PDA

View Full Version : Very OT but interesting...Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??



MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 01:53 PM
Hi all,

This topic has an impact on WW2 and IL2.

If Britain had not an Empire at the start of WW2 in 1939 would Britain have been in a stronger position?

Throughout WW2 Britain was struggling to defend in Africa, the Med. and in the Pacific.

If the Empire was so valuable to Britain why was most (90%) of it returned after WW2?

There is a view that the Empire cost too much to maintain and as Britain was financially dead after WW2 it was best to let go of the Empire.

Food rationing after WW2 continued in Britain until 1954. (almost 10 years after WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif)

And maybe 1,000s of Canadians,Australians,New Zealanders etc. would be alive today.

Complex topic but worthy of thought IMO.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MEGILE
09-30-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:

If the Empire was so valuable to Britain why was most (90%) of it returned after WW2?



I suspect the locals were growing weary of their colonial masters.

Bearcat99
09-30-2007, 02:55 PM
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that Britain "returned" it's empire. That isn't what happened. The empire was lost because Britain no longer had the resources, human, financial and otherwise to keep it. Not only that but it was acquired and maintained at quite a cost in human misery and lives lost.... and all this before the Empire was "returned".

stathem
09-30-2007, 03:17 PM
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.

Guess that'll be me on holiday then.

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that Britain "returned" it's empire. That isn't what happened. The empire was lost because Britain no longer had the resources, human, financial and otherwise to keep it. Not only that but it was acquired and maintained at quite a cost in human misery and lives lost.... and all this before the Empire was "returned".

Good point..So therefore the Empire was a 'cost' and not a resource? Not sure about 'misery and lives lost'. India is the biggest democracy in the world and maintains British institutional processes today.

Complex topic.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

carguy_
09-30-2007, 03:46 PM
Indeed a complex topic that IMO requires huge knowledge.

As a guy that`s not into the history of the empire I`d say that Britain couldn`t hold to the empire anyway.Leaders understood that I think.Better to let go and make yourself an ally than holding on with usage of military.Times changed.
Afghanistan nicely showed that even an organized regular military can have big problems with getting rid of any hostilities in a hostile society.Nowadays, even a kid with a Kalashnikov is a threat.Partisan`s way of fighting is very uncomfortable for a regular military, especially today when you can get just about any piece of older equipment if you have the money.

As an average uninformed citizen of Europe I don`t really know if British military and intel have mass executions of insurgents.I think not.From my POV if you can`t maintain lands of hostile societies with providing food,water and new techs, you can go all the way into shooting just anybody you suspect of hostile attitude towards those at power.This ain`t Rome.

All those lands would have gone hostile sooner or later.After two huge wars, Britain didn`t have the resources to maintain it all.It was nice when it was the only provider of new technologies to empire countries, now there are at least few of them.Ofcourse if Britain insisted,things could have been hot through couple of decades until it resigned.

IMO Britain recognized the situation, analized some scenarios and made a good move.

ploughman
09-30-2007, 03:50 PM
We got curry didn't we? So yes, we benefited.

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
We got curry didn't we? So yes, we benefited.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Curry was an invention curried-up by British Officers in India. The curry eaten today in Britain is a colonial dish that has NO similarity with food eaten in India.

Also,the Empire cooks from India were from Bangladesh...even more complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ploughman
09-30-2007, 04:11 PM
I contest you sir. Generic curry labels aside it's perfectly possible to get authentic Indian cuisine in the UK. And as for the rest, British Indian cuisine is by and large a dashed sight better than the vast majority of Indian Indian cuisine. I once pulled an entire chicken's respiratory tract (completely intact, it was like a biology lesson) from a dish I was served, and that was in classy joint in Bundi.

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-30-2007, 04:18 PM
Of course Great Britain benefited from having an empire, as did the Romans, the Ottoman Turks, and the Mongols.

Seemingly oppressed colonials from many nations told the Germans to stick it where the sun don't shine when given the opportunity to fight against Great Britain's interests. I can't be arsed to dig it out but there's a nice passage somewhere about an Irishman telling his German captors that fighting for his tyranical masters was the least he could do for them, any other differences were between him and them (the British), nothing to do with anyone else.

Perhaps the greatest lasting benefit (to the world) was the number of people from the British Empire who made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Great Britain (and other nations) between 1939 & 1945.

Good points from B.C. & Carguy.

Perhaps other threads could include 'Having gone to war on Poland's behalf, what did Great Britain do for Poland after 1945?' or 'Did the Austro-Hungarians benefit from having an empire?'

I don't think you're ready for the photo's of me in a curry house on friday night.

Whirlin_merlin
09-30-2007, 04:26 PM
Actually Britian made huge ammounts of cash from the empire.
However Empires arn't really right for the modern world (understatement! You Listening Bush,Brown,Putin etc), the writting was on the wall before WWII.
It wouldn't exist now even if WWII hadn't happened, it might have lasted abit longer though.

Did very bad things happen under the name of Empire? Yes.

Was it nothing but 'evil' oppression and exploitation? No.

Can that sort of behavour be justified under modern sensibilities? No.

Has it left any good behind? Maybe.

At least that's what I think. Contary to many out spoken politicians I rather like modern multi-cultural Britian.

leitmotiv
09-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Bearcat miseed the target completely. The British Empire's termination was one of the more bizarre voluntary disestablishments of world history. Spain held onto her empire to the bitter end, Belgium ruled the Congo with an iron fist. After WWII the British could have held onto India, and done so with a clear conscience knowing what was going to happen when they left. Pragmatism (they were broke), and adherence to promises to leave led to the end in India. United States pressure to disestablish in the Middle East led to the end there. Churchill realized, to his chagrin, during the war that FDR considered the Empire bad, and that FDR felt more affinity for Stalin. John Charmley has written some interesting books about the imperial sunset and Britain's awkward relationship with the U.S. I had an English history prof in university. One day as we were talking, he was off on yet another monologue on the folly of America, I casually noted it seemed the U.S. and U.K. had assumed the same roles as ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Rome took over the role of world power from Greece, but it was the Greek mind that ruled Rome, thus, crude, bumptuous U.S. took over from the professional empire managers in Whitehall, but the American mind was formed by British philosophy and literature. He stopped short and looked at me warily like the uncultured beast had actually managed a coherent thought, and nervously conceded the resemblance.

My English girlfriend, although ferociously Labour, was proud of the Empire, and boasted that it was a culture-creating institution, not a brute tyranny like the Soviet Union or the Nazi empire. My American Irish friends always had another opinion, especially for the great famine. Knowing my American Irish friends' proclivity for toping and busting heads, I often thought the British were right to sit on these wildcats.

It was a good ride as long as it lasted. Clive accidentally conquered India in an opium haze. Generations had employment administering it. Even Gandhi admitted the British brought government and trained the Indians to run it. They also brought 19th century liberal philosophy. Hitler just wanted resources and slaves. The USSR was run on the backs of millions of slave laborers in the gulags living in conditions worse than any slaves in history.

The Empire never paid for itself. That was the great flaw. The early 20th century idea of Empire Free Trade within the Empire never had a chance because Canada and Australia wanted to make deals with the world on their terms, not be stuck trading within the Empire.

Whirlin_merlin
09-30-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
AWW!, still Brit hatin' there BC, you have something in common with Kurfy.

I see no hate in what BC wrote.

Oversimplification (is that a word?) but definatly not hate.

joeap
09-30-2007, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.

Guess that'll be me on holiday then.

Well...no country ever did anything without self-interest involved. Do you really think Britain would have been able to hold on to her empire given, how much blood and treasure was spilled by those from the Dominions and also from the Colonies? While it's true most volunteered and many for example in Asia preferred Brit to Japanese colonial masters (those who were directly occupied I should note) and doubly so for those who knew the Germans...one can hardly fight for freedom and independence for oppressed nations and deny it to your own colonies. BTW I don't think the German aims in the first war were quite as draconian as the second. Sorry I don't see Britain holding on to the Empire whatever America did, it probably was a good thing when you see what the French went through in Algeria or Portugal in Angola, Mozambique.

Last point, besides the Commonwealth Britain never went to war without Allies France (WWI) and Russia (WWII) played a huge role too.

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 04:42 PM
Hi all,

From the many sources that I have read,the British Empire was built upon trade and not conquest.

India became part of the British Empire through trade and by paying the top guy to honour Queen Victoria.

India was a patchwork of conflicting kingdoms until the British united them in harmony and respect for Queen Victoria.

And today, India as I said before is the biggest democracy in the world and has continued with British legal and social institutions.

I have spoken to many Indians who live here in Britain and they have no bad feelings about the Empire.

The biggest critics of the British Empire are elsewhere.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

JG52Uther
09-30-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.


ding **** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

MB_Avro_UK
09-30-2007, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by JG52Uther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.


ding **** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And let's not forget. Britain was on her own for a long time facing the forces of darkness..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFsD7Q5QAS4

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

mike_espo
09-30-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.

Guess that'll be me on holiday then.

???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Where are your sources for this statement??? The fact is: colonialism was doomed to fail after WW2...no matter WHO the masters......

Bearcat99
09-30-2007, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
AWW!, still Brit hatin' there BC, you have something in common with Kurfy.

Still? I never have Brit hated... I don't have the time or emotional capital to waste on such frivolities.. I just stated a piece of my opinion on the post.


Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Bearcat miseed the target completely.

I don't think so after all the target is quite large.... and there is no way I could hit it squarely with four sentences.. but I did knick it.... I am not interested in the subject matter enough to debate it... or research it, but I can always comment. I mean... if that's ok with you guys.....

Von_Rat
09-30-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by mike_espo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.

Guess that'll be me on holiday then.

???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Where are your sources for this statement??? The fact is: colonialism was doomed to fail after WW2...no matter WHO the masters...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


seems some people have to blame everything on the usa. this time its the loss of the empire.

they wont let the small fact that ,,,these people wanted independence,,,, get in the way.

Bewolf
09-30-2007, 10:23 PM
Now one can argue all day long "why" the British gave back their Empire. I kinda doubt most ppl from the british colonies very much loved the Brits, and I also kinda doubt it was all sunshine and lollipops when it cames to the way of how the british admistered those colonies, along the lines some british seem to think it worked. It was oppressive, a relict of a former age, where these kinda gunboat and shoot the rebels politics where still ok and widely accepted.

Fact remains, though, that it "did" give back those colonies peu a peu. Not volunatarily, it still required domestic movements for independance for that, but peaceful in the most parts. That clearly has to be recognized and is in sharp contrast to how for example France treated their colonies after the war. Also in sharp contrast to the US, which incorporated their "colonies" (though labeled territories) into their state. Same way Russia did it in the east and Germany planned it in case it won WW2.

Did the Empire benefit Britain? Certainly it did! If financially it is arguable, but look where it brought Britian nowadays. Think about it, a middle sized (some would say small) country located on an island at the borders of contintental Europe, how much of an influence would this country have without its empire? Britain is taken seriously till today mainly because of its Empire. The cultural inputs still serve Britain well to this very day. Without Britain as an empire there would no US today. In fact, the whole world would look very very different now, and not nessecarily to the better. I'd say the Empire was the best thing that ever happend to Britain. Without it, Britian would just have been just another country in Europe without much of any influence either cultural nor economical, probably having been conqured by France or Germany several times.

hop2002
10-01-2007, 12:36 AM
The empire was being dismantled before WW2 began. Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa all achieved Dominion status before WW1. (Dominions were self governing and largely independent).

India was well on its way to Dominion status.

The countries that weren't considered ready for self government, like most of Africa, didn't achieve independence until the 50s and 60s, anyway. By that time, Britain had become fed up with paying to support them.

It's worth noting that of all the British colonies in 1960, including those that had gained independence since the end of the war, only Lesotho, Pakistan, Egypt, Botswana, Malaysia, Malta, Barbados, Cyprus, Canada and Singapore improved relative to Britain by 1990.

Tanzania, Malawi, Burma, Gambia, Togo, Zambia, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, India, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, South Africa, Fiji, Iraq, Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, New Zealand and Australia all underperformed compared to Britain over the same period, ie their percentage of British income was higher in 1960 than it was in 1990.

If anybody's interested, there's a good study by Niall Ferguson on the costs and benefit of the British Empire, to both Britain and the colonies:

http://www.niallferguson.org/publications/Empire%20WP.pdf

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe;

I think it would be rather more correct to point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from becoming Britain's rival in terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole Africa and Asia. I don't think the Brits had any moral issues with terrorising, de-populating and colonizing - after all, that is exactly how they built that Empire.


and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

.. and so Britain allied itself with the USSR. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I see some basic flaws in your arguement, to be honest.

As for the idea of 'voluntary returning', it's ridiculus. It was about as voluntary as the thief giving back the purse it stolen if he is caught.

Britain 'generously' gave a status of semi-independent state to some of the most powerful of the nations in occupied and oppressed after WW1 crippled it economically, and shown it's weaknesses.

WW2 was pretty much the coup d'grace, the Empire was economically broken, bankcrupt, indepted beyond hope, the existing capital being invested into bombers and bomber runways, warships that were of no use to civillian aviation or trade. The country's industry, a long time ago the most advanced in the world, but having tough time to make any investments in the 1920s and 30s, facing increasing social tension, was now unable to compete with the foreign competition.

It simply had no other choice but to give them up one after the other, especially as Suez in 1956 really showed how much have things changed. Willingness had little to do with it, but at least the goverments had a good sense of reality. They did try some fighting, but were at least spared of the traumatic experiences the French and others has suffered while eventaully being forced withdrawing from North Africa and Asia.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 04:11 AM
I don't think the Brits had any moral issues with terrorising, de-populating and colonizing - after all, that is exactly how they built that Empire.

.

Actually a significant portion of British society did have a problem with it. Also that's not the whole story of how it was built anyway.

Now I'm not justifying colonialism, it's wrong by modern standards. Nor I'm I a great Churchill fan, I think he was a rather unpleasent character alot of the time, exactly what was needed at the time of WW2 though.

You still need to grasp the concept thet the BE was coming to an end before the start of WW2, does the Commonwealth ring any bells.

I know wiki isn't gospel but read the following.

Origins

Although performing a vastly different function, the Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire. In 1884, whilst visiting Adelaide, South Australia, Lord Rosebery described the changing British Empire, as some of its colonies became more independent, as a "Commonwealth of Nations".

Conferences of British and colonial Prime Ministers had occurred periodically since 1887, leading to the creation of the Imperial Conferences in the late 1920s.[3] The formal organisation of the Commonwealth developed from the Imperial Conferences, where the independence of the self-governing colonies and especially of dominions was recognised, particularly in the Balfour Declaration at the Imperial Conference in 1926, when Britain and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". This relationship was eventually formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

[edit] Remaining members gain independence

After World War II, the Empire was gradually dismantled, partly owing to the rise of independence movements in the then-subject territories (such as that started in India under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Muhammad Ali Jinnah), and partly owing to the British Government's strained circumstances resulting from the cost of the war. The word "British" was dropped in 1949 from the title of the Commonwealth to reflect the changing position.[4] Myanmar (formerly Burma, 1948), and Aden (1967) are the only former colonies not to have joined the Commonwealth upon independence. Among the former protectorates and mandates, Egypt (independent in 1922), Iraq (1932), Transjordan (1946), Palestine (became in part, the state of Israel in 1948), Sudan (1956), Kuwait (1961), Bahrain (1971), Oman (1971), Qatar (1971), and the United Arab Emirates (1971) never became members of the Commonwealth. The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 passed by the Parliament of Westminster gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law.



By 1939 the British Empire wasn't quite the evil institution you paint it.
This is not to denay taht terrible things happened of course.

ViktorViktor
10-01-2007, 04:13 AM
In a similar vein -

Knowing what we know today, if we were in charge of things back then, would we choose for Great Britain to embark upon an empire-building path?

How could anyone answer NO ?

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 04:36 AM
In some sense, history repeats itself. Spain was the first European power to embark upon, and be the most successfull colonizing nation in Europe. The Spanish Empire and it's riches were vast. Hence it's downfall, as it was built upon simply exploiting the colonies. It was eventually overtaken by other, even much smaller countries in Europe which were forced to modernized and develop trade and an industry of their own.

The same thing has happened to the BE. It moved into the vacuum the Spanish (and French) left after themselves, and into the poorest regions that were still there to take. Then it largely put up with exploiting these areas as basis of resources. But without developing them, there was not enough consuming power there (to put it mildly). This limited their own industrial growth, especially as Britain increasingly traded with it's own colonies without any outside competition. Eventually, they fall back behind other, rapidly industrializing nations that had faced some very though competition that sustained the rate of growth and advancements in the industry.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
You still need to grasp the concept thet the BE was coming to an end before the start of WW2, does the Commonwealth ring any bells.

I'd happily grasp the concept, but then please educate me on it. What was the difference in the status and indepence of India (let's stay with this example, being the biggest and best known of all) before and after the creation of the 'Commonwealth'? They had little say in ruling their own nation, as much as I understand, and from this onwards, it matters little if you call the same thing Commonwealth instead of an Empire. It may be more PC, but still the same. One guy ruling over the other and exploiting him.

I understand btw that the BE was coming to end before WW2; at the latest the first cracks appeared on the structure during WW1, or perhaps as early as the Boer War. That is not to say British leadership did not continue to hang onto the idea of colonialism : they kept expanding it after WW1 with former German possessions, while the nations of the former Ottoman Empire become 'mandates' to be 'administered' by France and Britain - just another way of calling them a colony. There was nothing voluntary giving all that up, it was forced onto them, and step by step they had to withdraw.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
it matters little if you call the same thing Commonwealth instead of an Empire.

Yes it does!
As it's not the 'same thing'.
Commonwealth members are completely self govening, some retain the Queen as a monach, some have their own monach and many are republics.
As to your India argument I never said the Empire was over by WW2 just it was ending, Indian independance was inevitable, are you even aware that India is now the largest democracy on Earth and a Commonwealth member.
I'm in no way trying to gloss over the dark underbelly of British Imperialism, just point out that it's nature and end wasn't a simple issue of black and white.
Of course those who learn their history by whatching the Pirates of the Carribian etc will disagree. (That's not neccessarliy aimed at any individual K).
By the way in case you think I'm just too pro-British, my family name is Irish and I'm the first generation to be soley raised in the UK on my father's side. (My mums side of the family is Welsh BTW so what chance have I got!)
I know plenty about how bad the British have been in the past, yet I don't view British history as one sidedly as you.
Something else to ponder if Britian was so evil how come so many former colonies etc have chosen to join the commonwealth (and yes they did choose!).

joeap
10-01-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe; and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

And that a condition of getting American help in the second one is that we commence a programme of giving states their independence and thus open up markets previously closed to..the Americans.


ding **** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

And let's not forget. Britain was on her own for a long time facing the forces of darkness..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFsD7Q5QAS4

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif None of you read my post obviously. The Empire was going to go regardless. Plus every damn time you Brits talk about "Britain Alone against evil" it's a slap in the face to Kiwis, Aussies, Canucks not to mention Poles, Free French, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks etc. before the 2 big guys (USSR and USA) got into the scrap. For all that I rather like the Brits and your history just have this criticism.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by joeap:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif None of you read my post obviously. The Empire was going to go regardless. Plus every damn time you Brits talk about "Britain Alone against evil" it's a slap in the face to Kiwis, Aussies, Canucks not to mention Poles, Free French, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks etc. before the 2 big guys (USSR and USA) got into the scrap. For all that I rather like the Brits and your history just have this criticism.

I agree this 'Britian alone thing', is rather missing the point.
Mind you let's face it for a while Britian (very often her civilian population) was taking the brunt of it.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
it matters little if you call the same thing Commonwealth instead of an Empire.

Yes it does!
As it's not the 'same thing'.
Commonwealth members are completely self govening, some retain the Queen as a monach, some have their own monach and many are republics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today they are, and in our days what you're saying it's entirely true. Not back in WW2, though. It depends on what period you're looking, but in today's sense, the Commonwealth is closer being an international organisation of former BE countries.


As to your India argument I never said the Empire was over by WW2 just it was ending, Indian independance was inevitable.

Indeed, I agree. Though not because the Brits themselves wanted India independent that bad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


I'm in no way trying to gloss over the dark underbelly of British Imperialism, just point out that it's nature and end wasn't a simple issue of black and white.

Nothing is.. that's thought that I actually pointed out in my original post, as to some beliefs that Britain participation in both wars was all about to protection of us poor eastern europeans and 'democracy accross the world' in a selfless and fatal crusade.


