Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?

Wibbs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

****ing hell :eek:

Oh it's a common meme on the interweb among some. In the other corner, but lesser you have the victim card being played for all it's worth, though at least they have some relevance.

Border-Rat wrote: »

I've dealt with these lies here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056583350&page=3

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

And personally speaking I would disagree with that stance if true. Why? I hate censorship for many reasons even if for apparently "good reason", mostly because it often leads to denial and conspiracy in those that are censored.

If you censor all talk of a subject you raise the suspicion that there's something not to be talked about. This gets the conspiratorial mind grinding away to no good end.

Secondly they may be right. Oh yes, the scary part, but if even a little true and evidence supports them we may all learn something new.

Thirdly they might well be wrong, but in talking we may discover more truths about a subject. Even truths about how the human psyche responds to a subject.

Censorship kills that all stone dead.

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

To compare the Brits bad as they could be and were with what Nazi Germany and many of their allies and fellow nutters were up to at the time and you reckon there wasn't much to chose from?

Its always entertaining trying to watch someone defend broken bottles being shoved up womens' vaginas as "it could be worse".

No, no wait, it isn't.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its always entertaining trying to watch someone defend broken bottles being shoved up womens' vaginas as "it could be worse".

No, no wait, it isn't.

Well if you want to argue equivalence of evil to back your deeply engrained stance, be my guest.

From your link;
"Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948;

German SS special patrols could have knocked that total out before lunch. After a bit of a lie in. There is film fully youtubable that shows such special operations shooting hundreds in pits. The Soviets when they got the upper hand could have knocked that number out before breakfast. Regardless you still compare the undeniably abominable actions of the Brits in Kenya with the worst elements of the German state? It's up there with comparing a tension headache with a aneurysm. But no doubt you'll plough on in this deep entrenchment about perfidious Albion(and it defo was at times) while missing the elements of scale and yes scale makes a difference. Not to the individual, but most certainly to the culture at large

By the way you never answered my question re which state would you have chosen to be tried in? After all there wasn't much of a choice eh?

EDIT and BTB who the fcuk is defending atrocities of any nature? Nice line of reasoning there, but then again it is what those of us who're read you have come to expect.

golden lane

i wonder how high up the scale does blowing innocent kids to bit's.....????

there must be a scale where that is on.....

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Well if you want to argue equivalence of evil to back your deeply engrained stance, be my guest.

From your link;
"Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948;

Don't forget the broken bottles in the vaginas. I really find this unpleasant, but it bears repeating in light of the ongoing apologism.

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless you still compare the undeniably abominable actions of the Brits

So let's talk about the equivalence of evil. By your lights it's less evil if an administration ignores torture and massacres despite clearly being aware of them, as is obviously indicated by the destructon of documentation, than if an administration promotes these tactics. What difference is there? Ignoring them with the subtext of hiding crimes (what what) and promoting them become the same thing when the result is likewise the same.

Lets put this in its proper historical context. This was at the end of the british empire, the last squalling efforts to retain the authority properly due the rightful lords and masters of the darkies, as I imagine the british saw it. Not being fit to responsibly govern anyone, let alone people on a different continent, they resorted to the widespread torture of innocents.

Now tell me Ireland was wrong to refuse support to either side in the war.

Wibbs wrote: »

By the way you never answered my question re which state would you have chosen to be tried in? After all there wasn't much of a choice eh?

Yes, the rule of law was such a major feature of british culture when dealing with Ireland.

Wibbs

Border-Rat wrote: »

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

Actually BR I clicked on your link there and I'll be honest some of the responses did trouble me a tad. An automatic response of revulsion and dismissal from too many. A blanket acceptance that you must be wrong, even before some came forward with rebuttals to your posts. I mistrust "accepted truths" about any subject, there is always something more to be learned, even if the stimulus for that learning is wrong or even right.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Don't forget the broken bottles in the vaginas. I really find this unpleasant, but it bears repeating in light of the ongoing apologism.

