Jump to content
Complete France Forum



Recommended Posts

Odd article.

Firstly, my Dad always reckoned that Germany won the war, as they had to restart from scratch and build 'modern' industry and we still had our old industrial set up.

Due to the nature of his war, he was in many German cities as the war ended, and he said that those he saw had been raised to the ground and he had not seen a british city in such a state.

I NEVER thought we had gone in to protect the jewish population of Europe, NEVER! And if the rest of you had thought that, where did you get that idea from.

I was never taught that at school, and frankly, I know at the time, as a child, would have thought that that was an odd notion. I would remember not understand that. Like I remember thinking inflicted bible studies were nonsense, and I was not told that they were at home.  Incidentally  THEN my little world was white and christian, even though we were not, and the only black people I ever saw was in Nottingham, from whence my mother hailed.

I remember watching on All My Yesterdays film of the liberation of the concentration camps and was horrified by it all. I remember those images vividly to this day.

And I know that british troops were in battle in North Africa, friends' Dads were there, so what is that about not being in battle?????

So the Mr Hitchens has had his little say, but that is not how I look back at the war and all the stories I heard about it, from various sources over the years.

And to add I have just been reading about Chamberlain and Munich, and there seemed an inevitability about war after that little lot.

Incidentally, did anyone see those programs about the US  planning to invade Canada in the 1930's????? Yes, pre war, we certainly had a 'special' relationship. Here is one of many articles about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does war ever have any real "winners" in the modern age?

Both sides lose - they lose lives, they lose resources, maybe they suffer damage at home. The winner is the one that lost less or managed to hold out longest. Both sides would have been better off if the war could have been avoided.

That's why I find it so sickening when certain newspapers take such delight in talking about Brexit as a conflict. They've helped turn it into one. Negotiations can be win win if they're handled well but conflicts can only be lose lose.

Yes there was a time when a big country could go out and have a quick war with a little country, nobody else got involved, it was soon over and the big country had won a bit more territory. The world's moved on and it doesn't work like that any more. Maybe the two WWs were the turning point, when war became more complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, I dont think that those who lived the two WWs would deny the massive contribution made by our allies. The article seems an attempt to deny this without appropriate evidence.

But, I have always thought that the Americans ripped us off in order to weaken the Empire further.

That we sought war however is pure bull’s excrement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought we went to war originally when we saw what happened to Poland, then other european countries in quick succession. We were terrified the Germans would invade UK next, which they almost did. By some miracle the germans turned to Russia instead, which started their downfall.
I've read and spoken to some french people who think the Americans won the war. Don't like us because of Mers-el Kebir.
As idun says, we certainly didn't enter to save the Jews. Though eventually many were accepted as refugees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha - out comes the hasbara that has pervaded post war two politics. Look at the politics pre-war two too!

The US absolutely screwed the UK who have only just repaid the debt. both one and even more for two. Idun thanks for that post.

Who writes history?

Really think that people should read more than the equivalent of the Daily Mail/Telegraph (or the equivalent at the particular time). And really - I'm afraid religion is the cause of ALL of the problems that currently exist.

Goodness, Trump recently said how proud he was of his Jewish child and grandchildren. Wow - what has that got to do with his background? Was he not proud when she was christian (sic).

Do the Christians think that more than half the world population are wrong in their beliefs and that they are absolutely right.

More than half the Israeli population think ( according to recent polls) that they are the chosen people - that was said in a recent article in an Israeli press so either cant be wrong or is antisemitic. I personally feel somewhat annoyed that others feel better or chosen above me.

Religion is twaddle - whichever, its a means of social control - period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more serious history I read, the more I understand how I was conned during my childhood. English history has been little more than propaganda since the Norman invasion, helped along by the likes of Shakespeare. "For Harry, England and St George", eh? The only accurate part of that nonsense was the "For Harry". Continuing the tradition from Edward III, Henry saw northern France and Western France as a personal possession. Alfred the Great has gone down in history as a hero for seeking to win back the land ceded to the Vikings - the Danelaw - so why are the French seen as the villains for seeking to regain the territory ceded to the Normans (Viking descendants)? Who was invading whom during the 100 Years war?

As for Henry's army fighting for England, the truth is that the knights were promised control of rich lands in France if victorious, whilst the foot-soldiers were largely impoverished Welshmen - thugs in it for booty. The soldiers were able to keep the finery chopped off the fallen French, to rape and pillage their way across the country, leaving those peasants who weren't murdered to starve after their lands had been laid waste.

Napoleon might deserve criticism for his later excesses but if you look at the position from which he started, he was initially doing no more than defending the Republic from foreign invasion, chiefly orchestrated by Britain.

The media loves to depict the French armies as cowardly but what do they say about Dunkirk when the British army ran away, leaving their armaments on the beaches for the enemy, while French units did their best to buy them time? Churchillian propaganda bizarrely turned the rescue, brave as it was, into some sort of amazing victory.

All countries - particularly those at war - use propaganda, of course, but Britain has turned it into an art form. So much so that my parents' generation believed that "we won the war" almost single-handedly and that no foreigner is to be trusted.

I will leave religious propaganda for another soap box, except to say that Richard is spot on with his final sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Really think that people should read more than the equivalent of the Daily Mail/Telegraph"

In that case, why start a thread with a link to the Daily Mail about a book written by one of its own columnists. A columnist who, just for added irony, became a Christian after previously being an atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope the UK did not go to war for a religion, you may have a good faith but I have none, not many years back I would have been burnt

Why should one or more people believe in the unbelievable and wontantaly kill unbelievers in their god

Faith is chit and the word began with s

If you believe in a god listen to the English anthem god saving her/it/him but just hundreds of armed guards must be Satan walking about or just another fairy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...