Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on July 03, 2001, 08:20:00 AM
-
Heh, misleading topic :).
Anyhow, i just read the Declaration of Independence (dunno why i haven't before).
Those guys had balls the size of a large planet!
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And then follows a long list.
Sheet man, considering the way the world was back then, that is really...dumb? Brave? Heroic? Insane? Whatever it was, it worked.
Good going yanks. Now friends with a former enemy in a good and procutive alliance, essentially protecting the same rights.
I dinnae think the declaration of independence was *that* harshly worded, but ya live and learn :).
Oh, and the author would find a spell checker very valuable. Now I gotta compleat this post before my house get burnt down :).
"King of Limeyland, bugger off!"
:)
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: StSanta ]
-
Whats very funny is the fact that by December 1776, the rebel cause was fizzling, the rebellion almost to a stand still after repeated losses to the brits. It was all ressurected by the arrogance of a certain British General who had the responsibility of the protection of the city of Trenton. He considered the rebels not be be a fighting force, and let them slip into Trenton on December 26th, 1776. That turned the war around for the rebels, and is the key battle that ended up losing the war for the Brits.
Sorry, can't remember the British Generals name, but apparently, he was very hung over when the rebels struck at midnight, crossing a frozen river to invade Trenton.
-
found this:
December 26th, 1776, Col. Rall received a message from a British spy which said that Washington planned to attack them that day. However, Col. Rall was Hessian and couldn't read English. Moreover, the troops were groggy from celebrating. As a result, Washington won.
What if Col. Rall could read English and was able to beat Washington? I believe that the loss would demoralize the Americans and cause them to lose the Revolutionary war.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=battle+of+ trenton&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=20010128121232.19028.00000624%40ng-fm1.aol.com (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=battle+of+trenton&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=20010128121232.19028.00000624%40ng-fm1.aol.com)
Funny how some things work out :)
(http://www.twc-tampa.com/mdisalle/flag.gif)
Happy 4th to All!
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]
-
Here ya go, Rip.
British General Howe had sent his forces away from Trenton and Trenton was now being protected by Colonel Johann Gottlieb Rall.
General Washington guessed that the Hessians would probably be celebrating Christmas...
...attacked the Hessians, who were still sleeping and drunk from their celebrations.
Santa, yes, BIG brass ones. ;)
-
sad, sad,...
but I bet they know the latest mm song title or password cheat on their video game ...
U.S. Teens Struggle With History
Tuesday, July 03, 2001
Email this Article
NORFOLK, Va. — One in five American teen-agers doesn't know the answer to this grade-school history question: From what country did America declare its independence?
Twenty-two percent of those who responded to the survey commissioned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation did not know the answer was England. Fourteen percent thought it was France.
``When you look at these numbers, it means that more than 5 million U.S. teen-agers don't understand the true meaning of Independence Day,'' said Colin Campbell, president of the foundation that runs Colonial Williamsburg, the restored 18th-century capital.
The nationwide telephone survey of 1,020 youngsters ages 12 to 17 was conducted May 31 to June 5 and has a margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Nearly all those surveyed knew that Washington, D.C., is the U.S. capital and that George W. Bush is president. However:
—One in 10 did not know George Washington was the first president.
—17 percent did not know there were 13 original colonies.
—15 percent did not know the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
—Nearly one in four did not know who fought in the Civil War; 13 percent thought it was the United States and England.
-
Hmmm! Not as bad as I thought. Maybe the educational system is doing a better job than I would have guessed.
- Yoj
-
I was gonna say Rall! Really! Anyway, he was known for his hatred of the rebels, and considered them very inept when it came to fighting, also, it wasn't that he couldn't read the message, he chose NOT to read the message and simply stuck it in his pocket!(You see, he was still celebrating the afternoon of the 25th, and, he considered the forces of Washington a non-threat, so, why even bother to read the message, in his mind, nothing would become of it if indeed they did attack) From the book "Military Blunders"
Also, Washington attacked from the North, there was a north wind blowing that night, and the picket line troops that were at the cities edge had their backs to the north, due to wind chill...Rall was killed when they retreated to a bridge, he tried to rally his troops by going back across the bridge, waving his sword, and was subsquently hit in the head, before he died though, he gave the command to 'retreat'. The rest, as they say , is "history".
[ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Hmmm! Not as bad as I thought. Maybe the educational system is doing a better job than I would have guessed.
Yoj
My thoughs exactly Yoj as I read the paper this morning. IMO, Part of the problem is the way history is taught -- rote memorization of dusty dates and places. Many of us, if not most, are history buffs who read books that bring history to life. Of course, some of these are dry as dust as well and almost unreadable -- "Arms for Spain" being a brutal read I recently encountered.
Those who are not history buffs from an early age find few compelling reasons to explore the subject in greater detail after they enter mifddle and high school. The average high school text book reads like a farm equipment catalog (at least they did in the early 1980s), and, IMO more effort needs to be focused on humanizing the subject matter.
For every Gerorge Washington there were hundreds of average joes who shouldered a musket and fought to make a country. In many ways, their stories are more compelling -- you can identify with them and ask questions like, "what if I was alive back then?"
Ken Burns, with his documentaries, and writers like Walter Lord do a particularly good job with this in addition to covering the leaders and overall strategies. And, a polished multi-media presentation of history would go a long way towards opening it up to the TV generation. Sadly, many will learn about "history" from movies like Pearl Harbor and Titanic, and worst of all, Disney.
Charon
-
One reason I think is it's because no teenager really cares about history. Think about it...what are most kids interested in now? Piercings, video games, sex, you name it. I asked a fellow high school student (senior, 12th) why he was failing history (when a football player fails it is fast news) He told me "Because it is boring. We sit there and learn about dead guys from way back when. I like stuff that's "in" today! F**k the past." BTW, on his history term paper, "independance" and "England" were misspelled, along with numerous historical mistakes.
This is the same mentality of most high schoolers today. 65% of the senior class failed the first semester of their history class.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Santa, yes, BIG brass ones. ;)
Do your big brass balls stick to the monkey in cold weather?
10 points to anyone who actually gets that one. ;)
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
Santa you brown-noser. :)
-
Those big brass ones seem to have stuck it to Georgie, didn't they? :)
-
Funked, you're right.
I should mention that it's odd how a people descended from such big balled people now are a mixture of Rikki Lake/Jerry Springer moronic idiots, with little understaniding of the fact that there's a world around them, and with no understanding that other states may, in fact, be better than the US in certain areas.
There, now *I* feel better about myself.
-
Actually, at the time, the Victory at Trenton was considered only a minor military victory.
It's real importance was as a morale booster among the Continental Army, and as a confidence booster among the general population. From this point on, the mood of the people became more resolute towards nothing short of Independence.
Up to that point, the Army was on the verge of collapse and the mood among the population was one of trying to find a way out of the fighting.
Cobra
-
lol Santa :D
It's good to see someone keeps history alive by celebrating it (even if it is Ripsnort's version). I would say that 95% of British people know nothing about the American Revolution, and probably couldn't care less. In actual fact, most people know very little about Korea, a war fought 50 years ago, nevermind one that occured several centuries ago.
Besides, it was just some backwater skirmish, not a real war. The fact that Hessians were involved at all shows how much regard the British government had for America; the British were too busy killing Frenchmen and protecting India, which was regarded as a much more valuable asset. ;)
The principles behind the Declaration of Independance are commendable - but the reality was a little different if you happened to black or native American. I doubt things really changed for them, and the way they were treated was equally as bad as when they were under British rule.
-
For the time, Dowding, the principles were very radical.
You did not have to be of a certain bloodline to own property, etc.
But, if you look at it through 21st century hindsight, then yes, its principles did not apply to all equally.
But, like I said, for that time, they were very radical.
But this place is sooo bad today. Hehe..tell that to my father-in-law, who left Italy with $400 dollars in his pocket, suitcase and 3 kids and didn't know a word of english.
Today, he owns the apartment building that he was a rentor when he came over, he started and sold his own auto-body shop, retired before age 60 and he put 3 kids through college.
Ohhhh, what a terrible, terrible place.
My point, this country affords the oppurtunity to really make it to those who dare to do it.....that includes all ethnic backgrounds.
Are there still injustices....hell yes, but show me a country where there isn't.
And speaking of British Rule and injustices, I travel to places that just recently got out from under British Rule....The Brit attitude has changed little in 200 years.
Thank goodness the Brits didn't consider this important, or we could have been held back by Brit rule like India was for those 200 some odd years ;).