Good God man, at least try and remove the blinkers if even just a little. Point out to me where anyone was apologising or excusing a bunch of bastards torturing women and killing civilians. Oh wait... no one was. That's in your head and your head alone.

Yes, the rule of law was such a major feature of british culture when dealing with Ireland.

You still haven't answered my question. Yes many Irish men and women were treated unjustly(and that's putting in mildly) by the British authorities over the centuries. As BTW were "their own". Scots, Welsh and yes even English "peasants" and "working classes" and above were treated miserably by the ruling caste of that culture for far too long. Why the Scots aren't still baying for English blood over the highland clearances is beyond me and the Welsh didn't fair much better, neither did many an Engilshman or woman of good yeoman stock. Thousands were transported or even hanged for their efforts for the common man. Plus like I said the English ruling class were all to happy to promote an idea of "Britain" while fortifying the idea that only the "right kind" of "British" was OK and that was usually a narrow idea of "English".

However as we're considering the times of the topic are you seriously still saying they were equivalent? The Birmingham Six and way to many others ranged against thousands of Germans whose heads ended up in baskets or thousands of Germans who were killed by injection because they didn't fit the master race ideal or thousands locked up or forced out because they had the wrong politics or the wrong blood? Like I say maybe try dropping the "I hate the brits, they're the cause of all our woes" blinkers, just a little, if even for a second. Hope springs but there you go.

golden lane

maybe kneecapping is on the scale......or, killing your own fellow country people...now that has to be a high one.....

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I say maybe try dropping the "I hate the brits, they're the cause of all our woes" blinkers, just a little, if even for a second. Hope springs but there you go.

You'd really want to take a long hard look in the mirror. Still fresh from saying how Belsen was the result of starvation caused by administrative oversight, you miss entirely that the population of this country still hasn't recovered to what it was in the mid nineteenth century, but somehow that's all part of the craic. This comfortable notion that it's all just a misunderstanding over a cup of tea needs to be buried as the wastrel PR that it is.

For the record, I don't "hate the brits". Brian Blessed may be the only man on earth for whom I'd turn, JRR Tolkien is somewhere north of Jesus, and Doctor Who rocks my socks clean off. I know plenty of "brits" and 90% of them are just fine. But when you come to issues of national policy and the relativity of evil, britain has nothing to boast of. Nothing at all.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

You'd really want to take a long hard look in the mirror. Still fresh from saying how Belsen was the result of starvation caused by administrative oversight,

Nope I didn't say that. I said "The horrific scenes found when Belson was liberated were down to criminal and official neglect and starvation". For the hard of reading like yourself the "criminal and official neglect of starvation" might give you a clue. Though I doubt it. If you consider that an "administrative oversight" I pray you don't work in the public service.

you miss entirely that the population of this country still hasn't recovered to what it was in the mid nineteenth century,

Oh oh here we go...

but somehow that's all part of the craic. This comfortable notion that it's all just a misunderstanding over a cup of tea needs to be buried as the wastrel PR that it is.

Nope again, but you keep on believing it. It seems on a many levels you really do read what you want to read.

For the record, I don't "hate the brits". Brian Blessed may be the only man on earth for whom I'd turn, JRR Tolkien is somewhere north of Jesus, and Doctor Who rocks my socks clean off. I know plenty of "brits" and 90% of them are just fine. But when you come to issues of national policy and the relativity of evil, britain has nothing to boast of. Nothing at all.

You still haven't answered my original question.



And god Tolkien makes me want to take up cutting myself... Middle earth is right, it couldn't be more middle if he tried. So we certainly differ there anyway. Though I'm with you on Brian

Doc Ruby

Wibbs wrote: »

If you consider that an "administrative oversight" I pray you don't work in the public service.

That's the ejecta of your foot sailing off into the middle distance. It was the public service who deliberately colluded in removing the evidence of many atrocities. Dead men tell no tales after all, so who is to contradict them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh oh here we go... Nope again, but you keep on believing it. It seems on a many levels you really do read what you want to read.

