggested was a personal slight. It wasn't intended as such. I am merely stating that at any one time on Britsh TV, 60+ years after the war ended, there is a drama serial being shown describing the British experience as being central to what the war was all about. (Victoria Wood's "Housewife 49" was on a few nights ago) And that such a regular output will inevitably skew people's perceptions.

In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that although the war might have been central to the experience of British people who lived through it; Britain's role was not central to the overall war effort. The epicentre was in Eastern Europe.

Zambia

I think we say the same interview

I would say the Boers where just thinking Ahead..

As the next major british african war was against them , and their Irish Allies funnily enough. But then again they where just more irish lads looking for work.

Offalycool

It seems to me that not much has change for the British Empire. Sure she is much smaller, and has alliances with bigger fish... but it’s still her citizens doing the murdering and dying on others land. Cultural civilisations have always tried to advance their viewpoints/interests over the cultures/interests of others. The motives for this are a mix of personal individual interest, and nationwide collective interests. It is not surprising to see such widespread acceptance of spin.

However this concept of the world is very rapidly becoming outdated. The difference today is the world has got a lot smaller, and sooner or later we are all going to have to accept everybody else’s interests in a very broad sense are in my interest. If we can’t move towards an acceptable compromise for the benefit of all, there will be less and less to squabble for. Unfortunately it is next to impossible for contries to just switch from one selfish imperialistic mentality to the global community spirit.

Countries surrounded by enemies have too much to lose. America, Britain, Ireland, Russia, Iran etc are behaving as one would expect given the nature of human societies today, no amount of moralising is going to ever change that. I suspect we will learn the hard way.. only when we are forced to take refuge in the strength of each other will we learn to overcome our pitiful behaviour. I don’t know what this cataclysmic event could be but I really hope it’s not some silly war with extraterrestrials.

Snickers Man

Zambia232 wrote:

I have looked into why Irishmen joined the british forces as opposed to your depiction.
.........I have not found any references to starving Irishmen with no other options. They marched under a british flag on their own choice it was not the only way out. A lot of the benefits of colonialism arrived on irelands shores as a result of these conquests. As unfair as this seem to our 2007 senses this is how the world evolved.

If we dont aknowledge the efforts of Irish servicemen who served with distinction without any of the ideas a lot of republican minded people have today. Well then we effectivly disown them to the British. This contrasts to the way we defend the fact men like Bob Geldof and Eddie Irvine are Irish.

Is it that big a step to admit that Irish troops served the british army by choice?

I think you're touching on a very important point there. It is overtly simplistic to say that Irish men joined the British Army because they were starved into it or because they had no other option. The recruitment and retention policies were much more subtle than that.

Certainly, poverty was a big motivator in many cases but, as with all subtle inducements, you didn't get guys to join up just by offering them a shilling. You appealed to their corage and manhood, what Churchill called the Irish "ancient valour", you told them they were "bringing civilisation to the darkies". And you gave them the opportunity to prove that they were actually much better soldiers than the native Brits---which many of us still believe today anyway.

They were encouraged to believe all this just as long as they were pointing their guns in the right direction. If they even thought about taking up arms on an unapproved cause they got put up against a wall.

There is an exhibition of World War One recruitment posters in Trinity College at this moment in time. The picture in Today's Times shows how "one brave Irish VC defeated 10 Germans" is emblazoned across a poster. No mention anywhere of how much he would be paid. That would just be crude.

I am all in favour of studying, really studying, how many and why Irish men joined up in the British Army. It certainly did not start in 1914; we were out bayonetting Fuzzie Wuzzies and firing wogs out of cannons in India long before then. And if we are going to stick poppies on our tits and remember the brave boys who helped defeat Hitler we must also remember our countrymen's shameful, IMHO, role in helping subjugate other nations and races to the Imperial Crown.