If it looks like I'm coming off as proud of my country (an accident of birth place), then so be it, because I AM!!!
But hey, you've got it all figured out anyway. So please pick apart our faults all day long. At the end of the day, our society is not perfect, much as humans are not, but its not a bad place to live, warts and all.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by texace:
One reason I think is it's because no teenager really cares about history. Think about it...what are most kids interested in now? Piercings, video games, sex, you name it. I asked a fellow high school student (senior, 12th) why he was failing history (when a football player fails it is fast news) He told me "Because it is boring. We sit there and learn about dead guys from way back when. I like stuff that's "in" today! F**k the past." BTW, on his history term paper, "independance" and "England" were misspelled, along with numerous historical mistakes.
This is the same mentality of most high schoolers today. 65% of the senior class failed the first semester of their history class.
And for this reason, 40 to 60 years from now they will be "shocked" by another Genghis, Peter, or Hitler and have no idea why.
.... b b b but no one told me ... sob sob
Buzzttttt
Wrong answer, It's you who failed to learn.
Even that may be the wrong answer, it may be that WE FAILED to force them to learn. :(
-
Chill, cobra. I think if you read my post again, you'll find I wasn't saying America was a 'bad place' to live in. I'm sure it's not. In fact, I never used hindsight in any shape or form. Also, show me where I was 'picking apart' your country, if you would?
Who was talking about today? I thought we were discussing events 200 and odd years ago...
I was pointing out that the intentions didn't necessarily square with the reality. There was still a large divide between groups of people based solely on accident of birth - the groups in question merely changed. I'm sure it was a radical idea if you were white, less so if you were anything else.
The Brit attitude has changed little in 200 years.
A sweeping generalisation if ever there was one. Care to elaborate?
But I'm just jealous you got today off. Over here, it was 30 deg Celsius and sunny all day. I wish I knew what the weather was going to be like on any particular day, before I booked my holidays. ;)
[ 07-04-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
I don't know about radical. If you look back at previous British documents, like the Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights, you can see most of the principles there already.
That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.
That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law
That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament
That excessive bail ought not to be required,nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials of high treason ought to be freeholders.
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premisses, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings, or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example
All from the Bill of Rights, 1689. The Magna Carta was also used as a basis, with it's promises of no man being above the law, the right to trial by jury etc.
Sadly it's taken until the 20th century for the implimentation of the ideas to catch up.
-
hows relations with immigrant asians going in jolly 'ole england..... :) the only reason their attitude changed was because they got their bloody arses kicked from yorktown to zulu land thru india out out the back arse of china...... :) We call that enlightenment :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Funked, you're right.
I should mention that it's odd how a people descended from such big balled people now are a mixture of Rikki Lake/Jerry Springer moronic idiots, with little understaniding of the fact that there's a world around them, and with no understanding that other states may, in fact, be better than the US in certain areas.
it is ironic, and america is capable of far better. the cream of each american generation tends to work their hardest making things easier and less complicated for the next generation.
the intended result is to make life better, but unfortunately it has bred a lot of ignorant, lazy and complacent people that don't appreciate the work that made thier lives so effortless and predictable.
there are probably 20 small restaurants within 4 blocks of my house that are owned by small business owners. some tourists stopped me on the street in the midst of this variety and asked if there was a denny's nearby!
i like to support entrepeneurs and mom and pop stores rather than feed the 1% any more wealth than they already have. unfortunately it is getting hard for them because they can't offer the prices that the chains can. more people are abandoning ownership and taking their place on the assembly line for company x.
maybe someday the fire in our bellies will be back and we can dictate what happens in this country from the individual, local and states level up rather than the federal, media/hollywood and corporate level down.
-
Originally posted by texace:
One reason I think is it's because no teenager really cares about history. Think about it...what are most kids interested in now? Piercings, video games, sex, you name it. I asked a fellow high school student (senior, 12th) why he was failing history (when a football player fails it is fast news) He told me "Because it is boring. We sit there and learn about dead guys from way back when. I like stuff that's "in" today! F**k the past." BTW, on his history term paper, "independance" and "England" were misspelled, along with numerous historical mistakes.
This is the same mentality of most high schoolers today. 65% of the senior class failed the first semester of their history class.
As a fellow highschool student, I agree with you completely tex. Fortunately, at the school I am currently attending, most of the students do care about their classes, because if they don't get the work done and focus, they do not advance. Wonderful concept for a school. Those that don't care enough leave, and good riddance.