Here we go? Mention of the ruin wrought on this country by the "brits" is verboten in civilised discourse now is it? No, I say shine a light on it and let us not forget the many voices that have been lost. I for one wonder what they might have had to say.

Wibbs wrote: »

You still haven't answered my original question.

There wasn't one. There was an interjected question which was dealt with appropriately.

Wibbs wrote: »

And god Tolkien makes me want to take up cutting myself... Middle earth is right, it couldn't be more middle if he tried. So we certainly differ there anyway. Though I'm with you on Brian

Brian says: "COURSE Tolkien is brilliant!"

Listen to Brian.

K-9

Border-Rat wrote: »

I've dealt with these lies here;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056583350&page=3

And I was vindicated by the closure of the thread and private threats from staff.

Vindicated by what? A mod closing a Conspiracy Theory thread in a politics forum on an Irish website? How does that give any extra credence to your outlandish claims?

Private threats from staff? What are you on about?

bluecode

I don't know why you bother Wibbs. It's hard to shift people like that off their established position. Border Rat is beyond redemption at this stage.

It is laughable to see people trying rehabilitate the Third Reich, deny the extermination camps and use the undoubted excesses of Soviets, Americans, British etc to promote or perhaps demote them to the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.

Clearly none of them read Mein Kampf. It's not as if Hitler made any attempt to disguise his ambitions. It's all in his book. They're also happy to ignore the hard evidence and the admissions of surviving Nazis.

People think that with the demise of the Nazis that this kind of thing could never happen again. But thanks to internet we can see there are many people out there who keep their brown shirts starched and ready in their closets.

We can also see how easy it is for the myths and illusions of fascism to resurrect themselves.

On the point of the Brits and their antics in Ireland. Again people don't know the real history. But for anyone who thinks Ireland had it tough should maybe chat to one of our Polish visitors. Squeezed between Russia and Germany really has to be worst of all possible geographical locations.

The English are pussycats in comparison.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

That's the ejecta of your foot sailing off into the middle distance. It was the public service who deliberately colluded in removing the evidence of many atrocities. Dead men tell no tales after all, so who is to contradict them.

Point - country mile - Doc Ruby.

Here we go? Mention of the ruin wrought on this country by the "brits" is verboten in civilised discourse now is it? No, I say shine a light on it and let us not forget the many voices that have been lost. I for one wonder what they might have had to say.

Verboten? Are you for real? Hardly a thread of a historical nature anywhere on the site goes by without mention of the "ruin wrought"

There wasn't one. There was an interjected question which was dealt with appropriately.

Nope it wasn't. Pick a judicial system in the 1930's. Germany or Britain.

K-9 wrote: »

Private threats from staff? What are you on about?

Indeed K. All very conspiratorial alright. Maybe he thinks mods are "staff", quite the number do.

bluecode wrote: »

I don't know why you bother Wibbs. It's hard to shift people like that off their established position.

Yea I'm seeing that alright.

It is laughable to see people trying rehabilitate the Third Reich, deny the extermination camps and use the undoubted excesses of Soviets, Americans, British etc to promote or perhaps demote them to the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.

Oh there was well dodgy and criminal behaviour on all sides of that bloody mess, but the Final Solution raised the bar of criminality and immorality. The other "equivalent" oft put forward is the targeting of German(and Japanese) civilians by bombing. Yes it was out of order and it just increased resistance for many(as the London blitz showed) and they could have crippled the Nazi regime more quickly if they had aimed at other infrastructure that they tended not to. Germans themselves wondered this. The Allies avoided much of the electricity supply infrastructure which puzzled the German command.

Anyhoo... the main difference between Dresden and other atrocities and the holocaust is that when the Germans and Japanese surrendered the bombing stopped. Hypothetically if Germany had surrendered before Dresden it would still be standing in it's original state today. However if the Jews, Gypsies, Russian etc had surrendered they would have kept on killing them. Well they did and they did.

