Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Was our neutrality during WWII a folly?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Churchill offered the North if we joined in, then again he offered the French national unity with the UK if they didn't surrender
WHAT RUBBISH?
Any evidence, at all?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »Yawn.....
You do enjoy making up your own history.
What parts did he make up, precisely 0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Yawn.....
You do enjoy making up your own history.
What parts did he make up, precisely
Just the bit about gassing Kurds.
Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).
The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Just the bit about gassing Kurds.
Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).
The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.
So you're saying that he was'nt in favour of gassing those pesky savages?
Or he only wanted give them a light gassing that wouldnt kill many?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Churchill's_1919_War_Office_Memorandum0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59054
So Churchill approved the use of gas? In which case Seanchais statement on that point stands, as do his other statements in the main, even if taken in isolation.Fratton Fred wrote: »Just the bit about gassing Kurds.
Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time).
The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas.
Now this...
What has his birthplace got to do with it? "Being born in a stable does not make one a horse" attributed to Wellington but he never actually said it, but apposite in this case.foxcat wrote:Churchill, born at Blenheim Palace, was like no Irish man ever was.
Ehhhh you really need to read some history beyond the Sun Book of Hysterical "facts". When was the Boer war? Do you even understand the background to same? I doubt it. In any event, just in case your education was truncated for whatever reason, the Boer war(well technically two wars) was fought and ended before 1902. Hitler was around 12-13 years old by it's end. I'll have what you're smoking Ted.At the Boer War, he later saw what Hitler was going to do - and was right.
Nope as has been pointed out, a bunch of Japanese interrupting a hawaiian luau did that. The US while giving tacit support was very much into keeping a largely hands off approach to the European theatre of war. Again, pick up a kindle.He forced the US into the war...'we shall fight them on the beaches'.....
My apologies, it seems it's not the Sun's fault for your confusion, but the Daily Mail's. Hell he did live here for a few years when he was a toddler, maye we should claim him as our own? Oh wait... maybe not. Meh looks like the Irish Daily star is about to go kaput so our collective IQ will go up, if even by a smidgeon. Would that the British gutter Press fall to the same end. Ye'd be in a better state if it did.And saved a very small country (RoI/c20,000 sq. miles) from destruction.
A decade ago now I was in the Canaries on the piss and fell into conversation with some British squaddies as they were reading the Spanish Sun. Beers were taken and debate, argument and discussion was had as it will.
These "working class" lads, the cannon fodder for the cynical, below the bullshít they'd been fed were OK and intelligent guys(one exception who was a moron, but the others just patronised him). They were shocked/surprised and interested in equal measure when exposed to other viewpoints. One of those lads I'm still in contact with today. The Irish are all too often trapped and bullshítted by our own slanted history and I thought ours was bad, but jaysus the Brits, especially the English everyday people have it worse, if that's possible.
Maybe. Well the supermarkets dump tonnes of out of date tomatoes and such a week, so a viable target might be an option alright...Like Westerham - where he lived - and Westminister, there should be a memorial in Dublin..........
Jesus H fcuking Christ, I've some time for Winston, great orator and historian, brave, but bogged down in self doubt and depression, his "black dog", but that didn't serve to diminish the man, even if I might have grave reservations about his opinions and actions at time. Yes a great statesman who late in life red flagged the Nazi bastards and as a pensioner FFS fought them for his country, while many in his parliament were all too in favour of them and he wasn't a bad painter(though Hitler was better with architectural stuff)... Yea all good, but seriously on your points, get a bloody clue. Going cheap at your nearest library. Avoid the books with too many pictures, as it might serve only to confuse.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89297
http://dfat.gov.au/publications/historical/volume-03/historical-document-03-391.html This proposed Act of Union was made public by the U.K. Govt on 17 June 1940 (see the Times, 18 June 1940, p. 6). The proposal lapsed with the resignation of the Reynaud Govt.kentreaper wrote: »WHAT RUBBISH?