Something else to ponder if Britian was so evil how come so many former colonies etc have chosen to join the commonwealth (and yes they did choose!).

I don't quite get it. I don't quite get what this has to do with Britain being 'evil' or not, at a given period of it's history. As for why joining post war, I guess it's common historical and economical ties, which exist regardless that they were forced onto them. However the conditions of today's Commonwealth, and the 'Commonwealth' of the past are radically different n their conditions and aims, I am sure you'll agree.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__: However the conditions of today's Commonwealth, and the 'Commonwealth' of the past are radically different n their conditions and aims, I am sure you'll agree.

No I completely disagree.

From it's outset the Commonwealth was not supposed to be an empire under another name, you are simply wrong on this one. Now whilst you are right that many did not want to see the empire go, many recognised that it was outdated and not a morally defendable position.


"Balfour Declaration at the Imperial Conference in 1926, when Britain and its dominions agreed they were "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations". This relationship was eventually formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931." (Wikipedia)

The key bit is 'not subordinate'.
The allegience to the crown bit was rather symbolic and dropped in 1950 when India declared itself a republic.
Don't be lead astray by the word 'dominions' either it refers to Canada, Australia etc countries that were inpendantly governed by themselves.

Edit: Sorry to go on about this but I find the concept and origins of the Commonwealth facinating. Especially the role of India in it's evolution. I wish modern politicains would pay it more attention. I'm all for anything were nations come together. (Yes even the EU!)

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 06:28 AM
I speak of the Commontweatlh, you speak of the Dominions within the Commonwealth.

But being 'not subordinate' only held true to the few territories within he commonwealth, those that were givin 'Dominion' status - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, South Africa, and Ireland - all of them 'white' settlers, and in the case of South Africa for example, forming a ruling class over the original inhabitants of the land, who had no rights on their very own land; like the rest of the Commonwealth who were not deemed worthy of Dominion status. Now, that latter list would be pretty long.

So yes, with the exception of the few Dominions, Commonwealth in the 1920s, 30s and 40s means pretty much the same as Empire. No rights, no self goverment, no democracy, British occupation regardless the will of the nation.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 06:42 AM
Right I understand now the misunderstanding. The dominions within the Commonwealth were the Commonwealth, the British ruled territories eg India weren't part of it, until independance.
The Commonwealth and Empire were two different things that for a while both existed at the same time.
India for instance joined the Commonwealth in 1947 . Before that it wasn't in the Commonwealth, but was part of the Empire. It is not correct to say that they just went from calling it an Empire to a Commonwealth.
The very obviouse difference between how 'colonies' and the 'colonised' where treated is a sad reflection of the times, the notion of 'old' or 'white' commonwealth vs 'new' commonwealth unfortunatle still rears it's ugly head today.

Anyway despite the wrongs of the past I agree with those who point out that the British did a better and more decent dismantling of their Empire than some others have.
To say the Empire was 'returned' is inaccurate as is it to say it was 'lost'. The World changes and time passes.

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 06:52 AM
Very reasonable post WM, I can agree fully with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__: Commonwealth in the 1920s, 30s and 40s means pretty much the same as Empire. No rights, no self goverment, no democracy, British occupation regardless the will of the nation.

Even if you replace the word Commonwealth with the correct one of Empire it still isn't entirly right.
No rights: Simply not true (of course not as many rights as they should have had)
No self government, no democracy: Not nearly enough would be more accurate, but their were moves to increase these. eg the Government of India Act 1935.
British occupation regardless of the will of the nation: True and that is after all the crux.

Once again I'm not justifing British colonial policy but you are over egging your pudding.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Very reasonable post WM, I can agree fully with it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Glad to hear it!
If your are interested in the Histoy of India and the British Empire find out about Dadabhai Naoroji, definatly some one I would have liked to have met.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 07:08 AM
Kapt K rants and raves on how bad the Brits treated their colonies, yet many those former colonies in Africa and Asia became hell holes of death, misery and suffering without the governing Brits there.

Not once have I seen him come down on Belgium for what happened in the Congo in the late 1800, early 1900s. The Brits did not come close to what was done there in any of its colonies during that time period.

stathem
10-01-2007, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
..Or you could point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole of Eastern Europe;

I think it would be rather more correct to point out that Britain spent all it's financial and human resources fighting two wars to try to prevent the Germans from becoming Britain's rival in terrorising, de-populating and colonizing the whole Africa and Asia. I don't think the Brits had any moral issues with terrorising, de-populating and colonizing - after all, that is exactly how they built that Empire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's odd how your misunderstanding of the British Empire exactly matches that of A.Hitler's.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and to prevent the total victory of totalitarianism in Europe and the wider world.

.. and so Britain allied itself with the USSR. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I see some basic flaws in your arguement, to be honest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check your thinking, Kurfurst;

The last time the British could have made peace with Hitler and attempt to cling on to the Empire with German guarantees, in return for ˜a free hand in the East' was May 1940.

Now who was allied or had peace treaties with the Soviet Union in May 1940? Can you guess?

If Britain had walked away then and left the people of Europe to their fate, regardless of whether the Nazis or Stalinists had have won, Europe from the North Sea to the Urals would have been under one totalitarian dictatorship.

How long would it have taken the people of Europe to throw off the shackles of their Teutonic or Slavic masters then?

sandbag69
10-01-2007, 07:33 AM
Did Britain benefit from having an Empire?
Yes of course it did it brought huge amounts of wealth into the country through trade with rest of world on the backs of cheap resources.

The problem with the Empire was that the wealth benefitted only the wealthy/powerful families and was not passed down to the ordinary working class people. There was massive poverty in Britain until after the Second World War when Labour introduced the Welfare state.

The Empire ended because the working classes had lost faith in it being a benefit to them. Had the working classes of Britain benefited throughout the time of the Empire then they would have demanded and fought for it.

kid_SA
10-01-2007, 07:51 AM
there is not much point in the defense of any colonial nations of that time. Britain was no better or worse than the rest. The Belgians killed millions in the Congo, and the British pioneered concentration camps in the second Boer War, killing women and children in their tens of thousands; and practiced a scorched earth policy of destroying homes and killing livestock. Civilian property. The Germans chased an entire people out of modern-day Namibia (and killed 50 000) in response to 100 dead.

If I recall, it was also Britain that first used the Pole tax in its colonies, which forced local subsistence farmers to have cash (colonial cash) at hand, effectively creating a massive unskilled labour force which could be exploited at will, resulting in a large number of deaths. Don't quote me on that though, it could have been another nation who first brought it in. Regardless, to my knowledge all colonial masters used the technique.

Colonialism (by any nation) had largely fiscal motives. Be it the gold and diamonds of South Africa, the spices of India, the rubber of the Congo, oil, whatever. Even sugar. Even a cheap labour force is economically useful. It may be that Britain's colonies had lost some of their financial importance, I don't have the figures. And while Germany benefited from it's own colonies, it is doubtful whether Britain would have been in such a position of power (relative to the average nation) in '39 had it not gone on a colonial conquest.

On the other hand, if it had quickly drained the colonies dry, then pulled out when the admin became a bit of a chore and all those soldiers and bullets had to be payed for, there may have been a definite advantage to be had.

Colonialism seems sometimes to be treated as somewhat misunderstood. A bit like the Armenian Genocide in Turkey. The truth is that millions of lives were lost because of the greed of certain powerful nations. This says nothing bad of Britain today, and is not an attack, it is the sad truth. Britain was not a bastion of good sense and manners, no one was.

Of the things brought to the developing world through colonialism, none could not have been brought peacefully. Further, the nations that became "hell holes" after colonialism were not "hell holes" before being colonised. See the link? Post colonial history is an interesting and very complex one, but it most certainly does not begin and end with the locals going nutters once the sensible whites went away.

Not that pre-colonial life was in any way rosy and utopian's, but this trend of nationalism in which people cannot hear a bad word spoken about their country is... unhealthy.

P.S: 2 of the RAF's top aces, Adolph Mallan and "Pat" Pattle were South African http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

falling-bird
10-01-2007, 08:03 AM
Does anyone know when Britain realised that it actually had an empire, as opposed to a collection of 18th Century colonies or trading posts?

Kurfurst__
10-01-2007, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Check your thinking, Kurfurst;

The last time the British could have made peace with Hitler and attempt to cling on to the Empire with German guarantees, in return for ˜a free hand in the East' was May 1940.

Now who was allied or had peace treaties with the Soviet Union in May 1940? Can you guess?

If Britain had walked away then and left the people of Europe to their fate, regardless of whether the Nazis or Stalinists had have won, Europe from the North Sea to the Urals would have been under one totalitarian dictatorship.

How long would it have taken the people of Europe to throw off the shackles of their Teutonic or Slavic masters then?

It's rather off topic, but I'd like to point out that Britain was in no position to challange Germany's dominance on the continent after the Fall of France. For that, it would have to land and defeat the Wehrmacht on it's own playing field... fat chance for that happening. Britain could stay in war, enjoying it's strategical position, but could not lead that war to victory. If Britain would walk away in May 1940, what would change? They walked away in June 1940.. The historical record would be probably the same. France defeated, the Eastern front following the same course - it's quite unlikely that the USSR would have collapsed after 1942, after all it historically survived the Wehrmacht juggernaught for two years, and entirely on it's own. So, what would be different? The US could still intervene, if it had wanted. But I am afraid we're sailing with waaay off topic waters with this.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 08:16 AM
It is so nice that Kapt K has ˜colonial amnesia'.

Genocide, concentration camps, medical experiments on camp prisoners were war crimes which Nazi Germany committed during World War II. But Germany had put much of this into practice in Africa before World War I. In several cases, the notorious war criminals in Europe were relatives of the persons guilty of the deeds a generation earlier.

http://www.westmanmusic.com/Namibia/indexEngelsk.htm

Nazi forefathers ravaged Africa

August 26th every year is Maharero Day in Okahandja in Namibia. This is when the Hereros celebrate their ancestors killed in a massacre in Waterberg 1904, conducted by the German army in the colony, then named German South West Africa.

After such a large part of the population had been extinguished, and the survivors who were not captured had fled, the German colonial power had an acute shortage of labour for constructions of roads and railroads and the mining of copper and diamonds.

Many were lured back with promises of letters to guarantee the safety of those who returned to collection points which, to show the German's "peaceful" intentions, were run by the evangelical mission. But from here, the ones who returned were sent directly to the nearest concentration camp, under military escort.

Totally, about 17.000 persons; men, women and children, were imprisoned. According to official German sources, 45 percent of them died as a result of their treatment in the camps.

Concentration camps already in 1904

The first time that the term "concentration camp" was used in the German parliament was in 1904, when camps had been established in German Southwest Africa. In the camps, racial biologist Eugen Fischer (1874-1967) collected support for his theories about the danger of racial mixture ("miscegenation"), which later impressed Adolf Hitler.
In the camps, Fischer made experiments on especially persons of mixed origin - the typical cases were children with an African mother and a German colonialist, sometimes results of rape. The purpose was to prove the inferiority of these so called "half-breeds" or "*******s". Only in the year 1906, there are reports that 778 autopsies were performed for the so called race-biological research. Measuring skulls was a common method, and female prisoners were forced to scrape the skulls clean with glass shards before the examination.

So much for Kapt K's innocent lily white angelic Germans.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 08:29 AM
Awakened from colonial amnesia? Germany after 2004
by Reinhart Kössler (July 2006)

http://www.freiburg-postkolonial.de/Seiten/koessler-colonial-amnesia.htm

kid_SA
10-01-2007, 08:30 AM
yes, I alluded to the German slaughter of the Hereros (the 50 000 dead) but the British concentration camps preceded these by 2 years, if you want to get technical, and the tally was 27000 dead white people (of which, 24000 were children under 16) and 14000 dead black people in the camps alone, not including the war itself and those civilian deaths now termed "collateral damage". Most who died in camps died of starvation.

Moral: no nation has a clean history. Deal with it.

luftluuver
10-01-2007, 08:47 AM
Kid, you missed the point of the posts. Kapt K is claiming the Brits were monsters and the German are angels.

The Spanish had concentration camps many years before the Brits did in SA.

The term concentration camp was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78), those created by America in the Philippines (1898–1901), and, most widely, to refer to British camps built during the South African War (Boer War) to confine Afrikaners in the Transvaal and Cape Colony (1899"”1902).

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 09:06 AM
The slaughter of the Hereos in German SW Africa in 1904-8 was an early essay in German colonial Schrecklichkeit which would be perfected in Belgium in WWI and Eastern Europe in WWII.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/swafrika/resources/

whiteladder
10-01-2007, 09:40 AM
The British concentration camps in S.A were an abomination, but they were not set up to erradicate a ethnic community. The high death rate in the camps was a product of poor organisation and incompetence on the part of the British and not a deliberate policy of murder.

The only equilance between the them and those run under Nazi regime is the name.

AuschwitzBirkenau,Belzec,CheÅ‚mno,Jasenovac,Majdan ek,Maly Trostenets,Sobibór and Treblinka were factories designed to exterminate humans on an industrial scale. And thats not even mentioning the labour camps were the inmates were work to death.

But if you want to really understand the difference just look at the reactions of the general public in the respective countries. When the S.A. camps became knowledge in Britian there was a public outcry, in German the public pretended not to know...

I suspect more likely they didn`t care.

Whirlin_merlin
10-01-2007, 09:49 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

It's rather off topic, but I'd like to point out that Britain was in no position to challange Germany's dominance on the continent after the Fall of France.

Maybe she wasn't in any position to, but she still did, that's something in Britians history we can be proud of.

Whilst I understand what you say about the 'myth' of Britian standing up to tyranny, many everyday people did believe it and did fight for a higher ideal. You may argue about the motivation of leaders but alot of British people felt facism was wrong and should be stood up to. Look what happened in East London when Mosely and his black shirts wanted to march through.

You are right though this is well off topic now.


BTW Luft' ease back abit this isn't a competition.

The "yet many those former colonies in Africa and Asia became hell holes of death, misery and suffering without the governing Brits there." argument worries me, as often the trouble in former 'colonies' is a result of the power vacuum and divisions left behind, not because they were incapable of self rule. It's the kind of argument used then to justify colonialism and today to justify.....now that really would be OT.

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 10:32 AM
The question is: did Britain benefit from having an empire?, not: was the British Empire a morally justifiable enterprise?

NO bloody empire is ever going to be morally justifiable in the long or short run. Did Britain benefit? Yes, even without the empire Britain is still an enormous financial power. Was the empire cost-effective? No, it was an enormous drain. Was it inevitable? Probably. Was it a terrific adventure? Undoubtably. Did the British spread liberal institutions throughout the world? Beyond question. Did people die and suffer for the Empire unwillingly? Without a doubt. Who is the biggest critic of the British Empire? Probably the British themselves.

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 10:35 AM
The British Empire confronts the American Empire.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Mptv/1041/9909_0004.jpg

thefruitbat
10-01-2007, 10:56 AM
interesting to see how many nationalities are disscussing this in english.

so from my point of view, yes.

cheers fruitbat

M_Gunz
10-01-2007, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
Check your thinking, Kurfurst;

The last time the British could have made peace with Hitler and attempt to cling on to the Empire with German guarantees, in return for ˜a free hand in the East' was May 1940.

Now who was allied or had peace treaties with the Soviet Union in May 1940? Can you guess?

If Britain had walked away then and left the people of Europe to their fate, regardless of whether the Nazis or Stalinists had have won, Europe from the North Sea to the Urals would have been under one totalitarian dictatorship.

How long would it have taken the people of Europe to throw off the shackles of their Teutonic or Slavic masters then?

It's rather off topic, but I'd like to point out that Britain was in no position to challange Germany's dominance on the continent after the Fall of France. For that, it would have to land and defeat the Wehrmacht on it's own playing field... fat chance for that happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they did try before 1944, and failed.


Britain could stay in war, enjoying it's strategical position, but could not lead that war to victory. If Britain would walk away in May 1940, what would change? They walked away in June 1940.. The historical record would be probably the same.

What would change was they'd have had to break the deal to allow US to base there. Had they
truly walked away then the whole U-Boat war would not have been necessary with those large
resources going elsewhere in the Nazi effort. Nor would the Bismarck been sunk or a few other
Axis ships. Italy would have had free reign in the Med and Africa as well. Japan would have
had a much easier time as well. Axis nations would have had resources they sorely missed.

"What would have changed?" indeed.


France defeated, the Eastern front following the same course - it's quite unlikely that the USSR would have collapsed after 1942, after all it historically survived the Wehrmacht juggernaught for two years, and entirely on it's own.

Another gap in your history. Count the 1000's of TONS of raw materials alone sent to Russia
via Lend-Lease then count trucks, ammunition, fuel, tanks and planes that in 1942 did fill
gaps while Russian industry was moved and rebuilt. What 'entirely' are your blinkers seeing?


So, what would be different? The US could still intervene, if it had wanted. But I am afraid we're sailing with waaay off topic waters with this.

Then don't set the false course. Without Britain as a base the US would not have been able
to launch any reasonable assault on Europe and the North African campaign would have failed
due to a strong, unopposed by British naval power, navy.

The whole war was close many times to Facist victories, good thing that the Nazi leaders
turned into IDIOTS time and time again or perhaps the reality was that once in a while they
made some effective decisions. But Hitler and pals *were* very fond of cocaine and on the
blitzes the troops were fed amphetamines. I picked that up directly from surviving German who
spoke of staying awake and on the move 3 days straight on the invasion of France which to me
says a LOT about why the Dunkirk evacuation was possible -- German troops were burned out and
needed rest, how many weeks of that before you start losing men puts a limit on the push.

If Britain had no Empire then they would not have had the resources, extra troops and bases
to fight with. So many places would have been taken and used by Axis. Care to compare how
British treated colonials compared to the policy of liebensraum? That little book by Hitler
says it all.

What gets me is that there are still people that act as if the Third Reich winning would have
been a real good thing. I rank them as even bigger jerks than the ones with the Confederate
flags over here.

M_Gunz
10-01-2007, 01:15 PM
Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago for three celebrate independence since 1962.
Was that the last for Great Britain?

MB_Avro_UK
10-01-2007, 02:34 PM
Hi all,

Is the following post (quoted) a reference to the Dieppe raid in 1944?

'And they did try before 1944, and failed'.

The Dieppe Raid was not an invasion but an attempt to test the Nazi defences in France. It failed and a huge number of Canadians who made up the bulk of the force were killed.

But lessons were learned and contributed greatly to the success of the Allied landings in June 1944.

I'm getting off topic... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Blutarski2004
10-01-2007, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Another gap in your history. Count the 1000's of TONS of raw materials alone sent to Russia via Lend-Lease then count trucks, ammunition, fuel, tanks and planes that in 1942 did fill gaps while Russian industry was moved and rebuilt. What 'entirely' are your blinkers seeing?

..... Try MILLIONS of tons.

"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR
was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

I can dig out the exact contribution by America, these numbers are from memory,
but are still very close. These are the percentages of the total available to
the Soviet military and industry that were supplied by America:

80% of all canned meat.
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
57% of all aviation fuel.
53% of all explosives.
74% of all truck transport.
88% of all radio equipment.
53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.
74% of all vehicle tires.
12% of all armored vehicles.
14% of all combat aircraft.

LEXX_Luthor
10-01-2007, 08:52 PM
I think the Britt people generally didn't benefit from any empire. Just a few.

leitmotiv::
NO bloody empire is ever going to be morally justifiable in the long or short run. Did Britain benefit? Yes, even without the empire Britain is still an enormous financial power.
I'm not even sure of that anymore. The few gold bars the Britts haven't yet pawned off are cracking. Maybe Ussia floated lead across the Pond back roundabout 1933 or so.

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 09:02 PM
Last I saw Britons and the Dutch were see-sawing as the biggest non-U.S. property owners in America. Gold doesn't = financial power. The Chinese are awash in gold and they are babes in the woods when it comes to international finance. Britain has experience in international finance going back centuries, and generations of financiers. You can't snap your fingers and create such a network in 20 years. There are a lot of incredibly wealthy people in England.

LEXX_Luthor
10-01-2007, 09:41 PM
leit::
Last I saw Britons and the Dutch were see-sawing as the biggest non-U.S. property owners in America. Gold doesn't = financial power. The Chinese are awash in gold and they are babes in the woods when it comes to international finance. Britain has experience in international finance going back centuries, and generations of financiers. You can't snap your fingers and create such a network in 20 years. There are a lot of incredibly wealthy people in England. Northern Rock depositors and shareholders far outnumber the incredibly wealthy financiers, but then we just had our own Online bank failure -- NetBank.
How do you make a classical bank run on an Online bank? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
10-01-2007, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Is the following post (quoted) a reference to the Dieppe raid in 1944?