Clearly none of them read Mein Kampf.

TO be fair it's a dire read. Amazing how so many followed the guy who wrote it. I thought maybe something was lost in translation, but a German I know who read it reckoned it was worse in German.

People think that with the demise of the Nazis that this kind of thing could never happen again. But thanks to internet we can see there are many people out there who keep their brown shirts starched and ready in their closets.

We can also see how easy it is for the myths and illusions of fascism to resurrect themselves.

True, though that's one reason I am vehemently opposed to official and legal censorship of this topic. That breeds the BS.

Capt'n Midnight

Border-Rat wrote: »

There were no gas chambers under Nazi Germany. If operated as alleged by eye witnesses, who by the way admitted they were lying in the Zundel trial, the 'gas chamber' at Treblinka would've exploded. That's if they actually got the engine working, because you can't pump exhaust fumes from a diesel engine into a hermetically sealed room - the engine will stall. If you defy that element of physics, then the pressure inside will amount to several tons per square inch if worked as alleged, which means the path of least resistance will give. In other words the roof.

Exhaust jacks prove you can get easily get diesel fumes into a sealed space. Up to two atmospheres even.

Next "tons per square inch" - at least get the order of magnitude correct, it's only lbs and only if the room is sealed and only if you run it for a very long time. The space shuttle would be a good example of a something people spent a lot of money getting airtight. It leaked 2% of it's air a day. The rooms weren't sealed. Vents at the top, pipe fittings etc.

And besides 3 million Russian POWs had died of "mistreatment" by summer 1942 , you don't need gas chambers to kill people

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Exhaust jacks prove you can get easily get diesel fumes into a sealed space. Up to two atmospheres even.

+1. CO poisoning can happen very easily. Hell people die because their home heating system goes wrong and they ain't living in hermetically sealed chambers. It can take you very quickly too. In my late teens while visiting a mate, his neighbour decided to take his own life with the hosepipe from the exhaust through the car window method. The pipe was two inches in diameter and the car window was down the same amount. I was dropping something to my mate so I was there for less than 15 minutes. 20 minutes tops. When I arrived the neighbour wasn't there and when I left we discovered him and the poor divil was already dead. Horrible memory.

To run a CO gas van for extermination would be a piece of piss. Wouldn't need to be particularly well made or sealed and so long as the bastards operating it were in the open air they'd be pretty safe. Ditto if you scale it up.

In fact why they then went for zyklon B in some camps always puzzled me. More expensive, requires careful handling, hard to disperse to the levels required quickly, far more dangerous to the German operators, requires the chamber to be better sealed, requires heat to activate and how do you adequately vent it afterwards? I mean look at the precautions the yanks had to take with their gas chambers for execution and that was only one victim at a time. To quote from wiki on the latter;

"Following the execution, the chamber is purged of the gas through special scrubbers, and must be neutralized with anhydrous ammonia (NH3) before it can be opened. Guards wearing oxygen masks remove the body from the chamber. Finally, the prison doctor examines the individual in order to officially declare that he or she is dead and release the body to the next of kin.
One of the problems with the gas chamber is the inherent danger of dealing with such a toxic gas. Anhydrous ammonia is used to cleanse the chamber after cyanide gas has been used:
HCN + NH3 → NH4+ + CN−
The anhydrous ammonia used to clean the chamber afterwards, and the contaminated acid that must be drained and disposed of, are both very poisonous."

OK they were using prisoners to clear the rooms, but they had German and their allies as overseers. Why didn't they die on the spot handling the victims and/or breathing in the air that was left. Even if they had big fans, they're then venting the noxious gas in the middle of the camp. Change of breeze and you'd be in danger of losing your own men, never mind the general toxic buildup in the area if they're doing this several times a day with thousands of people.

I have to admit that part of the deniers reasoning does at least make me think.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

I have to admit that part of the deniers reasoning does at least make me think.

But it came in a handy can.