And, because I agree with you, it's painful to have to tell you - you misspelled "independence" in your post.
:p
-
mrfish, part of that (the Denny's thing) is that people are afraid to try out a new restaurant. They want what they are familiar with. That's why those chains are so popular. You pretty much know what you're getting when you go to a shoney's, denny's, BK, chik-fil-a, etc. Personally, I like finding good restaurants when I go traveling, like that Irish place in Boston that I can't remember the name of! We were just walking downtown, and they had a chalkboard on the street with their specials, and we decided to go in. It was a really good choice. :) You just gotta tell those tourists they'd do better if they went to the mom n pop restaurant! Well, there is one exception to that... When some Northerners come down to Florida and eat Gulf seafood, they don't like it because it's not as strong as cod and halibut. Gulf fish are just a lot milder. We direct those people to the Dead Lobster (Red Lobster that is...)
-
Originally posted by Swoop:
Do your big brass balls stick to the monkey in cold weather?
10 points to anyone who actually gets that one. ;)
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
We always used matching metals - brass balls, brass monkey. Keeps the coefficient of expansion matched :)
- Yoj
-
Originally posted by Nifty:
mrfish, part of that (the Denny's thing) is that people are afraid to try out a new restaurant. They want what they are familiar with. That's why those chains are so popular. You pretty much know what you're getting when you go to a shoney's, denny's, BK, chik-fil-a, etc. Personally, I like finding good restaurants when I go traveling, like that Irish place in Boston that I can't remember the name of! We were just walking downtown, and they had a chalkboard on the street with their specials, and we decided to go in. It was a really good choice. :) You just gotta tell those tourists they'd do better if they went to the mom n pop restaurant! Well, there is one exception to that... When some Northerners come down to Florida and eat Gulf seafood, they don't like it because it's not as strong as cod and halibut. Gulf fish are just a lot milder. We direct those people to the Dead Lobster (Red Lobster that is...)
Cod and halibut STRONG?! ! Those suckers are downright mild next to, say, swordfish. Maybe even compared to salmon, but salmon don't count in New England :). If you want to try a truly wimpy fish, try canned tuna. If you want something better than canned tuna, go for real tuna steaks. Now THAT is actually pretty strong stuff.
:D
-
Wotan-
I don't know what history books you have been reading (if any), but British military history is a tale of victory more than defeat. Defeat is sometimes inevitable, but compared to the victories, I think the record was good.
Yorktown? Hardly a large scale battle and not really part of a war compared to events elsewhere in the world. For example, the overwhelming success of the British Army all across India (Assaye, Seringapatam etc). The defeat of the French in Spain (Vittoria, Badajoz, Salamanca etc), prior to the invasion of France itself (culminating in the Battle of Waterloo). Not to mention the combined smashing of the joint French/Spanish fleet at Trafalgar.
'Zululand'? A few hundred troops in a 'Thin Red Line' trying to hold back several thousand Zulus in open ground would be quite tricky even today. Once in a defensive position (Rorke's Drift) it might have been a little easier.
China? As far as I know we took HK and only gave it back because that was part of the agreement signed a century ago.
Read a book some time, Wotan, you might learn something. ;)
-
i read one that said britian started a war with germany took a whoopin cried and begged for help :) When the war was won they were so broke they gave away what was left of their depleted "empire"....... :)
to top that off later they offered citzinship to what was at the time 1/5 the worlds population and now have had serious trouble dealing with it ...... :)
with all your victorious "history" your just moderately better then a third rate country just above portugal......remember their "glory days"....... :)
maybe the sun has not set on the british "empire" but its sure going down :)
compare the last 200 hundreds years of great britians history with the United States you might immigrate now before it gets much worse :)
Hell the scotts finally beat ya :)
[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Heh Wotan, the sun will settle on the US empire as well. It is inevitable and has happened to each and every empire so far that has seen the light.
Seen from a historical POV, the Brits held a considerable power. After they got spanked by some Viking raider isn the early 1000's, they got their stuff together.