'And they did try before 1944, and failed'.

The Dieppe Raid was not an invasion but an attempt to test the Nazi defences in France. It failed and a huge number of Canadians who made up the bulk of the force were killed.

But lessons were learned and contributed greatly to the success of the Allied landings in June 1944.

I'm getting off topic... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

My bad. In reading about how the US had finally arrived in Britain before 1944 and wanted to
launch right over, the Brits advised heavily against that as it would be doomed to fail and
somehow I linked Market-Garden with that. So they tried in 44 before Overlord and still they
failed.

leitmotiv
10-01-2007, 11:15 PM
You are a longggggg way from the conditions of the Slump, as we are from the conditions of the Great Depression. But, things may change drastically in the next year.

fabianfred
10-02-2007, 02:02 AM
Certainly many asian countries with Western masters were amused to see the big white men beaten and humbled by the little japanese.... we lost our mystique then.... and they knew we were able to be beaten when they desired their independance....

And what will become of the American empire being formed right now?...it will come to an end....as all things end

...all things end badly....that's why they end...

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfürst :

France defeated, the Eastern front following the same course - it's quite unlikely that the USSR would have collapsed after 1942, after all <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">it historically survived the Wehrmacht juggernaught for two years, and entirely on it's own.</span>

Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Another gap in your history. Count the 1000's of TONS of raw materials alone sent to Russia via Lend-Lease then count trucks, ammunition, fuel, tanks and planes that in 1942 did fill gaps while Russian industry was moved and rebuilt. What 'entirely' are your blinkers seeing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Try MILLIONS of tons.

"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1941-1945</span>" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR
was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a typical strawmen arguement when the original poster speaks of Russia doing well without any substantial LL effort for two years, the next come a paranoid nationalist who got can't see the big picture from '1000's of TONS of shipments', and the third one makes the strawmen, now speaking of the whole LL shipments through the war, instead of the first two years. Try to understand what has been written, and respond accordingly without resorting to strawmens and such.

This has been discussed over many times, even in this board, comparisons were shown of Soviet domestic production dwarfing LL shipments in the most critical period of the GPW - still some will continue to repeat the same BS about LL.

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 04:09 AM
There was Lend-Lease in 1942, there were planes from allies when they were desperately needed.
There was Lend-Lease during much of the bad time as well as later. Your statement was false
and your rebuttal is likewise, both aimed at creating false picture and the usual, putting
down the Brits, the Commonwealth and the US.
Yes, if it hadn't been for the Allies I'm sure your life would have been so much better, K.
It's clear that all those people have hurt you terribly.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Try MILLIONS of tons.

"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">1941-1945</span>" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR
was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:
"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and
economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from
the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that
respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the
war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a
serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the
quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],
we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable
degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary
for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of
American deliveries."

It's a typical strawmen arguement when the original poster speaks of Russia doing well without any substantial LL effort for two years, the next come a paranoid nationalist who got can't see the big picture from '1000's of TONS of shipments', and the third one makes the strawmen, now speaking of the whole LL shipments through the war, instead of the first two years. Try to understand what has been written, and respond accordingly without resorting to strawmens and such.

This has been discussed over many times, even in this board, comparisons were shown of Soviet domestic production dwarfing LL shipments in the most critical period of the GPW - still some will continue to repeat the same BS about LL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Try reading my entire post. Marshal Zhukov seems to have disagreed with your assessment. Zhukov's words:

"Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a
backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's
truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and
1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of
eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

And every ton of such L/L aid received meant commensurately fewer men required to work in domestic Soviet industry to produce its equivalent. All that freed labor was able to provide additional personnel for military service.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 06:58 AM
Mere repetance of a copy-paste job. Does not address the first two years that was under question. Unconvincing. Off topic. Done to death.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mere repetance of a copy-paste job. Does not address the first two years that was under question. Unconvincing. Off topic. Done to death.


..... Another FFRR.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 07:04 AM
Mouth, mouth, yet more mouth. But still no answer to those 2 years.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mouth, mouth, yet more mouth. But still no answer to those 2 years.


..... One last try. Zhukov (now repeated for the THIRD time):

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny
that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have
formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no
explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans
actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet
steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our
production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it
seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

Exactly what period of the Eastern Front campaign do you think Zhukov was referring to? The "first two years" of the war from the Russian PoV would be June 41 through Jun 43. Do you think that Zhukov's above remarks about the US contribution to the Soviet war effort referred to conditions in the Red Army AFTER June 1943? If so, then it would be necesssary to explain how the Red Army was able to conduct their succession of massive 1943/1944 offensives with shortages of adequate reserves, tanks, explosives, and propellant. Can you do that?

Arrogant rhetoric is no substitute for clear and logical thinking.

JG53Frankyboy
10-02-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
...................., yet many those former colonies in Africa and Asia became hell holes of death, misery and suffering without the governing Brits there.

.....................

anyway, we will never know how these "nations" would look like nowadays without the "white man's" (meaning here the european culture in general , and that includes for me the USA too) sense of mission......................

about the topic:
i think yes, in general it's Empire was good in a financal point for the UK, at least for some of its inhabitants and its leaders.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 07:53 AM
Nota bene, the original question was 'what if Britain walks off in 1940'. Zhukov's opinion in quite clear on this :

"First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally."

I think this settles the matter.


If so, then it would be necesssary to explain how the Red Army was able to conduct their succession of massive 1943/1944 offensives with shortages of adequate reserves, tanks, explosives, and propellant. Can you do that?

I am unaware of the reserves that were provided for the USSR. I find the idea that you're suggesting, that a decisive portion of Soviet soldiers filling up the infantry divisions were produced in the US, packed, and then shipped to the USSR on Liberty ships somewhat.. bizarre. Not as bizarre as the suggestion of the Red Army's shortage of tanks, though. USSR tank production amounted a bit over 100 000 during the war, outstrippin the US in this field. LL tanks amounted for some 14% of domestic USSR production, most of them with the exception of the 4000 odd Shermans shipped late in the war were found rather useless.

The question you need to answer is the amount of LL help to the USSR in the first two years of the GPW.
It's a simple question, should be easy to grasp and then proving your claim amount the decisive nature of LL in the first two years of the GPW.

Now, why can't you just do that instead dancing all around the question - that would be the minimum after kidnapping the thread with that mumbo-jumbo about LL, don't you think ?

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 08:06 AM
I wouldn't say euro colonization was "european culture" -- Ussia would be one exception because it fought its way free, although maybe 95% of Americans were killed off in pre-Ussia Ussia.

The astonishing wealth and organization of some of these pre-colonization civilizations is astonishing, although as far as I know they were no less sadistic as the europeans toward others they conquered, they just didn't have the science and technology to mass murder on a global scale. The World Bank and IMF are two examples of current colony rule over the "ex-colonies" and is just as destructive and why they have largely remained poor. There's an interesting book just releaced Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by a guy who went in to the poor nations to sway the leader to his economic methods and when he failed the leader was always assassinated. They never became "independent."


I always liked this one...humorous and disturbing at the same time.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Stuff/z1492.jpg

luftluuver
10-02-2007, 08:32 AM
1941: 360,778t, of which 13,502t Persian Gulf, 193,229t Soviet Far East, 153,977t North Russia.

1942: 2,453,097t of which 705,259t Persian Gulf, 734,020 Soviet Far East, 949,711 North Russia, 64,107 Soviet Arctic.

1943: 4,794,545t of which 1,606,979 Persian Gulf, 2,388,577 Soviet Far East, 681,043 North Russia, 117,946 Soviet Arctic.

1944: 6,217,622t of which 1,788,864 Persian Gulf, 2,848,181 Soviet Far East, 1,452,775 North Russia, 127,802 Soviet Arctic.

1945 3,673,819t (last shipments 20 Sept) of which: 44,513 Persian Gulf, 2,079,320 Soviet Far East, 726,725 North Russia, 680,723 Black Sea, 142,538 Soviet Arctic.

1941 - 2.6% of total
1942 - 14.0% of total
accumulative - 16.6%

1943 - 27.4% of total
accumulative - 44.0%

1944 - 35.5% of total
accumulative - 79.5%

1945 - 21% of total

As can be seen almost half of LL arrived before 1944.

Of interest is the 550,000t of petroleum products sent by the British from the Abadan refineries and made good by US lend-lease to Britain separately.

It was not only Zhukov but also Nikita Khrushchev in John Keegan's book, The Second World War

Although the Soviet forces preferred their own weapon, the other donations provided the Soviet Union with a high proportion not only of its war-industrial requirements but also of its means to fight. 'Just imagine', Nikita Khrushchev later remarked, 'how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without [American transport] them.' ; at the end of the war, the Soviet forces held 665,000 motor vehicles, of which 427,000 were Western, most of them American and a high proportion the magnificent 2 1/2 ton Dodge trucks, which effectively carried everything the Red Army needed in the field. American industry also supplied 13 million Soviet Soldiers with their winter boots, American agriculture 5 million tons of food, sufficient to provide each Soviet soldier with half a pound of concentrated rations every day of the war. The American railroad industry supplied 2000 locomotives, 11,000 freight carriages and 540,000 tons of rails, with which the Russians laid a greater length of line than they had builty between 1928 and 1939. American supplies of high-grade petroleum were essentially to Russian production of aviation fuel, while three-quarters of Soviet consumption of copper in 1941-4 came from American sources.
Wartime Russia survived and fought on American aid.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 08:37 AM
Aren't you both agreeing that LendLeace didn't really get rolling in mass until 1942 -or- 1943 and beyond? I read one of the more important items for moral was gold braid that Russia lacked because it had always avoided decorating its soldiers. I think that help came early, as the west had plenty and it was cheap compared to the airplanes and oil and stuff. I dunno.

ploughman
10-02-2007, 08:45 AM
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Stuff/z1492.jpg

Tre' funny. Those are Apaches right? That tall one, he's not Mangas Colorado is he?

luftluuver
10-02-2007, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aren't you both agreeing that LendLeace didn't really get rolling in mass until 1942 -or- 1943 and beyond?
This is Kapt K's question:

The question you need to answer is the amount of LL help to the USSR in the first two years of the GPW.

So the post answered that question. The first 2 1/2 years of the GPW saw 44% of LL.

American war production did not really start rolling until late 1943 - early 1944, so it is not that surprising that 1944 and 1945 saw 56% of LL.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 09:14 AM
Okay. According to your data, 1942 saw about 7 times the tonnage as 1941. 1943 doubled that. So during the most crucial 1941 year, not much came, but I'm sure it was used desperately. 1942 had the big increase ratio wise, and the war's outcome was already decided in December 1941, both at Moscow and at Pearl. I like to think of it as...without LendLeace, Eisenhower would have stopped Patton's advance in the Ukraine, as the Soviets would not have the ability to mount the offensives to beat back the Germans without the LendLeace. But the Soviets did survive 1941 with minimal aid tonnage.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I am unaware of the reserves that were provided for the USSR. I find the idea that you're suggesting, that a decisive portion of Soviet soldiers filling up the infantry divisions were produced in the US, packed, and then shipped to the USSR on Liberty ships somewhat.. bizarre. [/UNQUOTE]

..... The only thing bizarre in this exchange is that that you can stoop low enough to concoct such a hapless attempt at a retort.



[QUOTE] Not as bizarre as the suggestion of the Red Army's shortage of tanks, though. USSR tank production amounted a bit over 100 000 during the war, outstrippin the US in this field. LL tanks amounted for some 14% of domestic USSR production, most of them with the exception of the 4000 odd Shermans shipped late in the war were found rather useless.

The question you need to answer is the amount of LL help to the USSR in the first two years of the GPW.
It's a simple question, should be easy to grasp and then proving your claim amount the decisive nature of LL in the first two years of the GPW.

Now, why can't you just do that instead dancing all around the question - that would be the minimum after kidnapping the thread with that mumbo-jumbo about LL, don't you think ?

..... Likewise the only dancing being done here is you on your oh so typically lightweight feet. You offer absolutely nothing to buttress your argument other than a "just take my word for it" attitude accompanied by your habitually sophomoric attempts at personal insult. Talk about "unconvincing".

By all means, please feel free to get back onto the subject of British Empire. You appear to have gone about as far as you are able in this this Lend-Lease discussion.

falling-bird
10-02-2007, 09:18 AM
What the Feck has all this Lend Lease stuff got to do with Britain benefiting from having an empire?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Of course Britain benefitted from having an empire, why else would you have one? Certainly it was very profitable in the short term in 18th/19th centuries, less obviously so in the 20th/21st. I really don't think that the UK would have a permanent seat on the UN security Council now if it hadn't had an empire. It certainly doesn't merit it by population.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 09:21 AM
However, on the other hand, the Soviets provided the boots on the ground(tm), and if the Soviets could not have mounted the long offensive, then even the likes of Patton and Monty might not have made it to Berlin by 1945 in the face of better equipped German resistance. Eventually they would have, as Ussian war production was just beginning to ramp up by 1944 and could have gone astronomically higher instead of ramping down from that year in certainty of victory.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 09:24 AM
falling-bird::
What the Feck has all this Lend Lease stuff got to do with Britain benefiting from having an empire?


Of course Britain benefitted from having an empire, why else would you have one? Certainly it was very profitable in the short term in 18th/19th centuries, less obviously so in the 20th/21st. I really don't think that the UK would have a permanent seat on the UN security Council now if it hadn't had an empire. It certainly doesn't merit it by population.
Yeah...Sorry about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Empire depends on war. War causes economic hardship for all except a very few.

UK has a UNSC seat because it has nucular weapons.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
However, on the other hand, the Soviets provided the boots on the ground(tm), and if the Soviets could not have mounted the long offensive, then even the likes of Patton and Monty might not have made it to Berlin by 1945 in the face of better equipped German resistance. Eventually they would have, as Ussian war production was just beginning to ramp up by 1944 and could have gone astronomically higher instead of ramping down from that year in certainty of victory.

..... I quite agree. The Russians tied up and ultimately defeated the majority of German military strength over the course of four years on the Eastern Front.

JG53Frankyboy
10-02-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
.............
UK has a UNSC seat because it has nucular weapons.

not realy i think.

UNSC first established 17. January 1946.
first UK Nuclear bomb exploded okober 1949 .

the UK was "just" one of the big winners of WW2.............

luftluuver
10-02-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
UK has a UNSC seat because it has nucular weapons.
The Security Council consists of five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States). Only the USA had nuclear weapons when formed.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Likewise the only dancing being done here is you on your oh so typically lightweight feet. You offer absolutely nothing to buttress your argument other than a "just take my word for it" attitude accompanied by your habitually sophomoric attempts at personal insult. Talk about "unconvincing".

By all means, please feel free to get back onto the subject of British Empire. You appear to have gone about as far as you are able in this this Lend-Lease discussion.

... yet more lame and empty backtalk followed by an exit rapido. Now, back to the part of the programme we were before being interrupted by the characteristically pointless routine of this board.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 09:44 AM
True true, although nucks seem to be the common theme among all UNSC members.

I like to think that Russia defeated the German Army while Ussia defeated the German Air Force. Although it was a bit of mix really. The Luftwaffe was worn down on the Easter Front both in equipment and pilots.

Not to forget the Britts; Germany's traditional lack of NAVY vs Britt always cost Germany. NAVY is important to Empire going back to ancients. Hey, this does deal with the empire theme here. Why is NAVY so important for Empire?

JG53Frankyboy
10-02-2007, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
................ Why is NAVY so important for Empire?

actually it only depends on where "your" Empire is located on the globus................... and if are other empires around that have a fleet.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...Why is NAVY so important for Empire?

In a practical sense, if you have an overseas Empire, you'll need a merchant fleet to economically move goods, riches and settlers back and forth; then you'll need a navy to protect the merchant navy and your economy.

Most of the colonial conquest were projected into the New World, Asia, or Africa accross large bodies of water, so having a strong merchant fleet and navy to protect it was essential to enjoy the benefits of those distant colonies; it`s not a rule set into stone, the Russians who quietly colonized vast amounts of Asia beyond the Urals.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... yet more lame and empty backtalk followed by an exit rapido. Now, back to the part of the programme we were before being interrupted by the characteristically pointless routine of this board.


..... Yes - an exit rapido - that pretty much describes your behavior on the L/L point.

MEGILE
10-02-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
However, on the other hand, the Soviets provided the boots on the ground(tm), and if the Soviets could not have mounted the long offensive, then even the likes of Patton and Monty might not have made it to Berlin by 1945 in the face of better equipped German resistance. Eventually they would have, as Ussian war production was just beginning to ramp up by 1944 and could have gone astronomically higher instead of ramping down from that year in certainty of victory.

..... I quite agree. The Russians tied up and ultimately defeated the majority of German military strength over the course of four years on the Eastern Front. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting point which leads me to question... what if the USA hadn't supplied Russia with Lend Lease?
Would the balance of power in post-war Europe have shifted more to Britain and America? Or did the allies fear Russian defeat?

I guess the crux of the question is, why particularly the USA felt obliged to help Russia so much.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Why is NAVY so important for Empire?


..... Several reasons.

[1] A strong navy permitted distant power projection across oceans on an inter-continental basis. It vastly extended the "reach" of a nation.

[2] Transport by sea, both for trade and war, was by far the most economical means of transport and often the fastest. For example, establishment of the oceanic trade route between Europe and India is what broke Ottoman control of the extremely profitable trade between Europe and the East via the overland Silk Road network.

[3] Control of the seas meant control of oceanic shipping routes, which in turn implied control or influence over both the trading activities and colonization efforts of other nations.

stathem
10-02-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Nota bene, the original question was 'what if Britain walks off in 1940'.


Nota Bene yourself Kurfurst.

My original contention was that 'if Britain had walked off in 1940' refers to a Britain 'comes to terms with' 'ceasing hostilities' 'assuming neutrality' etc. Remembering Germany's terms in 1940, 'a free hand in the east' in return for 'guaranteeing the empire (apart form the African bits).

I then went on to say that, regardless of the eventual victors, be they Nazi or Stalinist, the whole of Europe would be under totalitarian thrall.

Quite why you chose to ignore what I wrote and go off on yet another Anglophobic rant about how Britain did nothing in the war is known only to you, and guessed at by the rest of us.

One would have thought it a good point for you to recognise and give thanks that that smallest of contributions - that Britain's continued presence in the war allowed democracy to retain a toehold in Europe, from which the Americans could could carry it back into Western Europe by 1945 and to all(or most) of Europe by 2000. You also have to question whether Japan would have attacked British holdings in the Far east if the British had been 'on the same side' as the Germans.

Whether the Americans would still have entered the war on the Soviet side if Britain was neutral is for others to decide, similarly the outcome of such a war if Britain had chosen to sell the products of the Empire's raw materials, manufacturing and technical know-how to the Germans for the war against Communism is another question.

One thing at least the Nazis had over you is that they recognized that the British did build some very fine fighting aeroplanes and motors; how would a few Lancasters over the Urals have swung the GPW?

luftluuver
10-02-2007, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
My original contention was that 'if Britain had walked off in 1940' refers to a Britain 'comes to terms with' 'ceasing hostilities' 'assuming neutrality' etc. Remembering Germany's terms in 1940, 'a free hand in the east' in return for 'guaranteeing the empire (apart form the African bits).

I then went on to say that, regardless of the eventual victors, be they Nazi or Stalinist, the whole of Europe would be under totalitarian thrall.

Quite why you chose to ignore what I wrote and go off on yet another Anglophobic rant about how Britain did nothing in the war is known only to you, and guessed at by the rest of us.

One would have thought it a good point for you to recognise and give thanks that that smallest of contributions - that Britain's continued presence in the war allowed democracy to retain a toehold in Europe, from which the Americans could could carry it back into Western Europe by 1945 and to all(or most) of Europe by 2000. You also have to question whether Japan would have attacked British holdings in the Far east if the British had been 'on the same side' as the Germans.

Whether the Americans would still have entered the war on the Soviet side if Britain was neutral is for others to decide, similarly the outcome of such a war if Britain had chosen to sell the products of the Empire's raw materials, manufacturing and technical know-how to the Germans for the war against Communism is another question.

