Who would have been better than the Brits as colonists?

BillyMitchel · 26-04-2013 07:38PM

The Mongolians

NuckingFacker · 26-04-2013 07:51PM

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Danny Boy · 26-04-2013 07:59PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

As colonial empiricists go, the Brits were far from the worst, probably close to the best.

Yes the thousands executed over the centuries for transgressing the penal laws, the over 1 million who were left to die in the gutter while 1000s of tonnes of food were exported to the empire, the brightest of a generation shot down, I'm sure all would agree with your assertion.

In 1940 the British are widely acknowledged as having saved the World from Germany tyranny.

For countries such as ours for centuries before that the British were our Germany, and no one saved us from them.

Wibbs · 26-04-2013 08:04PM

Albert E. Arkwright wrote: »

Is that why the Germans kicked their arse twice in real wars ?

ehhhh nope.

But yep the French pretty much kicked arse in European history. Won more battles and wars than anyone else. The English may cry "Agincourt", but have a bit of amnesia over the fact that the French slaughtered them in just about all the other battles in that war and oh yea won the war outright. As wiki notes; "France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49". That's some arse kicking going on. Surrender monkeys my bollix. Look at how many military terms and ranks are French in origin. Even the word army comes by way of old French.

Hidalgo wrote: »

The Spanish maybe, from a religious POV.
They also gave equal rights to native South American's also afiak,

Hardly. They were right c*nts in the Americas.

sock puppet wrote: »

To be fair, aren't Britain, Spain and France pretty much the only large European countries that have actually existed for most of European history?

you could add Spain, Portugal and others to the list. Plus there were many powerful local states, EG in Italy who were militarily strong. Plus take somewhere like Britain, for much of it's history England, Scotland and Wales were pretty separate states.

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Maybe, though look at Iceland. Other than Columbia IIRC they have had more miss Worlds than anywhere else and you do see some serious crackers of a night out there, but genetically apparently many of the female lines are actually Irish. Must find the link. Interesting stuff.

Wibbs · 26-04-2013 08:25PM

Danny Boy wrote: »

Yes the thousands executed over the centuries for transgressing the penal laws, the over 1 million who were left to die in the gutter while 1000s of tonnes of food were exported to the empire, the brightest of a generation shot down, I'm sure all would agree with your assertion.

Ok but how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Genuine question. While the British elites were right bastards(not least with their "own"), how many did they directly shoot/kill? Numbers tend to be exaggerated in the mind. Take our own civil war. Numbers killed? around 2-3 thousand, the figure is still murky. Terrible bloody tragedy and still has scar tissue down to today, but when you take the Spanish civil war not long after and see the figure of 2-3 hundred thousand it beggars belief.

In 1940 the British are widely acknowledged as having saved the World from Germany tyranny.

Hardly. At that stage they were a sideshow. The Battle of Britain was pretty unlikely to have gone any other way. Plus they(and the French and others) were roundly and rapidly thrashed by the German advances through Western Europe, even though they had numbers on their side. If Hitler had ever established a beachhead in England and brought the full force of blitzkrieg onto English soil they would have been fooked, after all they very nearly took Russia and had taken out the French, Dutch, Belgians etc, but like I said that was a very slim chance so... BTW this is not to denigrate the bravery of the (scarily young)men defending the skies(inc quite the number of Irish men), but the numbers don't quite add up to the post war hype and great story.

Plus it was the Soviets who effectively "won the war". Any other army that faced the German war machine on land in anything like decent strength got hammered. So did the Soviets, but they had the sheer numbers aren't werent afraid to hurl them at German steel. And they had a very strong ally, the weather. One of their greatest "generals" was General Winter.

Danny Boy · 26-04-2013 08:29PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Ok but how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Genuine question. While the British elites were right bastards(not least with their "own"), how many did they directly shoot/kill? Numbers tend to be exaggerated in the mind. Take our own civil war. Numbers killed? around 2-3 thousand, the figure is still murky. Terrible bloody tragedy and still has scar tissue down to today, but when you take the Spanish civil war not long after and see the figure of 2-3 hundred thousand it beggars belief.

Hardly. At that stage they were a sideshow. The Battle of Britain was pretty unlikely to have gone any other way. Plus they(and the French and others) were roundly and rapidly thrashed by the German advances through Western Europe, even though they had numbers on their side. If Hitler had ever established a beachhead in England and brought the full force of blitzkrieg onto English soil they would have been fooked, after all they very nearly took Russia and had taken out the French, Dutch, Belgians etc, but like I said that was a very slim chance so... BTW this is not to denigrate the bravery of the (scarily young)men defending the skies(inc quite the number of Irish men), but the numbers don't quite add up to the post war hype and great story.

Plus it was the Soviets who effectively "won the war". Any other army that faced the German war machine on land in anything like decent strength got hammered. So did the Soviets, but they had the sheer numbers aren't werent afraid to hurl them at German steel. And they had a very strong ally, the weather. One of their greatest "generals" was General Winter.

If you think that the core point of my post was to accentuate the role of the British in WW2 then that would be a misread.