There's no telling what the future will hold - the only constant is change :)
-
Wotan - your education in this area blatantly consists of:
Braveheart
The Patriot
Pearl Harbour
I don't think that's something to be proud of. ;)
Go and study British history and look at the achievements of a nation of a fifth of the size of the US, with few natural resources. I think we did rather well considering the historical context. The British Empire is long gone however - it's time had come - no Empire lasts, and considering we fought two bankrupting world wars I don't think it stood a chance of continuing.
Third world country? Better than living in a third rate country. ;)
i read one that said britian started a war with germany
Really? Is that what they teach you in American schools? Or perhaps your a fan of David Irving (go look it up). The sequence of events was more like:
1) Britain tells Hitler to curb his expansionist plans in Europe.
2) He takes the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and Britain turns a blind eye since most of the population there is German anyway.
3) He takes Czechoslovakia wholesale.
4) GB states catergorically that an invasion of Poland would not be tolerated and war would ensure
5) Hitler invades Poland
6) GB declares war.
Hardly the aggressive Britain you make it out to be.
But ignorance is your forte - and you do it so well. ;)
And Santa - your stinking Viking raiders left an indellible mark on our sheep. We are still awaiting compensation. :D
BTW, I asked you once about the Siege of Copenhagen and whether you were taught anything about it - but I lost track of the thread and never saw if you gave a reply.
[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Ah, the siege of Copenhagen :). I presume you mean the siege during the Napoleanic wars and not the ones the feeble minded Swedes did :)
I went to school in Sweden from 1'st to 9th grade, so my Danish history knowledge is somewhat limited but here's my perspective on it:
If there is a war that has many sides, the Danes will ALWAYS pick the losers side.
Anyway, from what I've read, the Brits were sorta pissed at the Danes for their insistence on protecting their merchant ships and ignoring Brit attempts of boarding these so they could check if they were carrying material for Britains enemy, France. Denmark had an armed neutrality position - i.e they wanted neutrality but didn't have the military power to enforce it. They tried by protecting their merchants from the Brits using warships. In 1806 a French force following Preussians into Denmark was beaten back in a small skirmish, upon which the French respected the Danish neutrality position.
The Brits wanted Denmark to hand over its navy so it could be used in offensive operations against France- Denmark wasn't too keen on it, trying to walk the fine line of balance of neutrality.
So the Brits invaded with a 30 000 strong force. Bad for Denmark since most of its armies were in the south beating off the French or rather protecting the border there. About 13 000 men, many volunteers and few regular soldiers, were besieged inside Copenhagen. In one decisive battle, the Danes tried to break free, but found themselves ill equipped for the job against a force superior in numbers and quality and the result was a blood bath. Copenhagen was also extensively bombared during the siege. The amphibious landing the Brits did was quite extraordinary and would require extensive planning even with modern technology,let alone the technology available at the time.
At any rate, the situation was now quite bad. The Danes had no option but to ask the French for help; at least they respected the Danish neutrality position. This alliance wasn't very popular with the Danes though. The Danes had succesfully invaded Sweden and gained considerable land masses, but were on the wrong side and when they tried to negotiate with the allies, the Brits were decidedly anti Danish and the Swedes made ridiculous demands, such as the handing over of Norway and that the Danish army would be placed under Swedish control.
In short, Denmark through a series of circumstances found itself in a very tight spot and had to "pick the loser" as an ally, so to speak :).
I find a very interesting thing to reflect on is this: during the last few hundred years, Denmark has spent over 140 years in war with Sweden. We're now good pals. There's been some fighting with the Brits, and for now, Denmark have cancelled their operations concerning and invasion of the Brit isles and the killing of all the pale ugly people there :D.
Peace is possible - even between countries that have fought wars for years and years. It can be done on the Balkans as well.
-
this oughta keep your panties bunched .... :)
I actually was present at an American Friends
of the BNP meeting outside Wash DC where Mr.
Irving participated in a teleconference prior to that "trial"..
:)
And he rationalizes things with very little evidence so if you suggesting I am a follower of his version of history your wrong..........
1) Britain tells Hitler to curb his expansionist plans in Europe.
yeah but really does nothing to see that he remains contained. Germany was militarily was weak but I can understand britians aversion to enter into another war...
2) He takes the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and Britain turns a blind eye since most of the population there is German anyway.
Partialy true but the majority of the population of the Sudetenland supported reunification with germany proper. Again british will to war was low.