One thing at least the Nazis had over you is that they recognized that the British did build some very fine fighting aeroplanes and motors; how would a few Lancasters over the Urals have swung the GPW?
Agh, stathem maybe you have answered the question why Kapt K has this vile hate on for the Brits.

He blames the Brits for not rolling over for the nazis and thus allowing the Soviets to occupy eastern Europe for 40 or so years. From what I have seen on other boards he does not have much use for slavs.

MB_Avro_UK
10-02-2007, 12:22 PM
Hi all,

I am British (no suprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and in my view all Empires ended in the 1800s. The world changed in 1914.

Britain was the world leader in industial capacity from 1700 to 1900. But two world wars in the 20th Century destroyed the British economy.The British Empire was dead.

After WW2,the British owed a huge amount of money to the USA for Lend Lease payments. Britain finished Lend Lease payments to the USA in 2006.

Today, Britain is in a good financial position.

IMO, the British Empire was not an economic success for Britain. But it was a Political success... English is the premier language for the world... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just my thoughts and I am NOT an expert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
IMO, the British Empire was not an economic success for Britain. But it was a Political success... English is the premier language for the world... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

I guess it`s relative simplicity compared to other languages (grammar is for example exceedingly simple in comparison to say German or French) and the fact that almost all technology, pop culture etc. came from the US after the war, that coincidentally was also the the time of revolution in comminicates and many aspect of social life also has to do a lot to do with that, too.

Before WW1, WW2, despite the BE being on it`s peak, relatively few people spoke English. French was much more popular than today, for example - that had something to do with the enlightement. Before that it was Latin..

It seems to me that languages are exported far more effectively via culture achievements, than military ones.

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
However, on the other hand, the Soviets provided the boots on the ground(tm), and if the Soviets could not have mounted the long offensive, then even the likes of Patton and Monty might not have made it to Berlin by 1945 in the face of better equipped German resistance. Eventually they would have, as Ussian war production was just beginning to ramp up by 1944 and could have gone astronomically higher instead of ramping down from that year in certainty of victory.

US government was damned near broke before the end. Watch Flags of Our Fathers which is not
based in fiction. The debt of WWII is still charging interest, the real winners of the war
are the international banks and those rich enough to invest and never see combat.

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I am British (no suprise http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and in my view all Empires ended in the 1800s. The world changed in 1914.

Britain was the world leader in industial capacity from 1700 to 1900. But two world wars in the 20th Century destroyed the British economy.The British Empire was dead.

After WW2,the British owed a huge amount of money to the USA for Lend Lease payments. Britain finished Lend Lease payments to the USA in 2006.

Today, Britain is in a good financial position.

IMO, the British Empire was not an economic success for Britain. But it was a Political success... English is the premier language for the world... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Just my thoughts and I am NOT an expert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


..... Judging by the amount of money and effort expended by Great Britain to maintain and expand its global empire, it MUST have been extremely profitable over some considerable span of time. In the late 19th century, Great Britain's merchant marine was larger than that of all the rest of the world put together. That's but one indicator of British economic strength over that period. I suspect that the post WW2 dissolution/surrender of the empire was perhaps more the result of Great Britain's exhaustion after two world wars in succession.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2007, 02:09 PM
Great comments fellas/fellattes. The other thing that always interested me about NAVY empires was piracy. The ancient pirates in The Meds and how Rome handled them is interesting especially, but not as much info on that.

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mouth, mouth, yet more mouth. But still no answer to those 2 years.

Only one without answer is you. You is wrong, be SURE.

Nikolay Gulaev
Among these top Soviet Airacobra aces, the most "efficient" has to be Nikolay Gulaev. He flew his first P-39 combat mission on 9 August 1943 and his last mission on 14 August 1944.

The 216th Fighter Division (later 9th Guards Fighter Division) flew Airacobras from August, 1942 to the end of the war in May, 1945 and counted 28 aces with at least 15 victories.

That is just on P-39. There were Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and B-25's. Also C-47's
all in the early years. But the P-39's were the most effective and August 1941 is in the
first two years. IN FACT JUNE 1943 IS ALSO IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AS WELL. So count until
then!

Lend-Lease Trucks BY YEAR (http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm)

Most of the radars used by the Soviet Navy during World War II were from Lend-Lease. The first Lend-Lease radars started to arrive in the USSR in 1942 and by the end of the war most of the large warships were equipped by some sort of radar. (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_Radar_WWII.htm)

Lend-Lease to Russia did not start in 1943, shipments started before Sept 1941.

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)

Note that aid was sent EVEN BEFORE Lend-Lease to Russia was approved.

If anyone would like to minimize perhaps the LIVES LOST by Commonwealth and US sailors in
delivering aid shipments? I am sure that to K they are nothing. It's easy when all they
are to you is numbers on paper.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 02:38 PM
I find it bizarre to see people argue the vital importance of LL in the USSR's strugle in the first two years of the war, then post a link which acknowladges that as of 1 January 1943 99,7%(!!!) of all Soviet trucks were of domestic origin, and domestic trucks in service showing an increase of appx. 100 000 units increase since 22 June 1941.. in fact it`s far beyond bizarre.

MB_Avro_UK
10-02-2007, 03:20 PM
Hi all,

The British people viewed the Empire in a way that is difficult to understand today.

The British viewed the Empire as a benevolent organisation that brought Civilisation, Wealth and Christianity to impoverished nations.

They did not regard the Empire as a series of conquests,but bringing the benefits of British standards to those who were needy.

This sounds crazy today but that was the attitude at the time.

And remember, that we are talking about a mindset from over 100 years ago.

Also, 150 years ago 90% of the British people were slaves. Families lived in one room and infant mortality was very,very high.

The only escape for a young male was to join the Army or Navy.

But the British people were very patriotic at this time.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I don't think that this attitude would survive today.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Kurfurst__
10-02-2007, 03:25 PM
You are very, very foundamentally right in that about the dangers of hindsight. You can`t apply today`s thinking to 150, 100, or even 50 years before. People lived different, they thought different - for one : they did not have much access to news services and most only had access to the most basic education. About 50 years ago, having a bathroom was sign of belonging to the middle class...

Blutarski2004
10-02-2007, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mouth, mouth, yet more mouth. But still no answer to those 2 years.

Only one without answer is you. You is wrong, be SURE.

Nikolay Gulaev
Among these top Soviet Airacobra aces, the most "efficient" has to be Nikolay Gulaev. He flew his first P-39 combat mission on 9 August 1943 and his last mission on 14 August 1944.

The 216th Fighter Division (later 9th Guards Fighter Division) flew Airacobras from August, 1942 to the end of the war in May, 1945 and counted 28 aces with at least 15 victories.

That is just on P-39. There were Hurricanes, Spitfires, P-40's and B-25's. Also C-47's
all in the early years. But the P-39's were the most effective and August 1941 is in the
first two years. IN FACT JUNE 1943 IS ALSO IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AS WELL. So count until
then!

Lend-Lease Trucks BY YEAR (http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm)

Most of the radars used by the Soviet Navy during World War II were from Lend-Lease. The first Lend-Lease radars started to arrive in the USSR in 1942 and by the end of the war most of the large warships were equipped by some sort of radar. (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_Radar_WWII.htm)

Lend-Lease to Russia did not start in 1943, shipments started before Sept 1941.

- "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941
- first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
- second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)

Note that aid was sent EVEN BEFORE Lend-Lease to Russia was approved.

If anyone would like to minimize perhaps the LIVES LOST by Commonwealth and US sailors in
delivering aid shipments? I am sure that to K they are nothing. It's easy when all they
are to you is numbers on paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I was finally able to track down some information on Lend-Lease deliveries by date. Very interesting information:

[1] 22 Jun 41 through 30 Sep 41
Pre Lend-Lease deliveries financed by the US government

Trucks and other vehicles___________1,575 tons
Metals______________________________4,655 tons
Chemicals and Explosives____________4,726 tons
Petroleum products________________130,354 tons
Machinery and Equipment____________15,855 tons
Food________________________________3,918 tons
Miscellaneous_______________________2,632 tons

- - -

[2] 1 Oct 41 through 30 Jun 42
First Lend-Lease Protocol Period

Trucks and other vehicles_________214,164 tons
Metals____________________________424,525 tons
Chemicals and Explosives___________56,007 tons
Petroleum products________________167,995 tons
Machinery and Equipment____________29,692 tons
Food______________________________305,037 tons
Miscellaneous______________________76,224 tons
Canadian and British supplies_____146,611 tons

- - -

[3] 1 Jul 42 through 30 Jun 43
Second Lend-Lease Protocol Period

Trucks and other vehicles_________448,488 tons
Metals____________________________749,890 tons
Chemicals and Explosives__________181,366 tons
Petroleum products________________213,448 tons
Machinery and Equipment___________168,468 tons
Food______________________________997,783 tons
Miscellaneous_____________________237,776 tons
Canadian and British supplies______57,040 tons


Total___________________________4,638,229 tons


Total tonnages by product category - 22 Jun 41 through 30 Jun 43:

Trucks and other vehicles_________664,227 tons
Metals__________________________1,179,070 tons
Chemicals and Explosives__________242,099 tons
Petroleum products________________511,797 tons
Machinery and Equipment___________214,015 tons
Food____________________________1,306,738 tons
Miscellaneous_____________________316,638 tons
Canadian and British supplies_____203,651 tons


In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.


Clearly, Lend-Lease deliveries over the first two years of the war were a mere pittance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

M_Gunz
10-02-2007, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I find it bizarre to see people argue the vital importance of LL in the USSR's strugle in the first two years of the war, then post a link which acknowladges that as of 1 January 1943 99,7%(!!!) of all Soviet trucks were of domestic origin, and domestic trucks in service showing an increase of appx. 100 000 units increase since 22 June 1941.. in fact it`s far beyond bizarre.

I find it bizarre that YOU try to turn "all alone" into "importance" like it was written so.

YOU'RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT, BOZO. NOBODY SAID THAT ANYONE CARRIED THE RUSSIANS THROUGH BUT
WHEN YOU ARE SHOWN WRONG YOU STILL PLAY YOUR STUPID CHANGE THE ARGUMENT GAME YET AGAIN.

Close to 100,000 vehicles ALONE is a hell of a lot of nothing. Lend-Lease was not only trucks
and planes but ammunition, explosives to make ammunition and HUGE amounts of raw materials.

Something is not nothing and YOU characterized Allied aid as nothing. The only lie here is
yours and now it's the lie you attempt to put in my mouth. Up yours, you're wrong.

Kurfurst__
10-03-2007, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.

Clearly, Lend-Lease deliveries over the first two years of the war were a mere pittance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Still bizarre. One guy proves himself wrong with his own source, then comes the other guy who pretends he can`t see the figures two posts before and makes up a fictionary number of trucks.

Shipments :

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

1942 : 9200 towing vehicles
1943 : 59,400 towing vehicles

Trucks

1942 : 17,400 Trucks
1943 : 21,500 Trucks

Light Vehicles (99% Jeeps)

1942 : 5,900
1943 : 14,000

Since these are whole years, it means that up to the time the Stalingrad battle was well under way, the 6th Army encircled and the rescue attempts thwarted, the Red Army received 9200 towing vehicles and 17 400 trucks, plus 5900 Jeeps. This compares to 378,800 Soviet-made trucks in service at the start of 1943.

From that onwards, it`s just boring rhetorics if you still want to argue about how Russia would have been unable to pull off those two first critical years without LL. In terms of trucks, it would mean they would have 5% less trucks available by 1943.

M_Gunz
10-03-2007, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
- it's quite unlikely that the USSR would have collapsed after 1942, after all it historically survived the Wehrmacht juggernaught for two years, and entirely on it's own.

Kurfurst only proves that when he lose a point, he changes it and insists on the change.

Kurfurst__
10-03-2007, 04:54 AM
Past bizarre, it`s grotesque.

Blutarski2004
10-03-2007, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.

Clearly, Lend-Lease deliveries over the first two years of the war were a mere pittance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Still bizarre. One guy proves himself wrong with his own source, then comes the other guy who pretends he can`t see the figures two posts before and makes up a fictionary number of trucks.

Shipments :

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

1942 : 9200 towing vehicles
1943 : 59,400 towing vehicles

Trucks

1942 : 17,400 Trucks
1943 : 21,500 Trucks

Light Vehicles (99% Jeeps)

1942 : 5,900
1943 : 14,000

Since these are whole years, it means that up to the time the Stalingrad battle was well under way, the 6th Army encircled and the rescue attempts thwarted, the Red Army received 9200 towing vehicles and 17 400 trucks, plus 5900 Jeeps. This compares to 378,800 Soviet-made trucks in service at the start of 1943.

From that onwards, it`s just boring rhetorics if you still want to argue about how Russia would have been unable to pull off those two first critical years without LL. In terms of trucks, it would mean they would have 5% less trucks available by 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Say there, genius. Those "towing vehicles" that you so blithely dismiss (manufactured by Studebaker, Chevrolet, GMC, International - check your own source) are EXACTLY the TRUCKS that Zhukov was talking about - the 2.5-ton and 5-ton TRUCKS that hauled Soviet artillery, cargo trailers, etc., AND carried supplies. I wonder how you managed to miss that.

How many of those TRUCKS were delivered in 1942 and 1943? 63,400. How many of those TRUCKS did I estimate from the data? 60,000. These were the MODERN TRUCKS, with multi-axle drive and cross-country capability. The more you rant, the more ridiculous you paint yourself. You're too lazy to do the homework and assess it honestly.


Let's look at what else was delivered IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EASTERN FRONT CAMPAIGN .....

- - -

1.18 million tons of metal. I wonder what the Soviets wanted that for? If half of that tonnage was steel, it would equal 17,000 T34 tanks.

- - -

240,000 tons of chemicals and explosives. The Soviets LOST outright over 300 ammunition manufacturing plants to the early German advances. Overall, Lend-Lease supplied 317,900 tons of explosive materials, equal to OVER HALF the Soviet wartime production of approximately 600,000 tons. In addition the Allies supplied 103,293 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of trinitrotoluene, also known as TNT, Soviet production of which totaled some 116,000 tons. Got a calculator? Do the math.

- - -

1.3 million tons of food SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE USSR AS AN URGENT PRIORITY - not surprising, since they had lost both the 1941 and 1942 Ukraine crop harvests to the German advance.

- - -

500,000+ tons of refined petroleum products. The Caucasus oil fields represented 80 pct of Soviet oil production and 90 pct of refining capacity. By July 1942, the pipeline and rail connections from the Caucasus region had been severed by the German advance to Rostov. By September 1942 the Soviets had SHUT DOWN the Baku oil fields and transferred its work force and oil field equipment to the Urals to DEVELOP the Kyubishev field and BUILD new refining plants. Oil production at Baku did not resume until late 1943.

- - -

I'm still waiting for you to cogently address the statements of Marshal Zhukov from my earlier posts, but I suspect we will just get more empty bloviation. You're such a lazy boy.

luftluuver
10-03-2007, 05:41 AM
It was so nice of Britain and the USA to build all those truck factories in the USSR in the early '30s to build the British and American trucks.

A very detailed list of L/L to the Soviets, http://www.geocities.com/mark_willey/lend.html

Btw, Zaloga has Soviet production of cars and trucks during the GPW as 343,624 units.

A link to a thread with regards to Kapt K's link, http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=753&whichpage=1&S...ms=lend/lease,trucks (http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=753&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=lend/lease,trucks)

Kurfurst__
10-03-2007, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.

Clearly, Lend-Lease deliveries over the first two years of the war were a mere pittance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Still bizarre. One guy proves himself wrong with his own source, then comes the other guy who pretends he can`t see the figures two posts before and makes up a fictionary number of trucks.

Shipments :

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

1942 : 9200 towing vehicles
1943 : 59,400 towing vehicles

Trucks

1942 : 17,400 Trucks
1943 : 21,500 Trucks

Light Vehicles (99% Jeeps)

1942 : 5,900
1943 : 14,000

Since these are whole years, it means that up to the time the Stalingrad battle was well under way, the 6th Army encircled and the rescue attempts thwarted, the Red Army received 9200 towing vehicles and 17 400 trucks, plus 5900 Jeeps. This compares to 378,800 Soviet-made trucks in service at the start of 1943.

From that onwards, it`s just boring rhetorics if you still want to argue about how Russia would have been unable to pull off those two first critical years without LL. In terms of trucks, it would mean they would have 5% less trucks available by 1943. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Say there, genius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Boring rhetorics, check.


Those "towing vehicles" that you so blithely dismiss (manufactured by Studebaker, Chevrolet, GMC, International - check your own source) are EXACTLY the TRUCKS that Zhukov was talking about - the 2.5-ton and 5-ton TRUCKS that hauled Soviet artillery, cargo trailers, etc., AND carried supplies. I wonder how you managed to miss that.

Amazing. I list towing vehicles along with everyting, and then this guy can`t decide wheter I missed that or dismissed that. How can one dismiss something that he is supposed to have missed in the first place..?

Bizarre.


How many of those TRUCKS were delivered in 1942 and 1943? 63,400. How many of those TRUCKS did I estimate from the data? 60,000.

Let`s do a credibility check :



Blutarski above :
Total tonnages by product category - 22 Jun 41 through 30 Jun 43:

Trucks and other vehicles_________664,227 tons
Metals__________________________1,179,070 tons
Chemicals and Explosives__________242,099 tons
Petroleum products________________511,797 tons
Machinery and Equipment___________214,015 tons
Food____________________________1,306,738 tons
Miscellaneous_____________________316,638 tons
Canadian and British supplies_____203,651 tons


In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.

Note how 120 000 trucks become 60 000 tanks, and how June 1941-June 1943 period gets extanded to January 1944.

Bizarre.


These were the MODERN TRUCKS, with multi-axle drive and cross-country capability.

I am sure that 5% of Soviet truck drivers who got to see them in 1942 really appreciated that.


The more you rant, the more ridiculous you paint yourself. You're too lazy to do the homework and assess it honestly.

Mouth, mouth, mouth, that`s nothing new at all.



Let's look at what else was delivered IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EASTERN FRONT CAMPAIGN .....

1.18 million tons of metal. I wonder what the Soviets wanted that for? If half of that tonnage was steel, it would equal 17,000 T34 tanks.

Soviet Domestic steel production :

1940 : 18.3 million tons
1941 : 17.8 million tons
1942 : 8 million tons
1943 : 8.4 million tons
1944 : 10.8 million tons
1945 : 12.2 million tons.

You say LL steel shipments would account for even as much as 0.6 million tons in two year time? During which period (mid41-mid43) the Soviet Union domestically produced about 20 million tons of steel all alone?

Well let's see, 20 million without LL, 20.5 million with LL. I am sure that .5 was the thing that tipped the scale and proved decisive.


240,000 tons of chemicals and explosives.

How much chemicals, how much explosives?


The Soviets LOST outright over 300 ammunition manufacturing plants to the early German advances.


Note how 'chemicals and explosives' through 41-43 gets compared to loss of ammunition production in `41..



Overall, Lend-Lease supplied 317,900 tons of explosive materials, equal to OVER HALF the Soviet wartime production of approximately 600,000 tons.

Note the switch from deliveries in the first two years to the entire war. It`s called a strawmen arguement.


In addition the Allies supplied 103,293 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of trinitrotoluene, also known as TNT, Soviet production of which totaled some 116,000 tons. Got a calculator? Do the math.

Through the war, again. Strawmans are extemely popular lately.




1.3 million tons of food SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE USSR AS AN URGENT PRIORITY - not surprising, since they had lost both the 1941 and 1942 Ukraine crop harvests to the German advance.

What was Soviet domestic production at the same time, or have you switched to just throwing big numbers around, hopeful that you can switch the arguement from the question, that was 'What would change on the EF, if the USSR was to be all alone, and without the UK 'in'?



500,000+ tons of refined petroleum products.

Well in comparison the LW in a single month consumed 100 - 150 000 tons of aviation gasoline alone in a month, not including civillian consumption, or the requirements of army and navy vehicles and vessels.
Synthetic oil producti production was ca 250 000 tons a month, increasing to about 380 000 tons a month without natural-sourced oil production.

I have no figures for Soviet production, but given the above, and the far larger size of the Soviet forces, I presume 500 000 tons of refined petroleum products was maybe about a 3-4 weeks equivalent of Soviet refined oil production.


The Caucasus oil fields represented 80 pct of Soviet oil production and 90 pct of refining capacity. By July 1942, the pipeline and rail connections from the Caucasus region had been severed by the German advance to Rostov. By September 1942 the Soviets had SHUT DOWN the Baku oil fields and transferred its work force and oil field equipment to the Urals to DEVELOP the Kyubishev field and BUILD new refining plants. Oil production at Baku did not resume until late 1943.