The J Stands for Jay · 26-04-2013 08:31PM

The Chinese. A great bunch of lads.

Manach · 26-04-2013 08:34PM

Chinese - might have had a reasonable national cuisine.

Wibbs · 26-04-2013 08:44PM

Danny Boy wrote: »

If you think that the core point of my post was to accentuate the role of the British in WW2 then that would be a misread.

Merely correcting the history, but my original question remains, how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Your post suggests the brightest of a generation. Who were they? How many? How were they the brightest of a generation? Like I say genuine question. Compared to what the imperial pricks got up to in places like India one could argue we got off pretty lightly.

Danny Boy · 26-04-2013 08:56PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Merely correcting the history, but my original question remains, how many did they shoot down in actual numbers? Your post suggests the brightest of a generation. Who were they? How many? How were they the brightest of a generation? Like I say genuine question. Compared to what the imperial pricks got up to in places like India one could argue we got off pretty lightly.

They had over 90 marked for execution in 1916, before the outcry prevented it from happening. Again the 1 million who were expendable, much as the nazis treated the poles, would suggest we did not get away "lightly", no matter what horrors the Indians endured. There are mass graves all over this country with men women and children by the thousand, all who died under the "protectorate"of Great Britain. It never happened on the "mainland" for a reason.

up for anything · 26-04-2013 10:09PM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The Swedish would have been nice. If for nothing else, they'd have spiced up the gene pool on the good-looking front.

Whatever gives you that idea? The men here are bad enough already.

No thanks.

NuckingFacker · 26-04-2013 10:34PM

up for anything wrote: »

Whatever gives you that idea? The men here are bad enough already.

No thanks.

Yeah, but I like that bloke in the blue and white dress. Muchly.

Hidalgo · 26-04-2013 10:37PM

Wibbs wrote: »

ehhhh nope. But yep the French pretty much kicked arse in European history. Won more battles and wars than anyone else. The English may cry "Agincourt", but have a bit of amnesia over the fact that the French slaughtered them in just about all the other battles in that war and oh yea won the war outright. As wiki notes; "France has participated in 168 major European wars since 387 BC, out of which they have won 109, drawn 10 and lost 49". That's some arse kicking going on. Surrender monkeys my bollix. Look at how many military terms and ranks are French in origin. Even the word army comes by way of old French.

Hardly. They were right c*nts in the Americas.

you could add Spain, Portugal and others to the list. Plus there were many powerful local states, EG in Italy who were militarily strong. Plus take somewhere like Britain, for much of it's history England, Scotland and Wales were pretty separate states.

Maybe, though look at Iceland. Other than Columbia IIRC they have had more miss Worlds than anywhere else and you do see some serious crackers of a night out there, but genetically apparently many of the female lines are actually Irish. Must find the link. Interesting stuff.

They did bestow equal rights to natives as to those who left Spain to live in the 'new world'.
Also, they didn't (when they easily could have) employ straight out slave labour, natives were provided with housing in villages (mainly as attempt to Christianise them), regarding work for crop growing/gathering etc, once the natives did the set down hours, they could either do more hours for payment/extra food etc or not. Or at least they were the provisions set down in tract in the motherland, of course putting what was written down into practice was a different story.

So where did things go wrong here if the Icelandic have some of our genes, we got the raw deal :pac:

up for anything · 26-04-2013 10:39PM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yeah, but I like that bloke in the blue and white dress. Muchly.

He's a bit obvious. Not my type.

For Forks Sake · 26-04-2013 10:46PM

BillyMitchel wrote: »

The Mongolians

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkyvLD3UJVk

TheUsual · 26-04-2013 10:48PM

Italy would have been cool. Coffee, fiats and mafia.

Romans they go home

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI

RUSTEDCORE · 26-04-2013 10:50PM

Dublin needs to colonise the farmers

Wibbs · 26-04-2013 10:54PM

Danny Boy wrote: »

They had over 90 marked for execution in 1916, before the outcry prevented it from happening. Again the 1 million who were expendable, much as the nazis treated the poles, would suggest we did not get away "lightly", no matter what horrors the Indians endured. There are mass graves all over this country with men women and children by the thousand, all who died under the "protectorate"of Great Britain. It never happened on the "mainland" for a reason.

90? Out of a population north of four million at the time. Hardly a generation, never mind the brightest lights of same. Oh and it didn't happen to boot? You mentioned the nazis? On more than one occasion they shot that many and many more in the course of a single day.

Comparing the Nazi's direct and practically expressed genocidal actions to blinding stupidity, mismanagement and yep in some a daft racial notion is hardly equivalent. I'm not suggesting it wasn't a tragedy of monumental proportions for the people of this nation, but let's dial back the hyperbole, the grey areas of the truth are easier to reveal that way. Yes make no mistake, the British government of the time failed in its political and moral duty to prevent the failure of a staple crop turning into a disaster and they should hang their heads in shame because of that, but to call it deliberate genocide akin to nazi stated aims and practical attempts and successes at following through with their aims is just daft, historically, philosophically and logically. Then again those three subjects are often skimmed over with those expressing agendas. On all sides of a debate, wherever you are.

getzls · 27-04-2013 04:51AM

realies wrote: »

The Germans seem to be doing quite nicely with it :-)

And the Germans would have colonised Ireland if it wasn't for the Brits in WW2;)

getzls · 27-04-2013 05:00AM

General Monck wrote: »

I blame partition for the economic mess we're in. If the country wasn't divided in two by an international border, I don't think things would be half as bad.