Not that this is an exclusively Irish phenomenon. Empires throughout history have sought to recruit from among their vanquished foes to go and vanquish a few more.

odonnell

Snickers Man wrote:

It might be hard to stomach if one has absorbed one's interpretation of what the war was all about from BBC and ITV drama serials, a point I've made before and which somebody suggested was a personal slight. It wasn't intended as such. I am merely stating that at any one time on Britsh TV, 60+ years after the war ended, there is a drama serial being shown describing the British experience as being central to what the war was all about. (Victoria Wood's "Housewife 49" was on a few nights ago) And that such a regular output will inevitably skew people's perceptions.

In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that although the war might have been central to the experience of British people who lived through it; Britain's role was not central to the overall war effort. The epicentre was in Eastern Europe.

Mate, you outright told me to go do some reading, you imply my knowledge of WWII is has been absorbed from BBC etc...and suggesting a bit of reading instead of watching tv is a downright insulting thing to say. How can you not see the insulting nature of your statements? Ah hehe....Youre obviously a student....

Now, Im not going to get embroiled in yet another boards classic - the internet is far too handy for argumentative manouvering - the point is...you described the UKs role as peripheral. I dont know WHY youd think this - youve still not really produced anything to suggest it was peripheral involvement, and in my opinion, any nation who has in the region of 300,000 war dead, and many civilians - has ANYTHING but a peripheral role.

Zambia

Snickers Man wrote:

They were encouraged to believe all this just as long as they were pointing their guns in the right direction. If they even thought about taking up arms on an unapproved cause they got put up against a wall.

If part of Mayo decided to take up arms against the Irish republic well they may not be shot today but they would be punished And classed as traitors.

Snickers Man wrote:

There is an exhibition of World War One recruitment posters in Trinity College at this moment in time. The picture in Today's Times shows how "one brave Irish VC defeated 10 Germans" is emblazoned across a poster. No mention anywhere of how much he would be paid. That would just be crude.

Armies all over the world do this

Snickers Man wrote:

I am all in favour of studying, really studying, how many and why Irish men joined up in the British Army. It certainly did not start in 1914; we were out bayonetting Fuzzie Wuzzies and firing wogs out of cannons in India long before then. And if we are going to stick poppies on our tits and remember the brave boys who helped defeat Hitler we must also remember our countrymen's shameful, IMHO, role in helping subjugate other nations and races to the Imperial Crown.

I agree the only difference is I have no problem with the irish role in the advance of the British Empire because at the time thats what people did.

Fratton Fred

Offalycool wrote:

It seems to me that not much has change for the British Empire. Sure she is much smaller, and has alliances with bigger fish... but it’s still her citizens doing the murdering and dying on others land. Cultural civilisations have always tried to advance their viewpoints/interests over the cultures/interests of others. The motives for this are a mix of personal individual interest, and nationwide collective interests. It is not surprising to see such widespread acceptance of spin.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Is this a refeence to Iraq?

Snickers Man

odonnell wrote:

Mate, How can you not see the insulting nature of your statements? Ah hehe....

Well it was meant to be an observation on the role of TV drama in instilling a commonly held belief which puts Britain's role in the war as the central one. Which I still believe to be true. It was not meant to imply that you are ignorant. Happy to clarify.

odonnell wrote:

you described the UKs role as peripheral. I dont know WHY youd think this - youve still not really produced anything to suggest it was peripheral involvement, and in my opinion, any nation who has in the region of 300,000 war dead, and many civilians - has ANYTHING but a peripheral role.

I've already said that the war being central to the experience of British people who lived through it does not mean that the British role was central to the overall conduct of the war.