Irrelevant, it`s a story without any figures or detailing the fact that the Soviets made up for the losses elsewhere.



I'm still waiting for you to cogently address the statements of Marshal Zhukov from my earlier posts, but I suspect we will just get more empty bloviation. You're such a lazy boy.

More mouth and empty rhetorics. You seriously expect me answer such pathetic rants?

Unfortunately, all of the figures posted so far keep proving my point of view, that the foreign aid to the USSR in the first 2 critical years of the GPW was not particularly subtantial, and a far cry from being decisive. Your claim is on the contrary that LL saved the USSR in 1941 and 1942. Given the facts above, it`s little more than ignorant nationalistic ranting, peppered with strawmen arguements about the shipments of 1943, 1944 and 1945, when LL begun to become a substantial aid - by which time, the Red Army already took the strategic initiative on it`s own.

Problem is, you can`t even get a grasp on the question : Would the USSR`s position be considerably different without outside help, that materialized in LL, in the critical years of the war where there was chance for the USSR to crumble ? And how would you be able give an answer, if you don`t understand the question to start with...?

falling-bird
10-03-2007, 06:03 AM
Also, 150 years ago 90% of the British people were slaves. Families lived in one room and infant mortality was very,very high.

While I agree that conditions and pay for the vast majority in ˜1857' were atrocious, at no point were they slaves; that is – humans owned by other humans, with no rights at all. Setting aside the much trumpeted Magna Carta declarations of human rights 1215, which only really applied to landowners, Slavery itself within the empire was outlawed in 1807. That law was conveniently imposed on other nations' trading ships by force by the Royal Navy. This formal and public aversion to slavery was the only thing that made Britain hesitate about joining the Confederacy's side in the American Civil War to save its cotton industry.

Slavery, or serfdom, in what later became Great Britain was formalised under the feudal system by the Normans after their invasion in 1066. Prior to that it was common practice and a profitable commercial enterprise by the various British nations (Wessex, Northumbria, Wales, Mercia, Cumbria, Alba, Dalriada, etc) amongst each other and outside traders/abductors such as Scandinavian and Baltic slavers and pirates.

Serfdom, the condition of generations of your family being bound to work for the current lord or owner of the land (it could be a Bishop also) basically ran into the buffers because of the Black Death in mid 14th Century. There were so few active workers left alive that they were able to charge the surviving landowners exorbitant amounts of money for labour. More than a few became wealthy enough to buy up land and farms made empty by the Black Death.

Conditions were also very different in Highland Scotland where the Clan Chief had power of life and death over his ˜children'. This led to the disastrous Highland rebellions of the early and mid 18th Century. Some Clan Chiefs were charmed by the overseas Jacobite plotters and forced their tribe members to fight while other Chiefs stood by or actively helped on the Government side. Once those rebellions had been defeated, those surviving clansmen who had not been hung or deported to the W. Indies, Canada, or the American colonies, were encouraged to join the new Highland regiments. This helped the pacification of the Scottish Highlands, by taking the muscle away from the Clan Chiefs. These new Gaelic-speaking regiments, still immensely clannish but controlled by London, were then used to help defeat of the French in the Global War between Britain and France that was to continue until the defeat of Napoleon in 1815.


But the British people were very patriotic at this time..

I don't think that this attitude would survive today.

I agree. To be dogmatically and unquestioningly patriotic is considered ludicrous and anachronistic in Britain now, in my opinion rightly. We see it mostly manifested in some newspapers which specialize in feeding the fears of the poor and undereducated, and in those of the shaven-headed persuasion. We have so much more information about other peoples' points of view now, we meet and are exposed to so many more ˜foreigners', both in Britain, and on our travels abroad, that the myth of the British (actually meaning English) natural national supremacy common in Victorian thinking, simply fails to stand up.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Still not sure why I have to read through a whole lot of donkey about Lend Lease in order to follow this thread....

Kurfurst__
10-03-2007, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by falling-bird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, 150 years ago 90% of the British people were slaves. Families lived in one room and infant mortality was very,very high.

While I agree that conditions and pay for the vast majority in ˜1857' were atrocious, at no point were they slaves; that is – humans owned by other humans, with no rights at all. Setting aside the much trumpeted Magna Carta declarations of human rights 1215, which only really applied to landowners, Slavery itself within the empire was outlawed in 1807. That law was conveniently imposed on other nations' trading ships by force by the Royal Navy. This formal and public aversion to slavery was the only thing that made Britain hesitate about joining the Confederacy's side in the American Civil War to save its cotton industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Avro refers to the inhuman conditions suffered by the working class in the classic, 'happy' era of total liberalism and capitalism in the 19th century. No wonder socialists came along after a while.

If you compare the actual position of the worker, he indeed shows similiarities. He doesn't own his place, it`s that of the industrialist who can throw him out at will. He isn`t bound to his 'Master' but he will find himself in trouble trying to find another job if he quits or raises his voice against conditions. Safety regulations are non existant, and nobody cares what sort of dreadful injuries and inhuman conditions children suffer in mines and factories. Or check the analague between Truck systems and medieval obligations to buy your stuff only from your feudal lord`s alehouse, use only his mill and so on. The bounds were informal, rather than formal, but bounds nevertheless. Britain was exposed to these first and foremost as the most heavily industrialising country at the time, and coincidentally being a 'liberal mess' instead of a centralised state.

Blutarski2004
10-03-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Note how 120 000 trucks become 60 000 tanks, and how June 1941-June 1943 period gets extanded to January 1944.

Bizarre.



..... No. Note how the 60,000 truck became 63,000 trucks.




I am sure that 5% of Soviet truck drivers who got to see them in 1942 really appreciated that.

..... Marshal Zhukov certainly did. But, hey, what would he know?




Mouth, mouth, mouth, that`s nothing new at all.

..... That's about all that we get from you.




You say LL steel shipments would account for even as much as 0.6 million tons in two year time? During which period (mid41-mid43) the Soviet Union domestically produced about 20 million tons of steel all alone?

Well let's see, 20 million without LL, 20.5 million with LL. I am sure that .5 was the thing that tipped the scale and proved decisive.

..... If the USSR was producing so much fine steel FOR WAR PURPOSES, why did they want steel delivered from the US via L/L????? Why was Marshal Zhukov so appreciative of the L/L deliveries????? You ALWAYS manage to ignore the important questions.




How much chemicals, how much explosives?

..... I guess you don't have a calculator. How about a pencil and paper?




Note how 'chemicals and explosives' through 41-43 gets compared to loss of ammunition production in `41.

..... This is perhaps the lamest attempt at evasion in the history of mankind. Do you REALLY think that the loss of 300 munitions plants in 1941 was made good in a month or two? In fact, Soviet production in 1943 was STILL 10 pct below 1940 production. But, IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK, you might have discovered that fact.




Note the switch from deliveries in the first two years to the entire war. It`s called a strawmen arguement.

..... I have news for you. The strawman is getting terribly tied of being called out every time you get yourself into intellectual difficulty.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In addition the Allies supplied 103,293 tons of toluene, the primary ingredient of trinitrotoluene, also known as TNT, Soviet production of which totaled some 116,000 tons. Got a calculator? Do the math.

Through the war, again. Strawmans are extemely popular lately. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The strawman says: "Not today, buddy; this time you're on your own. Try Zhukov instead." Can you spell "ammunition shortage"?




What was Soviet domestic production at the same time, or have you switched to just throwing big numbers around, hopeful that you can switch the arguement from the question, that was 'What would change on the EF, if the USSR was to be all alone, and without the UK 'in'? .

..... Here's a better question. Why did the Soviets urgently request food as a priority L/L shipment item?




Well in comparison the LW in a single month consumed 100 - 150 000 tons of aviation gasoline alone in a month, not including civillian consumption, or the requirements of army and navy vehicles and vessels. Synthetic oil producti production was ca 250 000 tons a month, increasing to about 380 000 tons a month without natural-sourced oil production.

I have no figures for Soviet production, but given the above, and the far larger size of the Soviet forces, I presume 500 000 tons of refined petroleum products was maybe about a 3-4 weeks equivalent of Soviet refined oil production.

..... The short answer is that you have no idea.




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Caucasus oil fields represented 80 pct of Soviet oil production and 90 pct of refining capacity. By July 1942, the pipeline and rail connections from the Caucasus region had been severed by the German advance to Rostov. By September 1942 the Soviets had SHUT DOWN the Baku oil fields and transferred its work force and oil field equipment to the Urals to DEVELOP the Kyubishev field and BUILD new refining plants. Oil production at Baku did not resume until late 1943.

Irrelevant, it`s a story without any figures or detailing the fact that the Soviets made up for the losses elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... You apparently have a reading comprehension problem. What happens when you lose 90 percent of your REFINING capacity?




<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm still waiting for you to cogently address the statements of Marshal Zhukov from my earlier posts, but I suspect we will just get more empty bloviation. You're such a lazy boy.

More mouth and empty rhetorics. You seriously expect me answer such pathetic rants? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... which is an inelegant way of saying that we'll have to wait yet longer for an answer which you probably do not have anyways. Simple questions seem to pose an unusually large challenge to you.




Unfortunately, all of the figures posted so far keep proving my point of view, that the foreign aid to the USSR in the first 2 critical years of the GPW was not particularly subtantial, and a far cry from being decisive. Your claim is on the contrary that LL saved the USSR in 1941 and 1942. Given the facts above, it`s little more than ignorant nationalistic ranting, peppered with strawmen arguements about the shipments of 1943, 1944 and 1945, when LL begun to become a substantial aid - by which time, the Red Army already took the strategic initiative on it`s own.

..... Excuse me while I clean up the coffee I snorted through my nose after I read that bit of inanity.




Problem is, you can`t even get a grasp on the question : Would the USSR`s position be considerably different without outside help, that materialized in LL, in the critical years of the war where there was chance for the USSR to crumble ? And how would you be able give an answer, if you don`t understand the question to start with...?


..... Ladies and gentlemen, the verdict is in. The obtuseness is congenital.

luftluuver
10-03-2007, 07:33 AM
Blut, you know it is a waste of time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Like the Spit and 150 fuel threads, Kapt K only sees what he wants to see. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Kurfurst__
10-03-2007, 07:41 AM
I must confess, I`ve become weary of such lame and bizarre forms of entertainment. So let`s just drop the case for the sake of our mental sanity. Nobody seems to have shown particular interest in that off topic comedy show of one-liners anyway, the figures are all there to see for everyone to make up their mind on the issue; some will be satisfied with those facts, and some will be satisfied by having the last word, as back in the Kindergarten; in the end, everybody will be satisfied and some will be much less frustrated; let`s get on with the original programme then.

LEXX_Luthor
10-03-2007, 07:47 AM
Good call kurfy. The traditional owned slave was to be replaced by the slave controlled by low wages.

Well, I guess Lend Leace to USSR had some role to play in maintaining the normal empires of the 1930s.

Kurfy is right -- Soviets survived with little LL.
Bluts is right -- Soviets won handily with lots LL.

Xiolablu3
10-03-2007, 08:20 AM
Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito werew all trying to emulate Britians success in 1939/40.

Obviously having an empire is beneficial in the long run.

Britain is a rich, powerful nation still and look at its size, its tiny.

Yet its langauge is the main global language...

Hitler had massive respect for Britian, and never wanted a war in the first place. He wanted to try and copy her success. However he was a few hundred years too late....the world was now largely against 'land grabbing' and 'ethnic cleansing' and those ancient methods which other empires had used 100's of years ago. - We knew better in the 1900's.

Yes - the empire surely benefitted Britain, and many many of the dominons, but in the 1900's times had changed (thank god) and most of the world would no longer put up with countries suddenly declaring war for no other reason than personal gain...

Quite Ironic that Britain (and France), empire builders from years before, led the stand against the 'Empire Building' Axis powers.

falling-bird
10-03-2007, 08:22 AM
I think Avro refers to the inhuman conditions suffered by the working class in the classic, 'happy' era of total liberalism and capitalism in the 19th century. No wonder socialists came along after a while.

If you compare the actual position of the worker, he indeed shows similiarities. He doesn't own his place, it`s that of the industrialist who can throw him out at will. He isn`t bound to his 'Master' but he will find himself in trouble trying to find another job if he quits or raises his voice against conditions. Safety regulations are non existant, and nobody cares what sort of dreadful injuries and inhuman conditions children suffer in mines and factories.

Actually, K, I agree with you. You only have to read a bit Dickens to see what conditions were like in Victorian cities. And he was a man who did care, and made a lot of other people care as well through his novels and performances.

My point is, and yes, it MAY be bit pedantic, that Avro wrote ˜slavery'. I couldn't let that go. In my view he used the wrong term. (Sorry Avro)

Referring back to Dickens, his novels, written in mid 19th century, were mostly about urban life, and its industrial woes and horrors. The inhabitants had migrated there because of the industrialisation of the countryside and centralization of cottage industries. They had the freedom to move, and, while their choice was unenviable, they were able to choose.

In contrast, where a condition of slavery or serfdom existed, this was simply not an option. In Tsarist Russia for instance, serfs were tied to the land and OWNED by the ˜Master'. Even if conditions became bad, they were not permitted to migrate to cities. If they did, they became outlaws, and liable to be brought back to their ˜home' and punished severely if caught. Even creatives like painters and musicians of whom the ˜Master' was proud were still unfree, only able to practice at the whim of their ˜Master', unlike those in even 16th Century W Europe. This system greatly affected the growth of Russian urban and industrial development, and Russian modernization was only really able to gather speed when serfs were emancipated in late 19th century (188-?) and were able to provide the concentrated manpower necessary for the industrialisation of that time. Albeit in awful conditions.


Small diversion about Russian History and culture, but only if you're interested http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif - The Russian experience is a tragic one. The first Kievan Rus culture was fairly democratic, village and town decisions being taken by a ˜Soviet', a debating council of the free men. (Not including the slaves of course). This situation was basically eroded by the breaking up the state from within from about 11th century, and then completely overwhelmed by the Mongol invasion in mid 13th. All under the Mongols were considered slaves and had no rights at all. To cut a long story short, Muscovy was able to throw off the Mongols and expand, especially eastwards over the Urals. As a reward to their supporters, lands were awarded by the Tsars and a system of supreme Monarchy was put in place. This meant that the Tsar alone awarded land, it was not necessarily passed on through family. This was fine as far as it went, but in order to fix the value of the estates, the movement of serfs was eventually prohibited in late 16th century. So we have the sorry story, for the Russian peasant, of ever contracting rights and horizons. It's not as if the aristos had any great attachment to their lands, they were simply a source of wealth. Rather like the surviving absentee Highland Chiefs in Scotland, they screwed their land without care and attention to their serfs purely in order to live in grandeur and maintain lavish town houses in their respective capitals. They didn't even speak or write in their own language; Russian aristos would communicate in French and despised their Russian slaves on whose labour their wealth was built. The re-appreciation of the indigenous Russian only began after the Defeat of Napoleon in early 19th Century. (Very nearly didn't happen because officers couldn't communicate with their own Russian soldiers because the officers couldn't speak Russian!) Writers such as Pushkin, who realised that there was no indigenous Russian literature save Church writing, started to write in Russian about the admirable enduring peasantry and started the movement towards the reappraisal of Russian Culture and nationalism which led to the emancipation of the serfs later that century. Read Gogol and any good 19th century Russian novelist for more. – Diversion over
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

So, of course, conditions were atrocious for the common man everywhere, but there was at least a small element of choice for non-slaves. However grim and wretched that choice might be.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



Did I see more about trucks up there somewhere?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-03-2007, 08:47 AM
Xiolablu3::
Yes - the empire surely benefitted Britain, and many many of the dominons, but in the 1900's times had changed (thank god) and most of the world would no longer put up with countries suddenly declaring war for no other reason than personal gain...

Quite Ironic that Britain (and France), empire builders from years before, led the stand against the 'Empire Building' Axis powers.
An established gang of thugs will always try to keep down a new rival gang of thugs. The world "put up" with it long ago as it does today. Nothing has changed but the way empire is advertised. There's nothing new under the FB sun.

Whirlin_merlin
10-03-2007, 08:52 AM
Many times I've had discusions in Ireland about the conditions under British rule, the famine years. I remember clearly the first time walking in the hills of Mayo when I came accross the ruins of an abandoned village, you could feel the tragady.
The sad fact is that the 'crime' of the Irish was to be poor, religion and nationality were secondary.
The poor were treated equally awfully in mainland Britian at the time. Workhouses, transportation for often petty (subsistance) crime etc I'm rather glad not to have been born into those times. Often I see posts from some of our American cousins (dont worry no bashing coming) that are very negative of all things socialist, well it's this european history that gave birth to european socialism.

Xiolablu3
10-03-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Xiolablu3:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes - the empire surely benefitted Britain, and many many of the dominons, but in the 1900's times had changed (thank god) and most of the world would no longer put up with countries suddenly declaring war for no other reason than personal gain...

Quite Ironic that Britain (and France), empire builders from years before, led the stand against the 'Empire Building' Axis powers.
An established gang of thugs will always try to keep down a new rival gang of thugs. The world "put up" with it long ago as it does today. Nothing has changed but the way empire is advertised. There's nothing new under the FB sun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wasnt the last time a country tried to usurp another, Saddam Hussein/Kuwait? The modern world would not let this stand IIRC.

Is there another empire builder recently that I am not remembering?

I would say that things have changed drastically. Britain and France didnt really have much to lose from Hitler invading Russia or POland in 1939, yet they would not let it stand and risked their whole future for Poland.

M_Gunz
10-03-2007, 12:08 PM
You really think that Hitler would have left FRANCE alone? And how did he get there and what
was done on the way? Holland, Belgium, all of western Europe was always going to be taken.
Proof of that is how every country Adolph said would not be attacked WAS.

mbfRoy
10-03-2007, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

In terms of trucks, 664,227 tons = the equivalent of approx 120,000+ 2.5-ton cargo trucks. If only half the tonnage represented cargo trucks, that's still 60,000 trucks; if only a third of the tonnage, that's still 100 trucks each for the approx 400 divisions of the Red Army.

Note how 120 000 trucks become 60 000 tanks, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So where are you reading TANKS? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-03-2007, 01:02 PM
Xiolablu3::
Wasnt the last time a country tried to usurp another, Saddam Hussein/Kuwait? The modern world would not let this stand IIRC.
I saw it on TV back in 91 -- the Ussian ambassador to Iraq give Saddam the "okay" to take Kuwait, then Ussia made an example of Saddam for reasons I don't know. Its all part of back room dealing and empire maintenence, or "racket" as General Butler called it, and he gives the best working definition of "racket" I've found...
War Is A Racket
:
:
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

~ http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

R_Target
10-03-2007, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by falling-bird:
Slavery itself within the empire was outlawed in 1807. That law was conveniently imposed on other nations' trading ships by force by the Royal Navy.

Slave trading was outlawed in 1807. Slavery was not abolished until 1833. And yes, I agree, the RN's vigorous enforcement had more to do with commerce than righteousness.

falling-bird
10-04-2007, 03:17 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
10-04-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Past bizarre, it`s grotesque.

I quote your own Cheap Characterizations. Your attempts to take all of Lend-Lease piecemeal
and play with each bit to try and turn billions of 1941 dollars into nothing is the grotesque.
Never mind what it took to deliver such aid.
Almost 100,000 light vehicles ALONE is not the whole package much as you want to make it seem.

Seeing the name Britain or America must give Kurfurst a case of the cramps. It's enough to set
him acting like a girl who is having a very hard time of the month.

When Hitler rolled on Poland what did the Soviets do?

MEGILE
10-04-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__: empty rhetorics.



quite right, empty rhetorics posted by Kurfurst. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
10-04-2007, 01:41 PM
"Debating" K is the intellectual equivalent of sticking one's head into a threshing machine.

MB_Avro_UK
10-04-2007, 01:55 PM
Hi all,

One of my previous posts in this thread mentioned that the British working classes were slaves.

As elaborated by Kurfurst, I used that term in a general sense.

Of course they had the option of walking away and starving.But their lives when working were under the total contol of their employers. They had almost starvation wages,very long working hours in dangerous conditions and appalling living conditions.

Of interest,19th Century slaving ships would dock in Liverpool on way to the West Indies and plantations etc. No British employers were interested in the slave cargoes as it was cheaper to use the local British workers.

This aspect prompted me to refer to the British working classes as being 'slaves'.

But then again...the working classes were very proud of the Empire at that time. This pride may have been connected to feelings of racial and cultural superiority with regard to the rest of the world.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

leitmotiv
10-04-2007, 02:06 PM
Engels saw it all in Manchester---CONDITION OF THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS. It was truly awful. But, it also was in France (read GERMINAL!), Belgium, Germany, and the rest of Europe. Laborers were treated horribly.

luftluuver
10-04-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Of interest,19th Century slaving ships would dock in Liverpool on way to the West Indies and plantations etc. That make no sense at all. The prevailing winds blew from east (Africa) to west (Americas) in the south and west (Americas) to east (Europe) in the north. That would mean the ships had to sail into the wind. Considering the 'cargo' losses incurred from east to west, there would be hardly any 'cargo' left on the ship.

RocketDog
10-04-2007, 03:02 PM
From memory they sailed a triangular route. South from the UK to Africa, where slaves were collected and taken West to the Carribean and offloaded. The ships then picked up sugar etc and brought it back to Europe. So slaves were seldom seen in the UK. This was one of the hurdles that the abolishionists had to overcome. It was hard to convince people of the barbarity of the slave trade when it was out of sight and there was no global media to bring images home. Have to check the details!

Cheers,

RD.

luftluuver
10-04-2007, 03:13 PM
Close enough RD.

stathem
10-04-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Engels saw it all in Manchester---CONDITION OF THE ENGLISH WORKING CLASS. It was truly awful. But, it also was in France (read GERMINAL!), Belgium, Germany, and the rest of Europe. Laborers were treated horribly.

Juxtaposed with Avro comments about


But then again...the working classes were very proud of the Empire at that time. This pride may have been connected to feelings of racial and cultural superiority with regard to the rest of the world.

it seems ironic;

Engels worked and studied within the 'Little Ireland' district of Manchester, a particularly vile slum. Although the conditions in the more indigenous English parts of Manchester were no better, I doubt that the inhabitants of that district were terribly proud of the Empire.

MB_Avro_UK
10-04-2007, 03:59 PM
Good points RD & Luftluuver http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Liverpool had strong associations with the slave trade and its prosperity was built perhaps on the slave trade. But slaves were not held in Liverpool.

But what I had in mind, was that there was no incentive for African slaves to be sold in Britain as there was ample local cheap labour anyway.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Hatter_RAF
10-04-2007, 04:02 PM
I think Empire Interactive proved of inestimable importance to Britain, while their software was reasonably priced.

M_Gunz
10-04-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

One of my previous posts in this thread mentioned that the British working classes were slaves.

As elaborated by Kurfurst, I used that term in a general sense.

Of course they had the option of walking away and starving.But their lives when working were under the total contol of their employers. They had almost starvation wages,very long working hours in dangerous conditions and appalling living conditions.

Of interest,19th Century slaving ships would dock in Liverpool on way to the West Indies and plantations etc. No British employers were interested in the slave cargoes as it was cheaper to use the local British workers.

This aspect prompted me to refer to the British working classes as being 'slaves'.

But then again...the working classes were very proud of the Empire at that time. This pride may have been connected to feelings of racial and cultural superiority with regard to the rest of the world.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Call it Economic Slavery.
It's not as bad here anymore since the ones at the top (what, 2% of the worlds population owned
60 or the wealth --over 25 years ago--) figured out that if things are too hard then the profits
suffer. You just need pressure to squeeze the extra out of the workers, something to fear is
cheaper than paying more.

How's that song about The Company Store go?

WOLFMondo
10-05-2007, 02:35 AM
Your all speaking English aren't you?

Must have been worth something.

GerritJ9
10-05-2007, 04:48 AM
Re Russia: Tsar Alexander II liberated the serfs in 1861
Britain started shipping war material to the USSR soon after the start of Germany's invasion- tanks, aircraft (Hurricanes for instance)- war material that Britain desperately needed herself. As a result of these shipments to the USSR, the Far East got virtually nothing- one could successfully argue that these shipments to an ungrateful Stalin cost Britain Malaya and Singapore in the short term and ultimately her Empire (and the Netherlands the NEI).

CHDT
10-05-2007, 05:11 AM
"Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??"


Frankly....

http://i21.tinypic.com/35in8ef.jpg

.... NO!



In fact, the best answer to this question is shown by the British people voting with their feet, in a "white flight" style!

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/feed/991294.php

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-det...d=true#StartComments (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-details/196,000%20out,%20574,000%20in:%20Record%20numbers% 20leaving%20Britain%20for%20new%20life%20abroad%20-%20as%20immigration%20to%20UK%20soars/article.do?expand=true#StartComments)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...5875&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475875&in_page_id=1770)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I...9/27/nschools127.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IWHLKQDIR1153QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml)

Bewolf
10-05-2007, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
"Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??"


Frankly....

http://i21.tinypic.com/35in8ef.jpg

.... NO!



In fact, the best answer to this question is shown by the British people voting with their feet, in a "white flight" style!

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/feed/991294.php

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-det...d=true#StartComments (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-details/196,000%20out,%20574,000%20in:%20Record%20numbers% 20leaving%20Britain%20for%20new%20life%20abroad%20-%20as%20immigration%20to%20UK%20soars/article.do?expand=true#StartComments)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...5875&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475875&in_page_id=1770)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I...9/27/nschools127.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IWHLKQDIR1153QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml)

Pretty much what is happening in germany right now, so I'd not put it up as an empire legacy.

CHDT
10-05-2007, 05:16 AM
Sometimes, I even ask myself why the British people fought so strongly and bravely against the German invasion threat to become, in the end, ethnically replaced by third-world populations?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nimm205.xml

Whirlin_merlin
10-05-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
"Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??"


Frankly....



.... NO!



In fact, the best answer to this question is shown by the British people voting with their feet, in a "white flight" style!

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/feed/991294.php

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-det...d=true#StartComments (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-details/196,000%20out,%20574,000%20in:%20Record%20numbers% 20leaving%20Britain%20for%20new%20life%20abroad%20-%20as%20immigration%20to%20UK%20soars/article.do?expand=true#StartComments)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...5875&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=475875&in_page_id=1770)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I...9/27/nschools127.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IWHLKQDIR1153QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml)


I frankly disagree with you on that, but then I don't base my view of reality on sources like the daily mail.

CHDT
10-05-2007, 05:32 AM
Pretty much what is happening in germany right now, so I'd not put it up as an empire legacy.

In fact, you're perfectly right.

Countries like Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, which never had colonial empires, are also being invaded in the same way. In fact, it's very sad for the European people, because a migrant knows for sure that his motherland will remain the same and that he can always get back there if he's no more happy in Europe, but a European guy has no similar B-plan: once he is a minority in his native country, where could he go?

The "number" parameter is also very important: for instance, Ireland has 4 millions habitants, Nigeria 250 millions. If half of the Irish people emigrate to Nigeria, Nigeria will still be Nigeria, but if only 1/10 of the Nigerians emigrate to Ireland, Ireland will no more be Ireland, but a nigerian extension in Europe.

In fact, we, Europeans, are owned! I made three weeks ago a trip to Bruxelles and I had the feeling to be in an arab or an african city! Same situation in Paris, I discussed there with some Japanese tourists who were extremely disappointed with this situation: they wanted to see the Amélie Poulain's Paris and they saw the african ethnic gangs rioting in Montmartre!

And of course, if a non-european defends his heritage, it's culture, but if a european defends his heritage, he's a nazi! In fact, we are supposed to go in the dark in silence, without any reaction.

CHDT
10-05-2007, 05:39 AM
"I frankly disagree with you on that, but then I don't base my view of reality on sources like the daily mail."

You can of course hide your head in the sand, but this is a not a very valid long-term solution.

Frankly, accept the truth, Great Britain has gone to the dogs during the past decade and it's not a surprise for me to see coming, in my rather preserved area (1), many British people wishing to live in a still secured and european-looking situation.


(1) they are welcome here, except for the fact that the prices of housing is getting ballistic because of that!

Blutarski2004
10-05-2007, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Yes! stop reading the Daily Mail, total rott...however, he has some valid points, i myself have been harrassed for having the flag of my country(St George cross)which is on the back of my M/c helmet, apparantly "it is offensive to non-English people", she said, "Hey!"..i said.."this is the flag of my country that i'm from and" funnily enough "stood on, right now".."it's still offensive" she said...Ooow! how i lolled.

That hasn't just happened to me once. btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif


..... If I didn't know better, I'd have guessed that you had excerpted the above encounter from a Lewis Carroll novel.

Kurfurst__
10-05-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
"Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??"

Frankly....

http://i21.tinypic.com/35in8ef.jpg

.... NO!

When I was in London, I was wondering at first, isn`t that supposed to be largest English city? Where are the English, then? Then I saw some English girls and I realized that perhaps the matter is not so important as it first seemed. Then I saw an immigrant girl from Pakistan, and suddenly all thoughts were gone, just like that. Insufficent blood supply to the brain being the cause, I suspect.

So yes, in some respects, Britain benefited on an unspeakable scale from having an Empire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GIAP.Shura
10-05-2007, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Countries like Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, which never had colonial empires, are also being invaded in the same way. In fact, it's very sad for the European people, because a migrant knows for sure that his motherland will remain the same and that he can always get back there if he's no more happy in Europe, but a European guy has no similar B-plan: once he is a minority in his native country, where could he go?

Hang on, didn't you just say that there was a "white flight"? Aren't these white people migrants too? Should they be forced to stay in Britain to keep the country the way it "should be"?


The "number" parameter is also very important: for instance, Ireland has 4 millions habitants, Nigeria 250 millions. If half of the Irish people emigrate to Nigeria, Nigeria will still be Nigeria, but if only 1/10 of the Nigerians emigrate to Ireland, Ireland will no more be Ireland, but a nigerian extension in Europe.

No, it will be Ireland with 25 million Irish residents of Nigerian descent. This argument is absurd. If 25 million Nigerians suddenly emigrate to Ireland what will they do? Economic immigration is just that, economic. Labour is an economic transaction of time for money. Why is England more densely populated than Ireland? Because there is a larger market for that economic transaction. There is not the economic capital in terms of finance, land or institutions in an Ireland with a population base of 4 million which would result in an immigration of that size.


In fact, we, Europeans, are owned! I made three weeks ago a trip to Bruxelles and I had the feeling to be in an arab or an african city! Same situation in Paris, I discussed there with some Japanese tourists who were extremely disappointed with this situation: they wanted to see the Amélie Poulain's Paris and they saw the african ethnic gangs rioting in Montmartre!

Have you ever been to an arab or african city? What makes an arab or african city? What makes a European city? A 95% white population? The ethnic diversity in Japan is incredibly low. If Japanese tourists visit Paris expecting it to be like Amélie Poulain (you do know it is make believe don't you?) then of course they will be disappointed. Good job France has more to show for it than a 2 hour film.


And of course, if a non-european defends his heritage, it's culture, but if a european defends his heritage, he's a nazi! In fact, we are supposed to go in the dark in silence, without any reaction.

Perhaps if you didn't think that culture and heritage were so inextricably linked to race and ethnic origin then you would have an easier time defending European culture.

falling-bird
10-05-2007, 07:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Inadaze
10-05-2007, 07:17 AM
Looks like the daily mail readers are out...

I'm sick of hearing of how immigrants are ruining the UK. All that photo shows is your own bigoted racism.

Stop looking at people as this race or that race, start looking at people as PEOPLE, that's all they are no matter what colour their skin is.

I live in a very mixed race area of the UK, and I've never had a problem because of an immigrant, on the other hand I've had loads of problems with local British scumbags vandalising my car, garage, front door, robbing eldery neighbours, beating people up in the street, getting drunk and having brawls at 2 am etc etc

But, too keep on topic: IMO, yes the Empire did benefit the UK. We got wealth and resources from around the world and would have never been in a position to oppose the Axis powers in WW2 without it.

Indian volunteers alone provided a huge supply of manpower, anywhere from 2.5 - 3.5 million men (depending on sources) and they fought in almost every theatre of war that the BE had men in.

Did the Empire do bad things? Hell yes, but it also did alot of good. I watched a documentary last week about the history of India, and a guy from the Indian National Congress (Indian independence party) stated that in his opinion the British Empire made India and that was one of the best things it ever did, yes they wanted independence from us, and in historical terms this guy was an enemy of the empire. But he conceded that uniting India from separate states to one nation and leaving an infrastructure in place for the country to grow was a good thing for the Indian continent as a whole.

An example - The Rail network left by the BE is one of the bedrocks of modern India. It is one of the largest and busiest rail networks in the world, transporting sixteen million passengers[1] and more than one million tonnes of freight daily.[2] IR is the world's largest commercial or utility employer, with more than 1.6 million employees,[3] and is second to the Chinese Army in highest number of employees.

That exists because of the BE, and is just one example of something worthwhile the Empire left behind. I'm not trying to say that the Empire was all altruistic and doing good deeds, it wasn't, it made the Indian railway to make money and transport troops, but it doesn't alter the value of that infrastructure to the now independent Indian continent.

That's one example of how the empire benefited in manpower from one colony and how after the empire left that colony has benefited from just one thing that it left in place.

Yes, there we're terrible crimes done in the name of Empire, nothing will ever justify such acts, and as a Brit I'm not proud of it, but I think in the overall scheme, many of the things that the Empire left behind have been a force for good and progress in the world.

~ Inadaze

MEGILE
10-05-2007, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Inadaze:
All that photo shows is your own bigoted racism.


I'm curious as to how this photograph could convey this to you?
Is there something particularly poignant about this picture?

Perhaps the original poster could burn it to save you from further distress.

Inadaze
10-05-2007, 08:05 AM
ok, Bad phrasing on my part,I should have said his comments and the photograph implied to me that he felt that the people in the photograph were an unwanted legacy of empire and that because of that immigration that UK was worse off.

I see nothing wrong with the people the photograph, only the context he used it in.

Inadaze
10-05-2007, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inadaze:
All that photo shows is your own bigoted racism.
Perhaps the original poster could burn it to save you from further distress. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for that, he has an opinion, and he shared it, I have an opinion and I shared mine. There is nothing wrong with the photograph in itself.

Blutarski2004
10-05-2007, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
No, it will be Ireland with 25 million Irish residents of Nigerian descent. This argument is absurd. If 25 million Nigerians suddenly emigrate to Ireland what will they do? Economic immigration is just that, economic. Labour is an economic transaction of time for money. Why is England more densely populated than Ireland? Because there is a larger market for that economic transaction. There is not the economic capital in terms of finance, land or institutions in an Ireland with a population base of 4 million which would result in an immigration of that size.


..... A few comments for consideration and discussion from an American whose grandparents all emigrated to the States from Greece. Nations have a fabric of values and standards, not so much racial or ethnic as social and cultural. It is what defines a nation and its citizens. Those basic values are essential to maintnenance of a stable national society. So long as immigrants are willing to accept/tolerate those values, the process of acculturation proceeds in a more or less orderly manner. The experience of the USA is indicative. But it takes a certain amount of time for the "melting pot" (as Americans put it) to process these newcomers. If a nation is beset by a sudden and massive influx of newcomers, the absorption system will break down and produce tremendous internal social stresses. I think that is what we are witnessing in W Europe at the moment.

Forget 25 million immigrants. If Ireland were to suddenly receive 10 million Nigerians all in a rush, 2 out of 3 residents of Ireland would be of Nigerian culture. The absorption and assimilation process would collapse and the result would IMO be an inundation of Irish culture and the substitution of Nigerian cultural and social norms within a generation or two. I cannot think of any nation which has succeeded in retaining its cultural identity while absorbing an immigrant influx of such proportions.

whiteladder
10-05-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
"Did Britain benefit from having an Empire..??"


Frankly....

http://i21.tinypic.com/35in8ef.jpg

.... NO!


Yes I see what you mean, the guy in the silly hat and flourencant jacket. His ancensters are clearly some sort of immagrant(Gaels/Picts /Belgæ/Roman/Saxon/Jutes/Frisian/Angle/Norse/Norman)and has no business in our country.

I demand everyone is gentically screened to weed out anyone who isn`t directly decended from the Neolithic population of this country.

Whirlin_merlin
10-05-2007, 09:31 AM
This is going way OT but I have very strong feelings about it.
Britian has always been the bastad of europe, as Whiteladder points out we have a hugh range of genetic, and cultural pasts.
Our culture is dymanic, it has alays been changing and always will. If you take a snap shot it will emphasise any conflict, however you need to view it over generations. It's worth noting that of modern Britians I find older Sikh gentlemen tend to most personify the idealised concept of a British gentleman (in my experiance).
That's not to say that we should activly seek to have/retain the culture we want, but somethings we could do with loosing and other values are worth including.
Yes there are some individual 'immigrants' who could be concidered to be exploiting the system, certain parts of the media will then use these individuals to condem whole groups but as my Gran used to say 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water', put them in perspective. The same goes with the 'PC' brigade like the one who criticised Monty's helmet, there aren't many of them, they are silly and best ignored, put 'em in perspective too.

I concider our now more diverse culture to be a benifit of the days of empire. As to those who don't and choose to 'flee' I say good ridance.

GIAP.Shura
10-05-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Forget 25 million immigrants. If Ireland were to suddenly receive 10 million Nigerians all in a rush, 2 out of 3 residents of Ireland would be of Nigerian culture. The absorption and assimilation process would collapse and the result would IMO be an inundation of Irish culture and the substitution of Nigerian cultural and social norms within a generation or two. I cannot think of any nation which has succeeded in retaining its cultural identity while absorbing an immigrant influx of such proportions.

You would certainly see a large shift in Irish culture, that would be sure, and I am not trying to say that these Nigerians would all start drinking Guiness, but neither would it be a pure substitution of Nigerian values. During the cultural revolution there was a massive influx of mainland Chinese to Taiwan. It is true that many traditional Chinese values dominate Taiwan but native Taiwanese identity and language has survived. Taiwanese identity and culture as a whole is considered different to that of mainland China. The fact is the culture changes but in the end it is Taiwanese culture.

Admittedly, these two countries have a shared history but, other than a situation like the early colonisation of the Americas, I can't see how the proposed Nigerian influx would ever occur. Even an immigration of 10 million Nigerians to an Ireland of 4 million Irish would require some fundamental event far beyond the economic migration of modern times that we are discussing here and as such can only distort any perspective of the impact of immigration on modern culture.

font15
10-05-2007, 10:32 AM
chdt, thankyou for your picture and comments.
I did work out a reasoned reply to youre' self evident racism but all I wish to say to you is **** off and die you ****ing nazi.
This was an interesting thread until you polluted it and when our U.S. based moderators get home from work and see this I hope they lock this all now and burn your ***.
What did you do in another life? Hand out the towels at Auschwitz?

Clannsman
10-05-2007, 11:37 AM
(Gaels/Picts /Belgæ/Roman/Saxon/Jutes/Frisian/Angle/Norse/Norman)and has no business in our country.

I demand everyone is gentically screened to weed out anyone who isn`t directly decended from the Neolithic population of this country.[/QUOTE]


Yes,there all Western european nations that were already present in England in the 14th century when through the Hundred years war a nation and its identity was born.....the others were not.

ploughman
10-05-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:

I am not trying to say that these Nigerians would all start drinking Guiness...

By strange fate Nigeria is the 3rd largest market for Guiness in the world, after the UK and Ireland, ahead of the USA.

GIAP.Shura
10-05-2007, 12:02 PM
The reason for the Nigerian invasion of Ireland suddenly becomes clear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MB_Avro_UK
10-05-2007, 02:29 PM
Hi all,

I suspect that the photo of the Police Officer in a crowd is a photoshop product.

His body armour suggests that he is a London bobby and so does his helmet badge. But the helmet badge has been tinted green when it should be blue in the centre.

Also, his position in the crowd appears false.The crowd appear to be oblivious to his presence.

I maybe wrong of course http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

whiteladder
10-05-2007, 02:37 PM
England in the 14th century when through the Hundred years war a nation and its identity was born.....the others were not.

The point is this country has never been a single homogeneous culture, the idea that hundred years war defines a national identity is wrong it has been in constant flux, mainly by immagration. What you can say is that since the 14th the English economy has relied on immgration to keep it on its feet. After the Black death the English textile trade would have collapsed without 300000 immagrants from the Low Countries.


Also what has happened is that with out exception the influx of people from that list have all caused tensions with the established populations, whether they were from European countries or not.

There has been a African presence in England since 1555 (not that they had much choice in the matter), Chinese and Indian since the 17th century. They have all influenced English culture.

M_Gunz
10-05-2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
I concider our now more diverse culture to be a benifit of the days of empire. As to those who don't and choose to 'flee' I say good ridance.

By many reports, the cooking got better even the take-out!

snafu73
10-05-2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> England in the 14th century when through the Hundred years war a nation and its identity was born.....the others were not.

The point is this country has never been a single homogeneous culture, the idea that hundred years war defines a national identity is wrong it has been in constant flux, mainly by immagration. What you can say is that since the 14th the English economy has relied on immgration to keep it on its feet. After the Black death the English textile trade would have collapsed without 300000 immagrants from the Low Countries.


Also what has happened is that with out exception the influx of people from that list have all caused tensions with the established populations, whether they were from European countries or not.

There has been a African presence in England since 1555 (not that they had much choice in the matter), Chinese and Indian since the 17th century. They have all influenced English culture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a canard to intimate that the situation in Britain today is what it has always been, yes, there has always been a steady trickle of immigration to the U.K from the rest of the world, how many countries in the world have'nt also had this trickle?

We are all ultimately the descendents of immigrants, but I dont think that proves much. The scale of immigration to Britain today is unprecedented. Britain in historical terms is demographically disassembling itself overnight.

Secular democracy was hard won and long fought for - now we are rushing to exchange it for a pluralist, multi-cultural mish-mash of everything but ultimately nothing.

please dont misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm strongly for a multi racial society but strongly against a multi cultural society, I think it's a recipe for disaster. The rate of immigration, combined with the beliefs of certain ethnic groups in Britain today now means assimilation is not working the way it was supposed to. You also have to consider the "immigration to fill jobs" policy, in some parts of the country unemployment amongst immigrants is upwards of 50%, meaning, we could pull up the ramparts to Britain today and still have enough spare people to fill jobs for years to come.

It tells you a lot about britain today, that the immigrant group within Britain today with the highest rate of unemployment - also has one of the highest birthrates. Meanwhile, the lower working [working] classes in the U.K. cannot afford to have children in a lot of cases. My brother has one child, and wanted more, but says he simply cannot afford to pay his mortgage and raise a second child. Mortgages being another issue, over crowding and supply and demand is helping to sky-rocket property values to the degree that I personally would have to live three times over to buy a house on my salary where I live - and I dont believe in reincarnation!

Von_Rat
10-05-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
No, it will be Ireland with 25 million Irish residents of Nigerian descent. This argument is absurd. If 25 million Nigerians suddenly emigrate to Ireland what will they do? Economic immigration is just that, economic. Labour is an economic transaction of time for money. Why is England more densely populated than Ireland? Because there is a larger market for that economic transaction. There is not the economic capital in terms of finance, land or institutions in an Ireland with a population base of 4 million which would result in an immigration of that size.


..... A few comments for consideration and discussion from an American whose grandparents all emigrated to the States from Greece. Nations have a fabric of values and standards, not so much racial or ethnic as social and cultural. It is what defines a nation and its citizens. Those basic values are essential to maintnenance of a stable national society. So long as immigrants are willing to accept/tolerate those values, the process of acculturation proceeds in a more or less orderly manner. The experience of the USA is indicative. But it takes a certain amount of time for the "melting pot" (as Americans put it) to process these newcomers. If a nation is beset by a sudden and massive influx of newcomers, the absorption system will break down and produce tremendous internal social stresses. I think that is what we are witnessing in W Europe at the moment.

Forget 25 million immigrants. If Ireland were to suddenly receive 10 million Nigerians all in a rush, 2 out of 3 residents of Ireland would be of Nigerian culture. The absorption and assimilation process would collapse and the result would IMO be an inundation of Irish culture and the substitution of Nigerian cultural and social norms within a generation or two. I cannot think of any nation which has succeeded in retaining its cultural identity while absorbing an immigrant influx of such proportions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed
its the rate of immigration that can be a problem if its to high. witness the current hub bub in the us right now, because of the hi rate of illegal immigrants.

the nationaliy or race of the immigrants is immaterial. they are all welcome imo. but the numbers have to reflect the ability of the us economy and culture to absorb them. as far as culture goes, historically within a couple generations they become americanized. a nice benifet is they add the best parts of their culture to our mix.

as for that picture, except for the guy with the funny hat,, that could be any large us city.

Blutarski2004
10-05-2007, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
A nice benefit is they add the best parts of their culture to our mix.


..... So true.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 02:01 AM
"We are all ultimately the descendents of immigrants..."

Of course, the ethno-civilisational distance between, for instance, a scot and a cockney is the same one between a scot and a sudanese! Yeah, rrrrright!

It's very interesting to note that this kind of ethnic cecity is only active among ethnic Europeans. You will of course never find a single Chinese, Japanese, Arab or African thinking in such a stupid way, because they still know who they are.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 02:05 AM
"but the numbers have to reflect the ability of the us economy and culture to absorb them."

So, basically, a european nation is today only some kind of Benetton-style entreprise.

Great. And there are millions of brave guys who fought and died for defending their nations, to come to this!

Clannsman
10-06-2007, 02:09 AM
Unfortunatly though,along with the best parts of their culture you also get the worst parts.

I was watching the BBC news some time ago where they stated 1 in 3 major crimes are comited in Britian by immigrants and 1 in 7 people in prison are immigrants!

I wander if there was another world war to match the last three,if we would pull as a nation as we have alway's done when infact we have perhaps lost are identity as a nation.

It seems we have enough trouble from within to contend with,let alone elsewhere.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 02:32 AM
A nice benefit is they add the best parts of their culture to our mix.

Oh, yes!

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/04/ngangs104.xml

Frankly, don't you read the newspapers, don't you go out in the streets, don't you travel, don't you speak with people around?

I can't understand it, there's no such example in the whole world history of a people which has been so replaced without resistance and without, at least, being angered by the situation. For instance, the american natives lost their lands, but at least, they fought!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I...9/27/nschools127.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=IWHLKQDIR1153QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/27/nschools127.xml)

It just seems that, we, europeans, are happy to get to the background, in our own countries!

CHDT
10-06-2007, 02:43 AM
the nationaliy or race of the immigrants is immaterial. they are all welcome imo.

The very "material" results of the "do-gooder" attitude:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/20542/UK-racial-ten...-outside-our-schools (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/20542/UK-racial-tension-spilling-over-outside-our-schools)

Frankly, have you ever seen a single "diverse" country which was peaceful and enjoyable to live in?

And have our people ever voted, said yes or no to these very "material" transformations?

And it seems that more than half (1) of the British people agree with me!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new..._id=1770&ito=newsnow (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485700&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow)


In fact, even Churchill (2), in his time, asked himself these questions:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2141937,00.html


(1) and probably much more, if the question was only asked to ethnic British people.

(2) it would be hard to call Churchill a "nazi"!

MEGILE
10-06-2007, 05:24 AM
I'm always apprehensive when one identifies an ethnic minority as the cause of all kinds of national malaises.

However, for me, this does not mean we can't identify problems associated with immigration.


CHDT:

Of course, the ethno-civilisational distance between, for instance, a scot and a cockney is the same one between a scot and a sudanese! Yeah, rrrrright!


Agreed. Good point CHDT.
The key denominator in the large majority of immigrants to the UK over the last few hundred years is that they were White-anglo-saxon-Protestants.

Let me paint a picture...

In theory, all objects accelerate at the same rate... but only in a vacuum.
Like wise, humanity is one, and race is not hardwired to a persons culture in theory, but in practise the two are inextricably linked.

It is rather en vogue at the moment in the UK for educated liberals to demand of the (white anglo-saxon protestant) English public, What does it mean to be English?!, and be entertained as the victim attempts to answer the question without treading on any Politcally correct Toes.



CHDT:
So, basically, a european nation is today only some kind of Benetton-style entreprise.



Bingo! How thoughtful of the government to concentrate on their bottom-line, as opposed to the wishes of it's citizens.

Immigration is sold as an economic policy to strengthen the country. In it's current form this notion is plain fraudulent. Besides, a country's best interst is not necessarily how many cleaner's, mcdonalds employees, and shop assistants it can import from over seas.


Snafu73: please dont misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm strongly for a multi racial society but strongly against a multi cultural society, I think it's a recipe for disaster

Perhaps it depends on the culture. Imagine if you will, a sudden rise in immigration from German and French nationals.
We get all the hot women from France, and the efficiency of Ze Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

snafu73
10-06-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
"We are all ultimately the descendents of immigrants..."

Of course, the ethno-civilisational distance between, for instance, a scot and a cockney is the same one between a scot and a sudanese! Yeah, rrrrright!


It's very interesting to note that this kind of ethnic cecity is only active among ethnic Europeans. You will of course never find a single Chinese, Japanese, Arab or African thinking in such a stupid way, because they still know who they are.

You've not grassped the nuances of what I was saying, I said "ultimately" I mean going back generations and generations, I'm not talking 2nd or 3rd or even 4th generation immigrants.

Even the purest German or scandinavian aryan circa 1940's would not have been without some ethnic blood coursing through their vains - even if it was a single molecule, even dating back to Genghis Khan or the Moors.

I think we are arguing along similar lines, but from different angles.

It's ironic that the people in the world right now who seem to be voting with their feet for secularism are Turkish, recently Turkish secularists marched in their thousands in a show of defiance at Turkey installing what they saw as a hardline muslim to power.

Meanwhile, we in the west all sit on our hands shaking with paranoia that someone might say something that might be deemed politically incorrect.

Turkey might just end up being secularisms only hope, if there are any secular Turks here, I wish you luck.

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Frankly, have you ever seen a single "diverse" country which was peaceful and enjoyable to live in?

The U.S. seemed to manage it. Honk Kong also seemed to be a rather successful project built on an open immigration policy.


And have our people ever voted, said yes or no to these very "material" transformations?

And it seems that more than half (1) of the British people agree with me!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new..._id=1770&ito=newsnow (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485700&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow)

So, the Daily Mail, a private entreprise with a very particular readership, says, based on a survey of under 1,000 people performed by a French private pollster for a French private TV firm, that 52% of Britons believe that immigration is a threat to national identity?

I guess immigration must really be a threat then. You might want to google "appeal to the majority" if you still don't understand why this argument is half-baked at best.


In fact, even Churchill (2), in his time, asked himself these questions:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2141937,00.html


(1) and probably much more, if the question was only asked to ethnic British people.

(2) it would be hard to call Churchill a "nazi"!

Ah, Churchill says it is (or at least was) a problem, so it must be so. Check out "appeal to authority" while you are at it. Oh, and I didn't see anyone calling anyone a Nazi here so don't pretend you are being victimised either.

According to Home Office statistics (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf) between 1999 and 2003 there were between 90,000 and 140,000 Grants of Settlement annually in the UK. For a population of 60 million this hardly seems overwhelming.

Blutarski2004
10-06-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
According to Home Office statistics (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf) between 1999 and 2003 there were between 90,000 and 140,000 Grants of Settlement annually in the UK. For a population of 60 million this hardly seems overwhelming.


..... I don't trust official statistics as related to such matters.

The US government regularly produces highly detailed data on US immigration, but they bear little resemblance to the reality of the situation. When pressed, government authorities here admit that they have no idea what is going on because they are unable to monitor the effects of the flow of illegal immigration.

I suspect that the same problem besets western European nations.

snafu73
10-06-2007, 08:28 AM
Labour MP Sadiq Khan conceded recently:

"There's no real confidence in official figures," he told a fringe meeting organised by the Foreign Policy Exchange.

Mr Khan, one the most senior Muslim politicians in the country, also criticised some of his Labour colleagues for shying away from a public debate on migration.

"I think the Left have given the impression that there are no down-sides to migration," he said.

"We should treat people who have concerns about migration ... with the respect they deserve and we should try to address this in a mature and helpful manner."

MEGILE
10-06-2007, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:

According to Home Office statistics (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf) between 1999 and 2003 there were between 90,000 and 140,000 Grants of Settlement annually in the UK. For a population of 60 million this hardly seems overwhelming.

Check figures for the last two years. In particular the influx of Polish migrants was wholly underestimated by the government, by their own admission.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 08:43 AM
@GIAP.Shura

This...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-det...icle.do?ito=newsnow& (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23409386-details/196%2C000+out%2C+574%2C000+in%3A+Record+numbers+le aving+Britain+for+new+life+abroad+-+as+immigration+to+UK+soars/article.do?ito=newsnow&)

... looks easy to understand for me: British out, aliens in!

(the comments of the British people on the newspapers site are very eloquent).


P.S. Shura, are you perhaps from India? If yes, do you know how India secured itself from the immigration coming through Bangladesh? They simply built a big wall guarded by police and military force.

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 08:44 AM
Those figures tell you exactly how many Grants of Settlement have been awarded. They can be taken as accurate for what they are. Of course they do not reveal the extent of how many people are working in the country illegally. However, for what they represent they are much more accurate than a biased interpretation of a poll of unknown methodology on a small sample size questioning whether people believe that immigration is a problem.

Any discussion of illegal immigration is one to be dealt with on the basis of law enforcement and not on the government's policy on legal immigration.

MEGILE
10-06-2007, 08:51 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5273356.stm

600,000 new EU migrants in August of 2006, mostly from Poland. THat is only EU mind, and does not include rest of world, and illegal aliens.

"It benefits the economy" is the party line. What exactly this means to the average UK citizen is anyone's guess.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 08:55 AM
I guess immigration must really be a threat then. You might want to google "appeal to the majority" if you still don't understand why this argument is half-baked at best.

Again, this....

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-hmw083007.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2351424.ece

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08...wnside_of_diversity/ (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/)


... looks pretty obvious to me.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 09:06 AM
"It benefits the economy" is the party line.

In fact, the concept that massive immigration benefits the economy is simply wrong:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opin...007/07/30/do3002.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/07/30/do3002.xml)

(for people interested by the economic aspect of this question, read the works of Nobel Prize economy professor Maurice Allais).

The identity question is also well resumed here:


"In a recent parliamentary debate, important speeches on this subject were made by Nicholas Soames, the Tory MP for mid-Sussex, and Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead. Mr Soames proposed moving to zero net immigration from outside the EU; Mr Field, if anything, was more radical in his prescription.

He also said: "The debate is of course about numbers, but it is also about what it means to create and maintain a community. If the Government do not change track very smartly on this issue, the sense of national identity might be lost, and then we are in totally new territory."



By the way, while British governement is planning to build millions of houses for alien migrants....

http://www.24dash.com/socialhousing/25719.htm

CHDT
10-06-2007, 09:18 AM
A look into the future of Great-Britain:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,363750,00.html

CHDT
10-06-2007, 09:26 AM
"It benefits the economy" is the party line. What exactly this means to the average UK citizen is anyone's guess.

Easy, massive alien immigration means cheap labor for the corporations, but nothing to gain, in the long term, for the average local John Doe. But, yes, it can temporarily benefit to the upper classes, which run the show. And when the system breaks, the upper classes have the financial ressources to get out, while the poor or middle-class locals are simply trapped!

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5273356.stm

600,000 new EU migrants in August of 2006, mostly from Poland. That is only EU mind, and does not include rest of world, and illegal aliens.

Megile, Britain and Poland are part of the European Economic Area which is a series of treaties designed to ensure freedom of goods, persons, services and capital. Part of this is the right for people to reside in any of the member countries of the EEA so long as they have the financial ability to support themselves. There are no illegal aliens from the EEA by definition.


"It benefits the economy" is the party line. What exactly this means to the average UK citizen is anyone's guess.

The direct benefit for the average UK citizen is that taxes that come from these workers go towards improved services. These workers are in the 18-35 age group, and as such will provide far more in taxes than they will recoup in terms of services. The indirect benefit is that a more dynamic economy with more capital leads to more opportunity. The economy is not a zero-sum system.

Imagine you are a newly qualified graduate with a good career ahead of you in London. You can expect a salary of around £25,000 a year. You are offered a job in New York where you will be paid £50,000 a year. Your employers are prepared to pay you that much and you are prepared to work for that much. The U.S. government says you can't go because you will be a drain on their local services, that your British sense of humour will erode U.S. culture and cause social unrest, that your acceptance of £50,000 a year will undercut local U.S. graduates and that your presence there will cause a rise in house prices. Do these seem like good reasons to you? Would you be happy with that situation? Do you really believe that people should not have the freedom to work for who they like, when they like, how they like? This is exactly why the EEA was created.

An important part of what I consider British culture is protecting exactly these sorts of individual liberties.


Originally posted by CHDT:

Again, this....

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-hmw083007.php

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2351424.ece

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08...wnside_of_diversity/

... looks pretty obvious to me.

Indeed, I am aware of that study. What does that indicate to me? That people generally, find it easier to relate to people who are similar to them and if they are in a big group of people who are similar to them they will find it easier to relax. I could believe that. Just another facet of human nature that we will have to deal with while defending basic human rights.


P.S. Shura, are you perhaps from India?

Maybe I am. What does my nationality or what goes on in India have to do with British immigration policy or the supposed decline of English identity and civilisation?

MrBlueSky1960
10-06-2007, 10:05 AM
To get back to the original question... Yes we did benefit and so did the Victorian and our modern World... We and by that I mean the British kick booted the planet into the industrial age with everything that goes with it good or bad... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif So in effect we are the cause of global warming... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Now try and put the Genie back in its box... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

CHDT
10-06-2007, 10:15 AM
Do you really think that Indian citizen, either hindu or muslim ones, would accept so easily such a massive alien immigration, which would in the end not only destroy the specific Indian character and values of India, but also, more or less softly, ethnically clean the Indian people?

Of course no, so why would you imagine that Europeans should accept so easily to become "underdogs" in their own countries in just two or three decades. After all, the British people fought bravely for not becoming Germans, why should they accept to become pakistanese, nigerian, indian or some kind of mix of all these influxs?

By the way, your position is very easy: as an indian living in Great-Britain, you have always the B-plan of getting back to India, if things get bad. But what choice for a Brit, where could he go? In fact, our european countries are seen by the migrants like some kind of international airport free-trade area, the nation-entreprise, leaving us with no more national own identity.

Once again, things are easy for you: whatever will happen to Great-Britain, you are sure that your motherland will still remain the same, but I, as a european, I am really not sure that my country will still look european when I'm old and I've no B-plan at all!

Blutarski2004
10-06-2007, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Those figures tell you exactly how many Grants of Settlement have been awarded. They can be taken as accurate for what they are. Of course they do not reveal the extent of how many people are working in the country illegally.

..... Precisely. But since the illegal portion of the immigration equation is a gigantic X factor, the utility of data regarding numbers of grants of settlement must range from pretty useful to totally useless as a tool for tracking population trends. I'd suggest that the short story here is that the process is out of control.



However, for what they represent they are much more accurate than a biased interpretation of a poll of unknown methodology on a small sample size questioning whether people believe that immigration is a problem.

..... I don't see a relationship here. The poll in question is simply a thermometer which puports to take a snap temperature of the UK public's general attitude toward the immigration question.



Any discussion of illegal immigration is one to be dealt with on the basis of law enforcement and not on the government's policy on legal immigration.

..... It SHOULD be a matter of law, if only to maintain some semblance of orderliness to the process. But, that is not how it is being handled here in the States. The federal government's functional policy has been to completely ignore statutory immigration law and maintain a blind eye toward a problem that it does not have the political will to confront.

M_Gunz
10-06-2007, 10:42 AM
There's almost no places on the planet where the people living there the people are descended
form those who did not push, kick, absorb/kill other people out to be there. Even North
America had 3 waves of settlers from archaeology. Consider the traffic that went on, the wars
and the migrations, even the trade colonies going way back.
It all moves faster with improved technology is all. An Age comes and goes in 100 years, like.

M_Gunz
10-06-2007, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... It SHOULD be a matter of law, if only to maintain some semblance of orderliness to the process. But, that is not how it is being handled here in the States. The federal government's functional policy has been to completely ignore statutory immigration law and maintain a blind eye toward a problem that it does not have the political will to confront.

Check the INS budget, they claim they can't afford to pick up every illegal immigrant that
ends up in jail for like, drunk driving that ends up with someone dead it becomes important.
If indeed the budget is deficient then we have a Political Problem, policy through budget.

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Do you really think that Indian citizen, either hindu or muslim ones, would accept so easily such a massive alien immigration, which would in the end not only destroy the specific Indian character and values of India, but also, more or less softly, ethnically clean the Indian people?

Lets be clear about what is going on here. The indigenous (for want of a better word) population of Britain is decreasing. As far as I am aware, the main reason for this is not emigration but a low birth rate. It seems that the indigenous population doesn't want to have more than 2 children, for whatever reasons. Anecdotally, all the couples I know don't want more than 2 children and none of them mention financial reasons. Why are you putting no blame at their feet? Should we start forcing couples to have larger families to preserve British culture? Brits are choosing not to have these children. To talk about this in terms of ethnic cleansing is an insult to all the victims of real, forced ethnic cleansing.

To have a sustainable economy you need a concurrent sustainable labour force. With improvements in health services, predictions are for an ageing demographic. Without immigration, this ageing demographic will be unable to sustain a healthy economy.


Of course no, so why would you imagine that Europeans should accept so easily to become "underdogs" in their own countries in just two or three decades.

In what way are Europeans becoming underdogs? The British have access to a better education system, a clear advantage for employment in terms of cultural advantage and generally a greater familial capital to draw on. Immigrants come to Britain to work. They earn money, pay taxes and spend that money the way they see fit. Some of them return to settle in their country of origin, some of them choose to settle in Britain. What do these actions have to do with you, your culture, your status, your heritage, your values or your character? If you become an underdog because they are working harder and better than you despite your initial position of advantage then I say all strength to them.


After all, the British people fought bravely for not becoming Germans, why should they accept to become pakistanese, nigerian, indian or some kind of mix of all these influxs?

Wrong. The British people fought against the forcible oppression and violence that the Germans carried out against their allies and their fellow British citizens. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Nazis considered themselves to be a superior race. They had no plan to turn other peoples into Germans (with the possible exception of Austria and some parts of France). Their policy was total subjugation. Nobody is forcing you to become Pakistani, Negerian or Indian or forcing you to subjugate yourself to their ideals and values just by moving in next door and getting a job down at the local supermarket. Here is some news for you. You are an individual. Your choices of values, culture and character are purely yours.


By the way, your position is very easy: as an indian living in Great-Britain, you have always the B-plan of getting back to India, if things get bad. But what choice for a Brit, where could he go?

A lot of presumptions here. Firstly you presume that I am an Indian living in Britain, which I have not specified. You presume that my position is easy, i.e. that somehow I have no emotional connection to Britain and that my cultural and ethical values are somehow connected to some motherland that I may or may not have ever seen. You presume that, for some reason, the values and culture of this motherland are unchanging. Developing countries are probably going through more social, cultural and economic upheaval than those of Western Europe. You were talking about India. This is a country with over 2,000 years of agrarian based civilisation, the 2nd largest population in the world and the 7th largest geographical surface. It has 4 principle religious groups and over 20 recognised languages, not to mention the 1000 plus dialects. It is undergoing rapid industrialisation with a radical increase in literary rate. What makes you think that this culture and values are constant at this point in time?


In fact, our european countries are seen by the migrants like some kind of international airport free-trade area, the nation-entreprise, leaving us with no more national own identity.

How do you know how migrants see European countries? Why does the opinion of immigrants rob a country of its identity? Frankly speaking, this lack of identity seems to me to be an English malaise and actually related to the topic. The loss of the British Empire, which was taken as a symbol of the superiority of the English character and values, has left a lot of the English confused about what it means to be English. I don't see a lack of identity among the French, Germans, Italians, Irish, Welsh or Scots, no matter whether they be of indigenous or immigrant descent.

With regard to this:


A look into the future of Great-Britain:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,363750,00.html

Why does this prospect scare you so much? Why do you believe that this possible British population will be worse than the present? Why will it be any less valid than the current British population? Why do you presume that the change in culture and values is a factor of the change in skin colour? We do not have the same population, culture and values now as we did 100 years ago. Does that make it any less British? Does that make it worse?

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I don't see a relationship here. The poll in question is simply a thermometer which puports to take a snap temperature of the UK public's general attitude toward the immigration question.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the two data sets were equivalent in what they were measuring. It seemed to me that CHDT was trying to say that this poll was indicative of the general public's perspective on this matter, that this perspective was representative of reality and that government policy should be based on this. The poll addressed nothing concrete. As far as I can see it is of little worth, even if accurate of public opinion, other than as an indicator of what sounds the government should make to get re-elected.

CHDT talked about a wall with security guards and police. Britain already has such a wall. It is called the English Channel. It is very difficult to enter Britain without going through a point of control. Current criticisms of immigration in Britain are largely based on legal forms of immigration, mainly asylum seekers and work permits. The big who-ha recently was about Polish workers, who under current European legislation have every right to work in Britain. As such I thought the Grants of Settlement (representing legal forms of immigration) were more relevant and useful than the snapshot news poll.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 01:16 PM
Brits are choosing not to have these children.

I just can imagine you smiling at the idea of getting the country so easily. Just like a guy looking at buying, at cheap price, a house owned by a very old and sick person.

Once again, it's very easy for you, as you know perfectly that your homeland, which deeply structures your identity, will never be touched!


In what way are Europeans becoming underdogs?

Oh, come on, you perfectly know how it's easy with massive social engineering to model people's mind, to make them ashamed of themselves, of their heritage, of their history, to strike deep into their cultural and ethnic roots, so that it's possible to neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves and to prevail.



Perhaps you missed the fact that the Nazis considered themselves to be a superior race.

It's very paradoxal to get this argument from an indian, as the Indian society, with its caste system, is probably the most racially organized society on earth. Just read the Bhagavad Vita and how the reasons of the decadence are there explained. And as it would be too much controversive, I wouldn't quote here what Gandhi said about the blacks when he was in South Africa.

By the way, thinking in a uchronic way, one can easily imagine that if Germany had won the war against England, there wouldn't be today for instance any radical muslims allowed to preach openly in the streets or "cultural enrichment" like that!

http://i21.tinypic.com/2rxux75.jpg




Here is some news for you. You are an individual. Your choices of values, culture and character are purely yours.


Please, be honest, as you come from a civilisational background in which traditional collective identity is so strong, don't say, for tricking us on the way to the weak loneliness, that we are only individuals. No, we, europeans, are like other peoples on the earth, we are also part of precise and determined nations. Of course, I understand your tactic, it's so much easier to dissolve a people whose individuals can't think themselves anymore as a group united by strong and living roots.



What makes you think that this culture and values are constant at this point in time?

Ethnically, India will remain indian and this is the most important parameter to keep a civilisational structure living in the long term, the social modifications are much less important in this matter.



The loss of the British Empire, which was taken as a symbol of the superiority of the English character and values, has left a lot of the English confused about what it means to be English.

As it was already said, this is not just a British problem, as the situation is just the same in european countries which never had any colonial possessions.



Why does this prospect scare you so much?

I'm not scared, I'm just sad and angry. Do you think it's fun when your heritage is stolen or destroyed? Are we supposed in this position to collaborate happily with our doom?




Why do you presume that the change in culture and values is a factor of the change in skin colour? We do not have the same population, culture and values now as we did 100 years ago. Does that make it any less British? Does that make it worse?

Why the obvious is so difficult to be seen or heard? Of course, again, the ethno-civilisational distance between a British from today to a British guy from 1800 is the same like the ethno-civilisational distance between a British native now and the inhabitant of a Britain in which there will be no more ethnic Brits. Yeahhhh, sure!

Let's take a country with a very specific culture like Japan for instance: frankly, are you saying that the Japanese culture would survive, if there was no more Japanese people on the island. No, culture and ethnical parameters are so strongly united, that it's almost impossible to decide which one operates mainly on the other one.


Basically, you are acting very cleverly (but the situation is also favorable to you) according to the tactic of the cuckoo bird: you jump in a nest. You throw outside the eggs which are there and you place yours. And you even suppose that the legitimate owner of the nest will not see anything or will say nothing!

Come on, things will not be so easy, I simply can't find any examples in history which would show a people being dispossed and doing nothing.

CHDT
10-06-2007, 02:33 PM
By the way, even British leftists are now accepting the obvious:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/nimm130.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/06/njobs106.xml

GIAP.Shura
10-06-2007, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by CHDT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Brits are choosing not to have these children.

I just can imagine you smiling at the idea of getting the country so easily. Just like a guy looking at buying, at cheap price, a house owned by a very old and sick person.

Once again, it's very easy for you, as you know perfectly that your homeland, which deeply structures your identity, will never be touched! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Firstly you presume that I am an Indian living in Britain, which I have not specified.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In what way are Europeans becoming underdogs?

Oh, come on, you perfectly know how it's easy with massive social engineering to model people's mind, to make them ashamed of themselves, of their heritage, of their history, to strike deep into their cultural and ethnic roots, so that it's possible to neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves and to prevail.


Perhaps you missed the fact that the Nazis considered themselves to be a superior race.

It's very paradoxal to get this argument from an indian, as the Indian society, with its caste system, is probably the most racially organized society on earth. Just read the Bhagavad Vita and how the reasons of the decadence are there explained. And as it would be too much controversive, I wouldn't quote here what Gandhi said about the blacks when he was in South Africa. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Firstly you presume that I am an Indian living in Britain, which I have not specified.



By the way, thinking in a uchronic way, one can easily imagine that if Germany had won the war against England, there wouldn't be today for instance any radical muslims allowed to preach openly in the streets or "cultural enrichment" like that!

http://i21.tinypic.com/2rxux75.jpg

Indeed. Freedom of religious expression is something that I am glad people fought for in WW2. If at some point these people seek to repress that freedom or impose their will on others without their consent I will gladly fight them too.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Here is some news for you. You are an individual. Your choices of values, culture and character are purely yours.


Please, be honest, as you come from a civilisational background in which traditional collective identity is so strong, don't say, for tricking us on the way to the weak loneliness, that we are only individuals. No, we, europeans, are like other peoples on the earth, we are also part of precise and determined nations. Of course, I understand your tactic, it's so much easier to dissolve a people whose individuals can't think themselves anymore as a group united by strong and living roots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Firstly you presume that I am an Indian living in Britain, which I have not specified.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What makes you think that this culture and values are constant at this point in time?

Ethnically, India will remain indian and this is the most important parameter to keep a civilisational structure living in the long term, the social modifications are much less important in this matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you feel that culture is wholly subservient to race. I disagree.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The loss of the British Empire, which was taken as a symbol of the superiority of the English character and values, has left a lot of the English confused about what it means to be English.

As it was already said, this is not just a British problem, as the situation is just the same in european countries which never had any colonial possessions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because it was already said does not make it true. I disagree that other European citizens feel that their national identity is threatened by immigration. They may feel that their jobs are threatened but I disagree with this as well.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why does this prospect scare you so much?

I'm not scared, I'm just sad and angry. Do you think it's fun when your heritage is stolen or destroyed? Are we supposed in this position to collaborate happily with our doom?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has somebody come in and stolen your grandfather's pocket watch? Your heritage is your own. You guard it with your memory and the education you give your children. This is what Remembrance Day is all about.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why do you presume that the change in culture and values is a factor of the change in skin colour? We do not have the same population, culture and values now as we did 100 years ago. Does that make it any less British? Does that make it worse?

Why the obvious is so difficult to be seen or heard? Of course, again, the ethno-civilisational distance between a British from today to a British guy from 1800 is the same like the ethno-civilisational distance between a British native now and the inhabitant of a Britain in which there will be no more ethnic Brits. Yeahhhh, sure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you believe that women should not be allowed to vote? Do you believe that black people belong to a different species? Do you believe that opium is a viable drug for recreational use? Do you believe that deportation is a reasonable punishment for being a member of a Trade Union?



Let's take a country with a very specific culture like Japan for instance: frankly, are you saying that the Japanese culture would survive, if there was no more Japanese people on the island. No, culture and ethnical parameters are so strongly united, that it's almost impossible to decide which one operates mainly on the other one.


I disagree as does British law. When you are born in Britain you are considered a British citizen. As such a citizen you are part of Britain, part of its culture and part of its heritage. I disagree that ethnicity is the prime qualification for either citizenship or nationality.



Basically, you are acting very cleverly (but the situation is also favorable to you) according to the tactic of the cuckoo bird: you jump in a nest. You throw outside the eggs which are there and you place yours. And you even suppose that the legitimate owner of the nest will not see anything or will say nothing!

Come on, things will not be so easy, I simply can't find any examples in history which would show a people being dispossed and doing nothing.


Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Firstly you presume that I am an Indian living in Britain, which I have not specified.

M_Gunz
10-06-2007, 04:21 PM
#1 root of deep human world problems is overpopulation leading to shortages; water, food, etc.
So how to gain control of what little is left? Growth war, anyone who stabilizes gets to
host the rest next round. No choices but grow like crazy or lose. Room getting tight? Go
somewhere else and set up shop with about 250,000 of your mates for company and get yourselves
a bad reputation and all.

joeap
10-06-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Let's take a country with a very specific culture like Japan for instance: frankly, are you saying that the Japanese culture would survive, if there was no more Japanese people on the island. No, culture and ethnical parameters are so strongly united, that it's almost impossible to decide which one operates mainly on the other one.


So you think culture depends on skin colour and race? Pure unadulterated B.S., unscientific and dangerous.

Never heard of assimilation? I'll bet there are people on this forum whose RL physical appearance would shock you then. Take a silly example of how many people have German sounding names by affiliation with LW themed squadrons or whatever and folks assumed they were German.

CHDT
10-07-2007, 01:44 AM
Never heard of assimilation?

It's quite possible to assimilate isolated individuals, but not complete ethnic groups coming fastly and in great numbers.

By the way, the concept of assimilation has even been said obsolete by the PC-brigade, because it would of course be called racist to ask an alien to assimilate to our culture and values. No, the trendy concept today is integration, which lead basically to the "desintegration", in the middle-long term, of the host society. In fact, you have no more a nation, but numerous superimposed nations living parallel lifes; this system can work when the economy runs well, but if a crise comes...

As Gunz very cleverly said it, the most numerous ethnic groups will simply impose their own views on the minority groups. You have just to read the newspapers to see numerous examples of this evolution.



I disagree that ethnicity is the prime qualification for either citizenship or nationality.

Sorry to take a rude example, but a horse born in a cattle shed is not a cow.

You are speaking here on the intention nation concept, which is a very weak one, compared to the ethnic nation one. And even if you think that this concept is the best one, you should be the first to want to limit alien immigration, because the coming of migrants with completely different values and ways of living than us will simply break the implicit contract on which an intention nation is always built.

GIAP.Shura
10-07-2007, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Sorry to take a rude example, but a horse born in a cattle shed is not a cow.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

CHDT
10-07-2007, 02:38 AM
Yes, I know that this example is rather rude and perhaps even a little bit stupid, but to take a more civil example, if I was born in China, I wouldn't be a chinese for that and the real Chineses will never see me as one of theirs. Again, this is obvious and no abstract values system will ever be able to deny it.

GIAP.Shura
10-07-2007, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Yes, I know that this example is rather rude and perhaps even a little bit stupid, but to take a more civil example, if I was born in China, I wouldn't be a chinese for that and the real Chineses will never see me as one of theirs. Again, this is obvious and no abstract values system will ever be able to deny it.

"Appeal to majority" again. Simply because the Chinese may define another Chinese person a certain way has no relevence to the validity of that definition, nor of the definition that the British should apply to a British citizen. Please explain clearly why the Chinese should not regard you as Chinese?

Jus Soli, or "the right of soil", has been an intrinsic part of the notion of English, and later British citizenship, since medieval times. Any person born under the dominion of the monarch, defined later as the British Empire, was considered a subject and owed allegiance. Later in the 20th century different classifications of British citizenship were introduced but each of them included a "right of soil". This is part of the British heritage and culture that you purport to defend. Are you saying you prefer a Chinese definition of nationality to a British definition and that you want to impose these Chinese values on British citizens?

M_Gunz
10-07-2007, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
As Gunz very cleverly said it, the most numerous ethnic groups will simply impose their own views on the minority groups. You have just to read the newspapers to see numerous examples of this evolution.

Not from newspaper but rather history and anthropological sources.

This whole thing is not _new_ in terms of the total history and pre-history of mankind,
it's normal only at faster rate and with more people now.

M_Gunz
10-07-2007, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
Jus Soli, or "the right of soil", has been an intrinsic part of the notion of English, and later British citizenship, since medieval times. Any person born under the dominion of the monarch, defined later as the British Empire, was considered a subject and owed allegiance. Later in the 20th century different classifications of British citizenship were introduced but each of them included a "right of soil". This is part of the British heritage and culture that you purport to defend. Are you saying you prefer a Chinese definition of nationality to a British definition and that you want to impose these Chinese values on British citizens?

Being a British Citizen does not make one English. And there is more than one nation with
mostly all Chinese blood people, there were a lot more less than 100 years ago. I know a lot
of Africans who were not born in or live in Africa, Irish who were not born in or live in
Ireland, Italians, Poles, French and English all from the US and Canada. Most will tell you
what they identify as and have many others that agree if you feel up for votes, opinions,
whatever.

There's always problems with change. Big changes make big problems, bigger for some than
others. "May you live in interesting times"... we all have.

joeap
10-07-2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
Yes, I know that this example is rather rude and perhaps even a little bit stupid, but to take a more civil example, if I was born in China, I wouldn't be a chinese for that and the real Chineses will never see me as one of theirs. Again, this is obvious and no abstract values system will ever be able to deny it.

You do realise that 99.9% of your genes are common with that of the chimpanzee don't you?

One13
10-07-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
You do realise that 99.9% of your genes are common with that of the chimpanzee don't you?

It's more like 96%....But you can be 99.9% if you like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GIAP.Shura
10-07-2007, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Being a British Citizen does not make one English. And there is more than one nation with
mostly all Chinese blood people, there were a lot more less than 100 years ago. I know a lot
of Africans who were not born in or live in Africa, Irish who were not born in or live in
Ireland, Italians, Poles, French and English all from the US and Canada. Most will tell you
what they identify as and have many others that agree if you feel up for votes, opinions,
whatever.

I agree, British does definitely not equate to English. I believe that nationality and citizenship does not equate to ethnicity either. Since immigration is about nationality and citizenship should it not be discussed in those terms? When an 4th generation American descended from Scots describes himself as Scottish does he mean that he is entitled to be a British citizen? Does he mean that he is not an American? Does that American have a more Scottish culture than a Scot of Pakistani descent who has lived his whole life in Scotland? Should that Pakistani be refused British citizenship because he will never be a "true Scot".

As I said before, as an individual you have sole responsibility over your values, culture and heritage.

joeap
10-07-2007, 05:58 AM
Anyway just imagine if this guy had not died suddenly in 1241:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Ogadai_Khan.jpg

His name?

Ögedei Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan) Third son of Gheghis whose death as Supreme Khan caused the recall of Mongol armies at the gates of Vienna on the verge of invading Central Europe. They had to return for the inevitable power struggle.

If they had not...we would still have this argument just in a different form. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Blutarski2004
10-07-2007, 06:37 AM
Culture is NOT a legal construct. The geographic location of one's birth has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural views and beliefs imbued by the social group witihn which the child is raised.

DmdSeeker
10-07-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by CHDT:
By the way, the concept of assimilation has even been said obsolete by the PC-brigade, because it would of course be called racist to ask an alien to assimilate to our culture and values. No, the trendy concept today is integration, which lead basically to the "desintegration", in the middle-long term, of the host society. In fact, you have no more a nation, but numerous superimposed nations living parallel lifes; this system can work when the economy runs well, but if a crise comes...

.


Word!

MB_Avro_UK
10-08-2007, 02:39 PM
Hi all,

Time will tell. Maybe I should post this topic in 2012 when the situation will maybe become clearer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif (Assuming of course that il2 has not been bought by MS and historical/political posts will or maybe banned....).

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

joeap
10-08-2007, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Culture is NOT a legal construct. The geographic location of one's birth has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural views and beliefs imbued by the social group witihn which the child is raised.

Word!



Thanks MB_Avro for all your interesting threads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MB_Avro_UK
10-08-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Culture is NOT a legal construct. The geographic location of one's birth has absolutely nothing to do with the cultural views and beliefs imbued by the social group witihn which the child is raised.

Word!



Thanks MB_Avro for all your interesting threads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks joeap http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have a few more posts in mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

CHDT
10-15-2007, 08:05 AM
Unbelieveable!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/new...7017&in_page_id=1770 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487017&in_page_id=1770)

Whirlin_merlin
10-15-2007, 08:25 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CHDT:
Unbelieveable!


Yes, and as there seems to be little facts behind the story I wont believe it.

It looks like another islamaphobic scare story to me.