3) He takes Czechoslovakia wholesale.
yes but was neccesary to create a buffer zone from the USSR especially since at that time it is probrable that hitler was in negotiations with Stalin over the non-aggression pact should germany be forced to defend prussia and secure a corridor from germany proper to prussia.
4) GB states catergorically that an invasion of Poland would not be tolerated and war would ensure.
yes but britain then really doesn't do anything to help poland and turns a blind eye to finland and the rest of eastern Europe.
5) Hitler invades Poland
on the pretext of defending germans from polish aggression. now you'll say that germans dressed like poles and faked the whole thing to justify invasion. I have read different things and quite possibly this is true but when britain declared war thus starting ww2 they had no way to determine whether germany may or may not have been justified in reacting in such a way that another nation would have. Again they ignored the Soviets all together.
I suspect that britain was relying more on france then their own military into keeping germany contained. but either way britain declares war....... fact :)
Now you're thinking thats how I came to the conclusion on britain starting a war with germany.........
well wrong......Read the theme thru all my replies ..
ww2 was inevitable given what happened at the end of ww1. The majority of which were instigated by GB. Plus many other things contained in The Versailles Treaty.
The Versailles Treaty (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html)
So my contention that britain started a war with germany is valid. Dont confuse that with how the war was waged.
I never said anything about "british aggresion". I said britain was weak and in decline not just in the historical sense that empires decline but in every sense from culture to very type of man being born there.
Trafalgar, Waterloo long time ago mate. I suspect a good amount of viking blood remained in the man of that time....... :)
unlike the brit of today ....... :)
But ignorance is your forte - and you do it so well.
maybe but its not wrapped in self-rightous dilusion....... :)
and if those movies you listed agree with my points maybe I oughta go see the them....... but I suspect the hollywood cookie cutters were used on each and I avoid those types of films as much as possible.......
have you seen Clockwork Orange more my style................ :)
maybe there is something redeeming in british modern culture but then that was 20+ some years ago........... :)
StSanta I'm not quite the flag wavering love or leave it type.
Most of what is happening in my country sickens me I was just pointing out to those on the foggy island the reality of their condition.........
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: Wotan ]
-
Yup, Santa that's about how much I know. I'm just interested in comparing how British schools teach history to Danish. I was never taught about Wellington, India etc etc. More the Aztecs, agricultural reform of Britain (yawn) - we were taught about the origins of WW1 and the main events and the rise of Hitler.
I think the British were pretty ruthless about the way they dealt with Denmark - the Danish fleet was a threat and it had to be eliminated before the French got hold of it. I don't think they would have devastated Copenhagen if the Danish fleet had sailed to British harbours for protection. But I can't see how the Danish would do that - its asking alot.
There's been some fighting with the Brits, and for now, Denmark have cancelled their operations concerning and invasion of the Brit isles and the killing of all the pale ugly people there
lol :D Nice one.
I actually was present at an American Friends
of the BNP meeting outside Wash DC where Mr.
Irving participated in a teleconference prior to that "trial"..
Present in what capacity? As a friend of neo-nazi racists or just as an observer? I don't know why you say "trial" - I think it was a fair outcome - like you say, his assertions lack any corroboration with the weight of historical records.
For anyone who doesn't know who the BNP (British National Party) are - they are a racist organisation populated by violent racists who have links with neo-Nazi groups such as Combat18. Up until very recently, they advocated the forceful repatriation of all ethnic minorities.
In relation to the initiation of WW2, you essentially agree with the points I made. I was stating facts - the true motivations for Britain declaring war at that point can debated endlessly. The upshot of it all is that it was a positive action againt a perverted regime - I believe that is the important thing.
As for the origins of WW2. Versailles is vital to the motivations of Hitler. But the support he found from the influential middle and upper classes only came after the Wall Street Crash bankrupted those social classes. Before the crash, he had no support - afterwards, his promises of glory, wealth and protection from the communists (especially important for the land/asset owning parts of German society) swung support from the moderates to himself in the elections in the early 30s.
I said britain was weak and in decline not just in the historical sense that empires decline but in every sense from culture to very type of man being born there.
Are you heavily involved in liasion with the BNP? Because that is exactly the kind of self-pitying, 'chip on the shoulder', pseudo-patriotic crap they spout.
It's overtly racist and I find it deeply offensive.
The ironic thing is, you allude to saying the same thing about the US. Unsurprisingly, every racist in every country is saying the exact same thing.