Seriously it was a commercially available poison so obviously had well established procedures for use.

I can remember when you could buy .88 Ammonia in shops here for cleaning. And I've seen 30% hydrochloric acid on sale in shops abroad. Point being that really nasty chemicals were in general household everyday use here until relatively recently. 'elf and safety weren't as big an issue back then

Wibbs

Oh sure Capt'n, but cyanide in vapour form goes beyond health and safety. I mean they were running gas chambers in US prisons since the 30's and the procedures and precautions required were lengthy and involved. You need pretty high levels to kill a single individual in any sort of time frame and then you have to vent it and then they added ammonia by remotely spraying the body to protect the warders who would deal with the cleanup and then they were wearing suits, rubber gloves and gasmasks.

Now scale that up to where they have to gas up to 20,000 souls a day in Aushwitz. The sheer volume of cyanide gas involved in such an operation would surely cause a serious risk to those running the camps, never mind an explosion risk? Especially given the CO method was used to hideously successful ends elsewhere? Like I say it strikes me as odd overall. Of course the problem is distance of time and that most of the camps they were gutted soon after the war. The gas chamber in Auschwitz that tour groups are shown is a post war reconstruction so can't be a guide. One denier muppet took samples from that one and reckoned that proved something. Duh...

dd972

It was ''The Emergency'' not WWII ! Think we were best off out of WWII, must have been some Allies and Germans interned at the Curragh who stayed on and didn't go home I should imagine

Dyr

bluecode wrote: »

I don't know why you bother Wibbs. It's hard to shift people like that off their established position. Border Rat is beyond redemption at this stage.

It is laughable to see people trying rehabilitate the Third Reich, deny the extermination camps and use the undoubted excesses of Soviets, Americans, British etc to promote or perhaps demote them to the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany.

Clearly none of them read Mein Kampf. It's not as if Hitler made any attempt to disguise his ambitions. It's all in his book. They're also happy to ignore the hard evidence and the admissions of surviving Nazis.

People think that with the demise of the Nazis that this kind of thing could never happen again. But thanks to internet we can see there are many people out there who keep their brown shirts starched and ready in their closets.

We can also see how easy it is for the myths and illusions of fascism to resurrect themselves.

On the point of the Brits and their antics in Ireland. Again people don't know the real history. But for anyone who thinks Ireland had it tough should maybe chat to one of our Polish visitors. Squeezed between Russia and Germany really has to be worst of all possible geographical locations.

The English are pussycats in comparison.

The problem is that you have your buckos who like to decry the nazis as the greatest bastards that ever wore shoe leather while refusing to acknowledge that the only difference between their own lot and ze germans was that fritz made a better fist the of genocidal racial supremacy gig, AKA "manifest destiny", "white mans burden" or whatever other bull**** euphemisms they were using.

"but it was different when we did it"

DEFTLEFTHAND

It must have been very scary for Great Britain when France fell, a small island stood alone against the Axis powers.

Capt'n Midnight

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It must have been very scary for Great Britain when France fell, a small island stood alone against the Axis powers.

"I do not say, my Lords, that the French will not come. I say only they will not come by sea."

Admiral of the Fleet John Jervis, Earl of St Vincent 1801

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

The problem is that you have your buckos who like to decry the nazis as the greatest bastards that ever wore shoe leather while refusing to acknowledge that the only difference between their own lot and ze germans was that fritz made a better fist the of genocidal racial supremacy gig, AKA "manifest destiny", "white mans burden" or whatever other bull**** euphemisms they were using.

"but it was different when we did it"

Oh there's a lot of that going on alright. There's another Eurocentric aspect to it too IMHO. The Japanese in China were responsible for unspeakable horrors and estimates of 20 million Chinese were killed. They raped and butchered their way through the region, experimented with germ and chemical weapons on live subjects and even trained their doctors in gunshot wounds and the like with live subjects*. We hear far less about this in the west, beyond how they treated their western prisoners, which criminal as it was, was of a magnitude better than they treated the locals(hard to believe as that is).

