What's new

War

delta9nxs

No Jive Productions
Veteran
"The fact is that such a question immediately brings to mind in my memory a distant February evening in 1945 in the Crimea. I, at that time a young anti-occult scientist, was invited to one of the Allied after parties. Standing with cognac, surrounded by a variety of diplomats, spies who imagine themselves to be journalists, and journalists who imagine themselves to be spies, I carefully watched the chuckling trio of winners. Someone next to me sighed and said: "I don't understand how they can talk to this executioner of nations."

I turned around. The speaker was swarthy and bespectacled - later I repeatedly visited him at Bombay University to exchange experiences.

- You understand, my dear, that I am not ready to carry on a conversation about my leader in such a tone. I replied.

- And what about your leader? - the Indian was surprised. - I'm talking about Churchill.

I was also surprised: I only knew about Churchill that he was an uncle who smokes cigars, drinks cognac and raises a bulldog, and also that Hitler was defeated under him and Winnie the Pooh was invented.

But the doctor told me that the real Churchill is somewhat broader than his image. He told me about the recent famine in Bengal (1943), during which 1.5 to 2.5 million people died - and the British authorities prevented the faminers from fleeing to more prosperous areas. “When Churchill became Undersecretary for the Colonies at the beginning of the century, the Empire stopped publishing data on the victims of the famine. But under him, we alone in India had several famines - millions died, up to 80 million people starved,” Dr. Kumar said. “But he started with the blood of innocents, he’s no stranger to it.”

He spoke, and the real, uncut version of Churchill stood up in front of me in full growth. The young aristocrat began his career with the suppression of the Jose Marti uprising in Cuba and punitive operations in Sudan against Latinos and Negroes who had done nothing wrong to him. Then he participated in the genocide of the Boers. Then, as best he could, he strangled the Irish, Somalis, Rhodesians and Indians. Diving and emerging from power, he drove hungry Kenyans from the land, sent thousands of English homeless children to Australian labor colonies, bombed refugees in Dresden, rushed about the project of sterilizing 100 thousand "inferior" compatriots and concluding them in special concentration camps, and so on and so forth. “Do you know what he said about us Indians? “A stupid race, saved only by its reproduction from the fate it deserved,” the doctor read from memory. And he explained what fate Churchill had in mind, citing the politician’s appeal from 1937 : "I don't think that an injustice was done to the natives of Australia - a wiser, purer race came and took their place."

- Churchill and his empire rob half a billion people, mutilate the conquered countries, kill by the millions, cut out the flower of local nations - and you all think that this is a cute cunning guy in a top hat. Dr. Kumar finished bitterly. - you'll see, in a year he will again declare you devils and try to isolate you from the world. And in 50 years, in honor of the victory over Hitler, a monument will be erected to him in London - to him and Roosevelt, maybe - and your Uncle Joe will have been forgotten by that time. And no one will condemn the crimes of Churchillism. Everyone will think that he defeated the Germans - is it possible to recall everything else to him?

We parted that evening in silence.

From myself (AK), I’ll just add that the opium wars in China, which the British waged against it (I already wrote about these wars), claimed the lives of 50 million Chinese, and made 100 million Chinese into complete drug addicts.

Question: is no one going to answer for this? Are the British really going to teach morality to the whole world? Yes, in comparison with them, Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot and Mao are real children.
yep, the British empire in its heyday was a cruel colonial power. and Winston Churchill was a part of that legacy.

he's not really famous for "winning" ww2 though. I've never heard that sentiment expressed before now.

i think it was mostly the US and Russia who actually beat Hitler. although the British did conduct massive bombing raids with heavy losses.

i will say that Russia suffered the most casualties at the hands of the nazis in ww2. i think 20,000,000 is about the right number.

and i can see that generating a deep fear and loathing of nazis.

the Russians are the ones who had to face the full force of German armor in open terrain.

the battle of Kursk was epic!
 