Any evidence, at all?
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/support/the-churchill-centre/publications/finest-hour-online/833--winston-churchill-a-eamon-de-valera-a-thirty-year-relationshipAfter midnight on the morning of 8 December 1941 Churchill sent de Valera a message marked ‘Personal, Private and Secret.’ The contents of which read: ‘Now is your chance. Now or never. “A Nation once again”. Am ready to meet you at any time
Winston Churchill enjoyed a good joke. According to Dennis Kelly, one of Churchill’s former literary assistants, the following was one of his boss’s favorite stories, one that ‘he used to adore telling’: ‘British bomber over Berlin, caught in the searchlights, flak coming up, one engine on fire, rear-gunner wounded, Irish pilot mutters, “Thank God Dev kept us out of this bloody war.”’0 -
So you're saying that he was'nt in favour of gassing those pesky savages?Fratton Fred wrote: »Just the bit about gassing Kurds.
Churchill wrote in support of the air ministry's request to use "lachrymatory gas", or tear gas to you and I. (this was modern technology at the time). The request was turned down, so not only was gas not used, if it was, it would have been tear gas. Or he only wanted give them a light gassing that wouldnt kill many?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Churchill's_1919_War_Office_Memorandum
Seanchai said the British gassed the Kurds, that is not true.
The war office was bombing the Kurds to quell riots, personally I would much rather someone threw tear gas at me than bombed me from an aeroplane.
Seanchai wrote a deliberately misleading statement.0 -
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »More Roosevelt than Churchill actually. Roosevelt practically traded Poland for Russian agreement to create the UN and have it based in New York.
By the time of the Yalta conference Britain was on its last legs and had nothing to bargain with.
Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right? 0 -
-
Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right?
By Yalta, you're pretty much describing the exact state of affairs. Churchill was increasingly marginalised as Roosevelt and Stalin carved up the post-war world. There was very little Britain could do about Poland when there were a couple of million Soviet soldiers occupying the place in 1945. There was also the politically delicate issue that Britain's Soviet allies had already invaded Poland in 1939 as part of shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Made it quite difficult to bring the subject up in polite conversion with Stalin...0 -
-
kentreaper wrote: »you might consider adding sarcasm and straying off the point to your brief!
Maybe, his sojourn with the brits in the Canaries was the start of it...... 0 -
By Yalta, you're pretty much describing the exact state of affairs. Churchill was increasingly marginalised as Roosevelt and Stalin carved up the post-war world. There was very little Britain could do about Poland when there were a couple of million Soviet soldiers occupying the place in 1945. There was also the politically delicate issue that Britain's Soviet allies had already invaded Poland in 1939 as part of shameful Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Made it quite difficult to bring the subject up in polite conversion with Stalin...Did winston sign the Yalta agreement? I mean, you're making it sound like britain was just a glorified bystander in the war while the yanks and soviets did all the heavy lifting. Surely that is'nt right?
By the time of Yalta the cold war was starting to take shape.
Roosevelt wanted all US troops back in the states, Churchill wanted them to stay in Europe. Without them there was nothing to stop Stalin marching all the way to the Atlantic.
Roosevelt want stupid, he knew Poland was a lost cause and made the moat of an irretrievable situation. Churchill was more passionate, but had nothing to bargain with.
Poland went a long way to costing Churchill his job. There was a lot of anger in Britain about giving them up, it was, after all, why Britain went to war in the first place.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
kentreaper wrote: »Nothing wrong with that m8 - the crashed crew could have shot the Pole down.....
yes matey there is, he was shooting up a plane that was downed on neutral territory.I guess when you've been on the receiving end of a blitzkreig offensive you get a little bit bitter
It wasn't blitzkrieg though. But yes, people who are invaded, murdered and have their cultures suppressed do tend to feel strongly about the matter, and with just reason.
Unless, of course, it's the british empire that's doing the invading/murdering/supression
0
Advertisement