I think because at some deep level we/Europeans feel "well what do you expect from them really". That this involved the land of Beethoven and Kant and Goethe and Bach and Brahms etc, one of the most civilised and advanced nations on earth is a little uncomfortable for us. It wasn't the "wogs", the "barbarians" the "other", it was us systematically exterminating other Europeans and doing it in a terribly official even "proper" way with all the T's crossed and the I's dotted. It holds up a mirror that shows how easily Mr and Mrs Joe or Sean or Hans Citizen can become a monster given remarkably little prodding.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

It must have been very scary for Great Britain when France fell, a small island stood alone against the Axis powers.

and that their expeditionary force of the British Empire had been so roundly defeated in short order. I think how it was seen depended on where you came in the pecking order too. To the ordinary Joe Soap it was terrifying and somewhat local(as is usually the case with most people), to the ruling class it was unthinkable that "their" empire "where the sun never set" was under such attack and exposed as vulnerable and not just by Hitler. The Fall of Singapore to the Japanese really shook them.

*Interestingly after they won the day, the Chinese were very different in how they treated the Japanese under them. They had few trials, show or otherwise, they basically got them to confess without torture to what the individual had done and then sent them home to Japan for the most part. Quite different to the extensive trials and retribution of nazis small and great in Europe.

UCDVet

Here's how I see it....

Let's say Germany had taken over Ireland. Almost all of us would probably be native speakers of German. Our economy couldn't be any worse and daily life in Germany isn't all that much different than like in Ireland. We'd probably pay less taxes too.

Let's say the US had taken over Ireland. Well, to be honest, a lot of our culture already is American thanks to TV and Movies and even (to a smaller degree) multinational corporations like McDonald's. Whatever. Day to day life in America isn't much different than Ireland.

Let's say Britain would have taken over Ireland. Well, to be honest, a lot of our culture is already British, given our history. Day to day life in Britain isn't really much different than Ireland.

For the vast majority of us, we go to work, pay taxes, and live a normal life. It wouldn't have made much of a difference which corrupt politician was living a life of luxury on the tax payer's euro (or dollar or whatever).

I wouldn't care much either way. I'd be happy enough to live in the US, Britain, Germany or Ireland - ignoring language barriers. First-world western countries are so damn similar, even though nobody wants to admit it.

Wibbs

Yea but Nazi Germany taking over is a little different to democratic Germany(or Britain, or America for that matter). You can't compare Germany of today with the madness of that period, it rose from the ashes of that a very different nation.

If we look at other nations invaded by them back then things weren't so rosy, especially if you were a member of a group they considered "undesirable" or "subhuman". So for a start Ireland would have seen round ups and forced deportations of those groups. The disabled and mentally ill would have been either forcibly sterilised or simply killed. Maybe some things might have been better. The church's influence would have been lesser no doubt and all the BS that came with that, but otherwise I'm soooo not so sure.

Capt'n Midnight

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh there's a lot of that going on alright. There's another Eurocentric aspect to it too IMHO. The Japanese in China were responsible for unspeakable horrors and estimates of 20 million Chinese were killed.

cannibalism too

A generation previously during the first world war all the civilized norms of warfare were observed during their takeover of German colonies.

It holds up a mirror that shows how easily Mr and Mrs Joe or Sean or Hans Citizen can become a monster given remarkably little prodding.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war-ii/axis-conquers-philippines9.htm

Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek had been reluctant to allow the U.S. bombers to land in China following the Doolittle Raid, fearing that harsh Japanese reprisals would result. Events proved him correct. Less than a month after the raid, the Japanese army launched the operation Sei-Go. Japan intended to seize Chinese airfields within range of the home islands and take vengeance on villages that aided the airmen. As many as 250,000 civilians were killed in the Chekiang and Kiangsu provinces during Sei-Go

*Interestingly after they won the day, the Chinese were very different in how they treated the Japanese under them. They had few trials, show or otherwise, they basically got them to confess without torture to what the individual had done and then sent them home to Japan for the most part. Quite different to the extensive trials and retribution of nazis small and great in Europe.