Hermanthegerman

Peri alypias
Veteran
320787380_671604448028565_3492188101772134140_n.jpg
 

delta9nxs

No Jive Productions
Veteran
one more thing about the Churchill stuff.

this is history, and we can go over the history of any country and find the same cruelties happening in the same time frames that you speak of here.

and again, I will say that the things that occurred in history are important to discuss to prevent them from happening again but have little bearing on what the world is now.

the bad deeds of the past generations do not define the people living in the present.

especially in the modern internet world, where information is so rapidly sent and received.

another way to look at history, when assigning blame to whole societies and cultures, is the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" riddle.

two antagonists, both with long histories of aggression and revenge, face off and start arguing about who did what to whom first.

a spectator, looking at this argument, thinks they are both to blame.

and really doesn't give a shit about who started it.

it becomes like two spoiled children, both should be sent to their rooms with no games to play or tv.

now, that's some cruel shit! heartless!
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
he's not really famous for "winning" ww2 though. I've never heard that sentiment expressed before now.
no, he did not "win" it. but he kept England going long enough for the US to enter. if the US had not come in on the Allies side, Germany would have taken England & all of Europe, & probably not attacked Russia. without England as a forward base/supply dump, the US would not have had a starting point, and German submarines would have made a cross-Atlantic invasion too costly. if Germany & Russia had both stuck to their non-aggressive pact, there would have been no free Europe today. JMHO
 

delta9nxs

No Jive Productions
Veteran
no, he did not "win" it. but he kept England going long enough for the US to enter. if the US had not come in on the Allies side, Germany would have taken England & all of Europe, & probably not attacked Russia. without England as a forward base/supply dump, the US would not have had a starting point, and German submarines would have made a cross-Atlantic invasion too costly. if Germany & Russia had both stuck to their non-aggressive pact, there would have been no free Europe today. JMHO
for sure the air war against the nazis stopped Hitler from invading Britain and without using the British isles as a staging area d-day would not have happened as soon as it did. maybe not at all.

Churchill was a rallying point for the people during the "blitz".

the advancement of propeller-driven warplanes reached it's peak in ww2. it's my favorite part of ww2 history. and great naval battles.

my favorite plane of the era is the Supermarine Spitfire. in my opinion one of the most beautiful shapes ever made to fly.

the American p-51 mustang was perhaps the single most capable design to come out of the war.

it used the same Rolls Royce Merlin engine that was in the spitfire but got a greater airspeed because of the design. long-range so it could accompany bombers on long missions.

Another notable aircraft is the DeHavilland Mosquito, a twin-engine fighter bomber made with a plywood frame to save on metals for the war.

some versions were fitted with radar for night interception. the Luftwaffe feared these things.

they also used two of the merlin engines and were very fast for the day.
 

jump117

Well-known member
Veteran
no, he did not "win" it. but he kept England going long enough for the US to enter. if the US had not come in on the Allies side, Germany would have taken England & all of Europe, & probably not attacked Russia. without England as a forward base/supply dump, the US would not have had a starting point, and German submarines would have made a cross-Atlantic invasion too costly. if Germany & Russia had both stuck to their non-aggressive pact, there would have been no free Europe today. JMHO
The United States entered the war half a year after the German attack on the USSR, and landed in Europe only in 1944, i.e. three years after that. The causal relationship you suggested does not fit into the chronology.
Rather, it can be argued that the United States defended Europe from Stalin.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Gry

delta9nxs

No Jive Productions
Veteran


this very talented young man has a 6-octave range and performs in 12 languages.

this was produced with the approval of the Kazakhstan government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gry

delta9nxs

No Jive Productions
Veteran
The United States entered the war half a year after the German attack on the USSR, and landed in Europe only in 1944, i.e. three years after that. The causal relationship you suggested does not fit into the chronology.
Rather, it can be argued that the United States defended Europe from Stalin.
somebody had to defend Europe from Stalin, but it was a side effect of defeating nazi Germany.

not the original intent.

everybody knew that Bolshevik Russia was intent on expanding communism and would have to be dealt with after the war.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
somebody had to defend Europe from Stalin, but it was a side effect of defeating nazi Germany.

not the original intent.

everybody knew that Bolshevik Russia was intent on expanding communism and would have to be dealt with after the war.
Patton wanted to hit Berlin on the fly & go all the way to Moscow. looking back (20-20) at all that has happened since & all that could still go wrong, now i think we should have told ol' George to "go for it, you old son of a bitch! we're right behind you!" we had the bomb, they did not. checkmate.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
long-range so it could accompany bombers on long missions.
the Mustangs came with spare external fuel tanks they could jettison when entering a fight. the Spitfires were designed for aerial combat right overhead for practical purposes, and were perfect for the job.. those old boys were at much greater risk of empty guns than low fuel during Battle Of Britain. :shooty:
 
Top