It's over 90 years ago, get over it.

If you lost your wages in the Bookies you would blame the Brits for it.

token101 · 27-04-2013 05:16AM

Ants?

belcampprisoner · 27-04-2013 06:45AM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 27-04-2013 07:59AM

dirtyden wrote: »

Which two wars did the Germans win?

The German (Or Prussian, to be precise) army decisively defeated the French in the Franco-Prussian War and the French were again heavily defeated in World War 2. Of course, I suspect the original poster was referencing World War 1 in which the French didn't prove so easily beaten.

Grayson · 27-04-2013 08:56AM

Albert E. Arkwright wrote: »

Is that why the Germans kicked their arse twice in real wars ?

The italians were worse. When the germans invaded france in WWII the italians invaded from the south. The french kicked their ass. they actually took Italian territory until the germans diverted troops.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're a small but vocal bunch who'd very much have been the enemy of those who aspired to Irish Independence.

Or, they're being realistic and looking at things on balance. Because you know, we don't all have to be rabid brit hating morons.

And keeping on topic, the dutch would have been interesting overlords. they weren't nice with their SEA colonies, but at least we might have gotton hash legalized

Grayson · 27-04-2013 08:57AM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

The German (Or Prussian, to be precise) army decisively defeated the French in the Franco-Prussian War and the French were again heavily defeated in World War 2. Of course, I suspect the original poster was referencing World War 1 in which the French didn't prove so easily beaten.

But the russians were. And it's dbatable about how much american involvement on the western front swung the war.

crockholm · 27-04-2013 09:08AM

In Iceland they have the Vastmannjyar, which roughly translate as the Irishman islands,many Irish were kept as slaves there,they revolted killed their cruel masters and were then killed by a larger Icelandic army. Before they vikings showed up, Iceland was a temporary Irish monastic settlement.

As for the French-They were the best landed army in Europe from about 1650-1815,succeeded by the Prussians,and proceeded by the Swedes and the Spanish,the Dutch ruled the Seas until the late 1600s until Ol Blighty took over.

Never a wise idea,but I'm going to argue with Wibbs a little with regards to Anglo-french combat from the 14-16th centuries, while we do hear about Agincourt(1415) it is very important because of the the amount of French Barons and Lords killed, but also Crecy, and Poitiers,where the French King was captured and which extended the English territories in Aquitaine to an enormous portion of south-western France(which they are re-colonizing,especially in Gascony) and also around Calais, which was held until 1558.

iDave · 27-04-2013 09:29AM

If you examine history closely you will conclude that empire is generally a bad thing for those who are conquered. Doesn't matter if the conquerors are British Spanish French belgian etc. or that the colony is in Europe Africa Asia or the Americas. The British did this that and the other to us. The Spanish would of introduced the inqusition to Ireland (with plenty of local conspiritors no doubt), the Belgians were responsible for a 10 million death Holocaust in the Congo, the Germans would of exterminated anything non- Aryan and so forth. There all as bad as each and I cant see any benefit from them. Even if we became a military or naval power ourselves I doubt we would of been any better. Think of the brutality of the irish raiders in Britain when Rome was collapsing.

Standard Toaster · 27-04-2013 09:34AM

belcampprisoner wrote: »

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

Anyone got a link to buy that book?

Zebra3 · 27-04-2013 09:44AM

biko wrote: »

If only Brian Boru hadn't defeated the Vikings a thousand years ago.
We could have been speaking Norwegian

The Vikings spoke Old Norse and were mainly from Denmark, so we'd have ended up with Danish.

Not much difference though.

Grayson · 27-04-2013 10:14AM

iDave wrote: »

If you examine history closely you will conclude that empire is generally a bad thing for those who are conquered. Doesn't matter if the conquerors are British Spanish French belgian etc. or that the colony is in Europe Africa Asia or the Americas. The British did this that and the other to us. The Spanish would of introduced the inqusition to Ireland (with plenty of local conspiritors no doubt), the Belgians were responsible for a 10 million death Holocaust in the Congo, the Germans would of exterminated anything non- Aryan and so forth. There all as bad as each and I cant see any benefit from them. Even if we became a military or naval power ourselves I doubt we would of been any better. Think of the brutality of the irish raiders in Britain when Rome was collapsing.

yep. It's worth remembering that pretty much every colonial power ever raped and pillaged their way through colonies. Everything in a colony was seen as a commodity, right down to the people. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of a single power that turned up somewhere and did only/mostly good. The place would have had to be uninhabited before the colonists ever arrived.

Who would have been better than the Brits as colonists?

Comments