Can you imagine any other totalitarian regime employing Pu Yi as a gardener.

Capt'n Midnight

UCDVet wrote: »

Here's how I see it....

I think you are getting confused with western Europe after WWI. Democracies stayed as democracies.

What happened in the East after WWI was very different. Dictatorships almost everywhere.

First-world western countries are so damn similar, even though nobody wants to admit it.

Look at the Far East after WWII not exactly big into civil rights.

Look at the regiemes setup in the East by Germany during the war. They'd have had no problem finding a Quisling here from somewhere across the political spectrum.

dave1987

An Coilean wrote: »

Those held in Germany were considered enimies of the Reich, I fail to see the distinction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUFMjpccvrQ

4:20 look at that and tell me about what the British never did.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain to you what is painfully obvious yet not for you?

Britain didn't massacre entire populations because of their religious beliefs simple as.

dave1987

Doc Ruby wrote: »

There's no point in trying to bring facts to some of these types, it's talking to a wall. Never mind that the Polish were the ones who won the Battle of Britain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdetBvnjSHA

The fighting 303rd, taking on two hundred German planes with just six of their own, or three hundred with just nine Polish pilots (most of whom returned to tell about it), as opposed to the British pilots who couldn't fly to save their lives, literally about half the time. It was said they liked to see more German planes, as it gave them more to shoot at. Twenty four kills in the first six days of operation. Sixteen kills in a quarter of an hour. A hundred kills in a single month.

Another load of crap. How did the Polish win the BoB? all their aircraft were British engineered and produced by the way! They didn't bring them from Poland that's for sure?

Also the Polish were not even permitted to fight at first.

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/britain/airbattle.html

Read and learn and stop making it up.

Polish pilots had a different energy, they wanted vengeance on the German, and Britain is more than aware of every nationality that took part but lets not forget that over 79% of the fighter pilots involved were British and 78% of the pilots killed were also British therefore the major contributor to the battle were the British. You watch too many Rambo movies claiming that a 141 Polish pilots could defeat in excess of 4,000 German pilots? haha or maybe it was Zulu you was watching :pac:

The men who took part in the Battle of Britain; followed by deaths



United Kingdom 1878 348
Poland 141 29
Canada 88 20
Czechoslovakia 88 8
New Zealand 73 11
Belgium 26 6
Australia 21 14
South Africa 21 9
Free French 13 0
Ireland 8 0
United States 7 1
S. Rhodesia 2 0
Palestine 1 0
Total 2367 446


Also of worthy note is Britain produced 2.5 aircraft for every aircraft produced by Germany during the Battle of Britain -

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html

I will say that the Polish pilots were certainly skilled airmen and should be recognised as so. Their paratroops were also of excellent fighting quality.

dave1987

Also of interest of the top 10 Battle of Britain aces the top 3 were British -

1. Pilot Officer Eric Lock (British) of No.41 Sqd. flying a Spitfire shot down 21 Luftwaffe aircraft
Total 26 kills. KIA 3 August 1941.

2. Flight Lieutenant Archie McKellar (British) of No.605 Sqd. flying a Hawker Hurricane shot down 19 enemy aircraft.
Total 21 (possibly 22) three probable and three damaged. KIA 1 November 1940.

3. Sergeant James Lacey (British) of No.501 Sqd. flying a Hurricane killed 18.
(23 by end of November). Total 28 kills.

There was only one Polish and one Czech pilot in the top ten the others were British with one Australian and New Zealand pilot yet you claim they won the Battle of Britain, Its clear your maths are as poor as your history knowledge, it's quite laughable.

Other notable British pilots include Squadron Leader and later Wing Commander Douglas Bader of 242 Sqd. - 20 kills

Robert Stanford Tuck - 27 kills