Let me paraphrase a passage from a classic of wartime cinema:


"It doesn't take much to see that the loss of 300,000 people [your figures] out of a population of about 50 million, compared to Soviet losses of about 20 million people or Polish losses of 6.5 million out of a prewar population of 35 million doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world"

Why do I highlight this? Next time you see a load of English yob soccer supporters on the continent chanting "If it wasn't for the English you'd be Krauts" you should think, "Not only are you chaps frightfully uncouth and ill mannered, you are also ignorant of the overall facts. If it wasn't for the peripheral nature of our country to German considerations, we'd probably be Krauts too. But the fact is they couldn't be arsed because they had bigger fish to fry"

odonnell wrote:

Youre obviously a student....

Yeah. Twenty years ago.

And why do you keep calling me "mate"?

Fratton Fred

Snickers Man wrote:

I think it's true to say that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force saved Britain from invasion in 1940. But I also think it's true that if Hitler REALLY wanted to invade Britain, he would have. However, the RAF in particular, upped the ante and made him realise it would be more trouble than it was worth. So he turned east. Because that was ALWAYS his major objective.

Hitler did REALLY want it, it was his geneals and admirals who didn;t because they didn;t think they could manage a successful invasion, due to the strength of the RN. The only way they could see getting a vast number of boats accross the channel was if they had air supremecy to comabt the naval threat. Not getting air supremecy stalled the whole thing and Hitler gave up turning his attention to Russia later than hoped, nearer winter, which proved fatal.

Snickers Man wrote:

The Western front campaign, just like the original Schlieffen Plan of 1914, was to put Britain and France back in their boxes and allow the Germans to concentrate on Russia/Soviet Union.

But it didn;t work, Britain did not get put back in it's box.

Snickers Man wrote:

As for "taking the war to the Germans". Germany didn't have much of a navy or much need for one. It's purpose was to disrupt British supply chains, which it largely did with submarines. In that sense, the Germans took the war to the British at sea, not the other way round.

those supply chains were also filtered through to the French resistance and via convoy to Russia, to help with their efforts. Good job the British cracked the engima coding (Pretty big success in the war, a British success despite what Hollywood think) and ended up making the German submarine's a dangerous place to be.

Snickers Man wrote:

As for the Air Force, apart from the magnificent defensive operation achieved by Fighter Command in 1940, the bomber offensive didn't really get going until 1942 and didn't hit its stride until late 1944. By this stage both America and more importantly the Soviet Union were in the war so Britain's share of the overall effort was being diluted.

Peripheral effort?

Snickers Man wrote:

Bomber Command really inflicted the most damage and destroyed most lives (mainly civilians) in the last months of the war when Germany's defenses were practically down. In fact, German industrial production continued to rise steadily during the whole bomber offensive until the end of 1944, by which time their armies were in full retreat.

And the war was also in Germany, a major factor on the number of civilian deaths.

Snickers Man wrote:

It has been the way of war since time immemorial that at the point of defeat, your civilians get massacred. That holds true for Drogheda 1649 and for Dresden 1945, about ten weeks before Germany's final surrender.

nice one, you canalways rely on the Irish to bring up Drogheda:rolleyes:

Snickers Man wrote:

Pedantic???

More like a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Because it is simply, self evidently and undeniably true.

It might be hard to stomach if one has absorbed one's interpretation of what the war was all about from BBC and ITV drama serials, a point I've made before and which somebody suggested was a personal slight. It wasn't intended as such. I am merely stating that at any one time on Britsh TV, 60+ years after the war ended, there is a drama serial being shown describing the British experience as being central to what the war was all about. (Victoria Wood's "Housewife 49" was on a few nights ago) And that such a regular output will inevitably skew people's perceptions.

In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that although the war might have been central to the experience of British people who lived through it; Britain's role was not central to the overall war effort. The epicentre was in Eastern Europe.

Actually the epicentre was in Germany, or Berlin to be more precise, it was getting there that was important.

The BBC may put some spin on things, which is surprising, I mean it's not as if they are the British Broadcasting corporation or anything....

That said, you have taken a piece of history and completely belittled it. What you have said is similar to saying that Pearse was peripheral to Irish independance. All he did was sit in a post office for a few days and get himself hung.:rolleyes: