WW2

[silvertop]

Hyperbolic commentary is everywhere and within every group, left/right/centre.

Outside of projecting forward trends (which is done by sensible people in every field) the future is hard to predict other that unless serious change happens, that future won't be controlled by Europeans native to their countries.....Unless there is directional change the only question is when, not if.

If someone 40 years ago suggested that London would have an Islamic major and that Trafalgar Square would be the occasional meeting point for large crowds of Muslims praying.....No one would have believed it....apart from someone like Powell.

It is something I am alert to. Thus, I spoke to a mate the other day, and he reckons that, in a century, most people will be mixed race by some combination.

I suspect he is correct. Pure white European may be a minority. They come in numbers. They breed profusely. We inter-breed or do not breed in sufficient numbers. Not racism. Demography.

But that is not to say the culture will be dead. And what is that culture and values that you believe are threatened?

Firstly, that culture and those values are ever-evolving. Why do they need to be preserved in aspic?

Secondly, they are different from my youth and undoubtedly different to my parents. This is influenced by immigration but not determined by it. Only one factor and possibly a small one.

My grandparent's grandparents would have tut tutted and despaired at the loss of mid-Victorian values that had absolutely nothing to do with immigrants.

And the one factor people assume is that Muslims come over in one unified culture - they do not - and that they are fixed and absolutely rigid in their values - they are not. The image of the Caliphate seeking, bomb chucking Jihadi or rape/grooming immigrant fresh off the dingy covers a % that is statistically close to nothing.

Also, those concerned see the change all being one way. This undermines the fact that our culture and values present a more powerful influence on those coming in than you realise. Even the more "traditional" cultures who seem immune to change cannot resist the impact of the lives they see around them forever.

Thus, take your Sadiq Khan example. I have little doubt he is a believer. And obviously he is ideologically opposed to your views. However, has London come close to being an Islamic City State as a consequence of his policies?

The last words highlighted are important. The immigrants came and they largely gravitated towards the multicultural capital where they could settle easier. However, his "pro Islam" polices have been limited to community cohesion. That is, no different to the previous Tory incumbent.

Otherwise, Khan dresses in western clothing and is all but western in his manner and outlook. He is a trot, but no different a trot than Corbyn.

Islamic republics are like any other autocracy. They have to exist through despotism and their lives are consequently numbered. You can't keep the people down forever.

Accordingly, before an Islamic Republic of England can take root, those Muslims who would ordinarily have advocated it will, by then, no longer seek it. Even though they will be large in number, they will not be powerful by unity. Instead, most will have a greatly diluted observance of their faith than today; will wear our fashion; listen to our music; go the football; and perhaps inter-breed. They won't want an Islamic Republic with all its oppression. They would rather go down the pub and moan about the weather and the price of jam.

 

[Mark B]

Are you saying that c.13.5 million Soviets would have died anyway had Barbarossa not happened?

I would be interested to see your evidence on that.

When it comes to Soviet, just like China today, take every figure with a grain of salt because all of the numbers are fake, it just depends in which direction that the government wants to go. What I’m doing is simply breaking down how you get close to 13 million deaths without a German invasion.

• Government Executions: 1.5 million. The majority coming during the Great Terror of 37-38.
• Gulag Party: 1.5 million. 15-18 million go in, around 1.5. never come out.
• Famine: 5-7 million. What the nerds haven’t been able to figure out is whether this was deliberate or by incompetence, especially in cases like Ukraine in 1933.
• Forced Resettlements: No clue, estimates tend to go from hundreds of thousands into the millions. Millions of people just disappear as if they were never born and just didn’t exist.

Norman Naimark wrote a book Stalin’s Genocides. There is also a video of him presenting is thoughts. You just need to be careful with data online because the Ukrainians have been modifying sites like Wiki and youtube to present numbers and “facts” that lack documentation but drive home their perspective that Soviets/Russians are all evil.


And just for fun, when you do the analysis of whether the violent rise of Germany was inevitable post WW1, you start to get some answers that do not align with current Germany thinking that it was all the fault of the Nazis. If it wasn’t Hitler, someone else was eventually coming and they were likely going East.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You heard it here folks!

The same argument you have been hearing since this all started.

'It'll be alright in the night'....a variation on 'it'll all come out in the wash'.....the majority of new comers will end up with similar values to the British.

Zero on the fact that the native British ethnicity are going to be wiped out for some global grey mixed in. Zero on the outrage that would exist if this were being done by Europeans to non Europeans.

Basic standard leftist argumentation.

I was literally hearing this 'it's going to be fine' argument as a teenager. It was nonsense then and events have clearly shown what it is now.

Many of the fathers of all the raped grooming gang victims would have been teenagers at the same time.....the rapists all came from large communities that protected rather than told......As they do for the sexual abuse within their communities today. Many choosing to use their own Islamic court system rather than the British one. That isn't first generation, it's mostly second.....some integration and same values.

We were told there would be significant integration.....it was all lies.

Integration statistics in reality have been known for many generations....this isn't a new problem. Once a community is established it never goes beyond 1 in 3.

Old Silver may want to sell that as some kind of 'fine'......By I call it was it is and what the gentleman in the original video implies.

Betrayal.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

More like Terminator than we care to notice.

indeed

The phrase "killed for a can of peaches" most notably refers to a line of dialogue from the sci-fi action film Terminator: Dark Fate (2019). [1]

• The Movie Quote: In the film, the character Grace (played by Mackenzie Davis) describes her dark dystopian future, mentioning that her father was killed by a hungry mob for a can of peaches. [1, 2]
  • Real-Life and Historical Contexts: The phrase also appears in news reports or wartime folklore—such as accounts from WWII or the Vietnam War—where canned peaches were treated as a rare, high-value luxury item in harsh conditions (sometimes jokingly or grimly referred to as something soldiers or prisoners would "kill for")

 

[georgenorman]

Millions died during Stalin's long and brutal rule.

However, it is controversial to blame the second largest cause on him - famine. Perhaps agriculture would have been more robust without forced collectivisation? Perhaps not.

And undoubtedly he is to blame for many of the deaths suffered during the War. But half? Really? And as far as I am aware, it was definitely German panzers charging into the Soviet Union that started that campaign and not T34s charging the other way. Would most of those deaths during that period have happened without Barbarossa? I doubt it.

There would still have been deaths from gulags, forced resettlement, the post-war famine etc., but not even close to the scale of the tens of millions who died directly because of the Great Patriotic War.

He literally ordered that all grain be taken from Ukraine and left them to starve - he was a disgusting prime example of Left thinking and the Left rabble on here defend him.

 

[Mark B]

It is something I am alert to. Thus, I spoke to a mate the other day, and he reckons that, in a century, most people will be mixed race by some combination.

I suspect he is correct. Pure white European may be a minority. They come in numbers. They breed profusely. We inter-breed or do not breed in sufficient numbers. Not racism. Demography.

But that is not to say the culture will be dead. And what is that culture and values that you believe are threatened?

Firstly, that culture and those values are ever-evolving. Why do they need to be preserved in aspic?

Secondly, they are different from my youth and undoubtedly different to my parents. This is influenced by immigration but not determined by it. Only one factor and possibly a small one.

My grandparent's grandparents would have tut tutted and despaired at the loss of mid-Victorian values that had absolutely nothing to do with immigrants.

And the one factor people assume is that Muslims come over in one unified culture - they do not - and that they are fixed and absolutely rigid in their values - they are not. The image of the Caliphate seeking, bomb chucking Jihadi or rape/grooming immigrant fresh off the dingy covers a % that is statistically close to nothing.

Also, those concerned see the change all being one way. This undermines the fact that our culture and values present a more powerful influence on those coming in than you realise. Even the more "traditional" cultures who seem immune to change cannot resist the impact of the lives they see around them forever.

Thus, take your Sadiq Khan example. I have little doubt he is a believer. And obviously he is ideologically opposed to your views. However, has London come close to being an Islamic City State as a consequence of his policies?

The last words highlighted are important. The immigrants came and they largely gravitated towards the multicultural capital where they could settle easier. However, his "pro Islam" polices have been limited to community cohesion. That is, no different to the previous Tory incumbent.

Otherwise, Khan dresses in western clothing and is all but western in his manner and outlook. He is a trot, but no different a trot than Corbyn.

Islamic republics are like any other autocracy. They have to exist through despotism and their lives are consequently numbered. You can't keep the people down forever.

Accordingly, before an Islamic Republic of England can take root, those Muslims who would ordinarily have advocated it will, by then, no longer seek it. Even though they will be large in number, they will not be powerful by unity. Instead, most will have a greatly diluted observance of their faith than today; will wear our fashion; listen to our music; go the football; and perhaps inter-breed. They won't want an Islamic Republic with all its oppression. They would rather go down the pub and moan about the weather and the price of jam.

Most people in the west don't study Al-Andalus. None of what is going on is new, it has all been done before, just in different lands using different tools. The game switches, the goals do not.

How did the Muslims into Spain? Heavy taxation, political instability, and harsh persecution of the local populations left much the people unwilling to defend the kingdom. Unhappy people don't fight for what they don't like.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

He literally ordered that all grain be taken from Ukraine and left them to starve - he was a disgusting prime example of Left thinking and the Left rabble on here defend him.

Lefties always say "Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot & Fidel Castro were not true communists. A true communist utopia would be fantastic because blah blah blah......

to which i always reply........oh yeah , well then Hitler, General Pinochet & General Franco were not proper fascists......in a true Fascist society....blah blah blah..

It shuts up the Antifa types in double quick time

 

[silvertop]

You heard it here folks!

The same argument you have been hearing since this all started.

'It'll be alright in the night'....a variation on 'it'll all come out in the wash'.....the majority of new comers will end up with similar values to the British.

Zero on the fact that the native British ethnicity are going to be wiped out for some global grey mixed in. Zero on the outrage that would exist if this were being done by Europeans to non Europeans.

Basic standard leftist argumentation.

I was literally hearing this 'it's going to be fine' argument as a teenager. It was nonsense then and events have clearly shown what it is now.

Many of the fathers of all the raped grooming gang victims would have been teenagers at the same time.....the rapists all came from large communities that protected rather than told......As they do for the sexual abuse within their communities today. Many choosing to use their own Islamic court system rather than the British one. That isn't first generation, it's mostly second.....some integration and same values.

We were told there would be significant integration.....it was all lies.

Integration statistics in reality have been known for many generations....this isn't a new problem. Once a community is established it never goes beyond 1 in 3.

Old Silver may want to sell that as some kind of 'fine'......By I call it was it is and what the gentleman in the original video implies.

Betrayal.

Delete the para about the grooming gangs and the tired labeling of "lefty" and you make some good points.

As an aside I don't support unfettered immigration. We have slipped horribly in defending our borders and the resources and effort now are way after the horse has bolted. But we still need to up that game. However

It is not how you paint it.

 

[silvertop]

He literally ordered that all grain be taken from Ukraine and left them to starve - he was a disgusting prime example of Left thinking and the Left rabble on here defend him.

I believe Churchill did the same with the Bengal famine.

Which poster has defended him? A rudimentary view of my post shows that you would have to be a complete imbecile to think I was defending Stalin; and I am not a lefty.

So who are you referring to?

 

[Mark B]

I believe Churchill did the same with the Bengal famine.

Which poster has defended him? A rudimentary view of my post shows that you would have to be a complete imbecile to think I was defending Stalin; and I am not a lefty.

So who are you referring to?

I'll defend Churchill in this case.
- Japanese invasion cut off access to rice. It also causes the local government to grab anything that could be of value to Japan. This is where the big issue comes from, not from London.
- Cyclone and the follow on tsunami caused massive damage
- There was no food to send from England (food austerity from WW2 doesn't really there until the mid 50s.)
- Limited shipping capacity availability if there even had been food to send.

I think there is a difference between an event happening and not being able to do anything about it and purposefully causing the event for their own gain.

Now if you want to blame Winnie for the Black and Tans in Ireland, I've got nothing to support him on that one. Gallipoli as well, but that ends up being a very sore subject with Aussies (and Kiwis).

 

[georgenorman]

I believe Churchill did the same with the Bengal famine.

Which poster has defended him? A rudimentary view of my post shows that you would have to be a complete imbecile to think I was defending Stalin; and I am not a lefty.

So who are you referring to?

Utter nonsense, Churchill did no such thing, do you believe in fairies too? You are not a 'lefty' but you take a left stance of practically every issue - are you Wisbech in disguise?

 

[Stirlingsays]

Delete the para about the grooming gangs and the tired labeling of "lefty" and you make some good points.

As an aside I don't support unfettered immigration. We have slipped horribly in defending our borders and the resources and effort now are way after the horse has bolted. But we still need to up that game. However

It is not how you paint it.

The points you raised were essentially what has been pushed by the left.....and also enacted by the so called right....Willo's crowd....At least the left make it plain rather than lie about it in manifesto after manifesto like the Tories did.

While you made those points, whether you actually believe those arguments or think them a valid course of action of post war leaders I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on, as you have....criticised the wisdom of unfettered immigration.....carried out by left or right.....in truth what we can label as 'Blairism', which has dominated since it turned up.

Except even Blair has criticised the third world immigration that our top civil servants have eagerly directed ministers into.

What you want is an incoming government actually doing what it tells its base. The Tories continually complained about immigration numbers while in opposition and then did nothing when in power.....with Johnson utterly betraying most who voted leave. Why anyone would believe differently next time is beyond me.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I'll defend Churchill in this case.
- Japanese invasion cut off access to rice. It also causes the local government to grab anything that could be of value to Japan. This is where the big issue comes from, not from London.
- Cyclone and the follow on tsunami caused massive damage
- There was no food to send from England (food austerity from WW2 doesn't really there until the mid 50s.)
- Limited shipping capacity availability if there even had been food to send.

I think there is a difference between an event happening and not being able to do anything about it and purposefully causing the event for their own gain.

Now if you want to blame Winnie for the Black and Tans in Ireland, I've got nothing to support him on that one. Gallipoli as well, but that ends up being a very sore subject with Aussies (and Kiwis).

I tend to agree, the criticism of Churchill over India is usually from the anti white crowd and I don't view it as objective.

Britain improved India massively when you look at the metrics on population growth and life expectancy....the infrastructure and institutions we built alone, that is still in use today, improved India massively. The improvements made to India compared to how it was run previously (which wasn't even a cohesive country) meant that we were held to much higher standards and expectations....No one goes around complaining to the Mongols do they!
India was improved much more than the Romans ever did for us....To utilise a Python joke.

But as in most, if not all situations, where a foreign coloniser controls a country and improves it, eventually they are resented regardless.......It's natural law and expected.
Without murderous surpression all colonism ends this way and why the only successful foreign control is indirect and covert......but I'm getting spicy there.

On what Churchill can be blamed for......He wasn't a good military leader on campaigns as his record attests (wasn't a good chancellor either). But he was good at hiring good leaders....He knew who to promote and who to fire.

I would question the food blockade of Germany........the military were always going to come first, civilian population second and third were Germany's vast number of prisoners.....who basically had what's left, which for the slavs mostly meant death....but that's a dark and controversial area.

I understand why it was done, just as I understand why we used concentration camps to break the will of the Boer in 1901. However, once you know what it was always going to lead to.....it meant they had an excuse.

Then of course there is the deliberate bombing of civilian areas.

War is hell and when it's win at all costs, no one has clean hands.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Accordingly, before an Islamic Republic of England can take root, those Muslims who would ordinarily have advocated it will, by then, no longer seek it. Even though they will be large in number, they will not be powerful by unity. Instead, most will have a greatly diluted observance of their faith than today; will wear our fashion; listen to our music; go the football; and perhaps inter-breed.

what ? the muslim ladies with the Kuffir men ? i will believe it after the ONS publish the statistics, Eagle.

They won't want an Islamic Republic with all its oppression. They would rather go down the pub and moan about the weather and the price of jam.

in Turkey the pendulum swings between Secular and Islamic. You saying the UK will be similar ?

 

[Spindle]

Are you saying that c.13.5 million Soviets would have died anyway had Barbarossa not happened?

I would be interested to see your evidence on that.

He killed 20 million before 41 so yeah he had form

 

[Attilio1905]

Hitler was just a result of the rape of Germany after WW1 and the treaty of Versailles. If that didn't happen, the German people wouldn't have had any time for him at all.

But whatever the debating points, what is clear is that WW2 was an unmitigated catastrophe for Europe and it's peoples. It was just a massive act of self sabotage and the beginning of the end. In hindsight, it was a war that never should have been fought.
No more brother wars.

 

[Mark B]

Hitler was just a result of the rape of Germany after WW1 and the treaty of Versailles. If that didn't happen, the German people wouldn't have had any time for him at all.

But whatever the debating points, what is clear is that WW2 was an unmitigated catastrophe for Europe and it's peoples. It was just a massive act of self sabotage and the beginning of the end. In hindsight, it was a war that never should have been fought.
No more brother wars

I like to argue that there is no such thing as WW1 or WW2, you have a single world wide Great War that has a short intermission and a few sides switching teams.

Part II was always going to happen, too much was left unfinished, too much hatred and the stage was set to finish the war for good. In Europe, like Asia, neighbors have hated each other for centuries. And until there was a blood letting that both killed off the most aggressive while scaring those who remained, you were going to keep going.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Now if you want to blame Winnie for the Black and Tans in Ireland

I would prefer to blame Lloyd George for that crime. Eventually, Churchill worked with Michael Collins to establish North and South Ireland into two separate entities......at the time it seemed like a good idea. The mistakes were in the detail.

I reckon N.I. should have been only 3 counties and totally removed of all Catholic Nationalist Republican elements. And a similar tactic for the Republic....sending Billy North to bang his Lambeg drum in peace.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I like to argue that there is no such thing as WW1 or WW2, you have a single world wide Great War that has a short intermission and a few sides switching teams.

Part II was always going to happen, too much was left unfinished, too much hatred and the stage was set to finish the war for good. In Europe, like Asia, neighbors have hated each other for centuries. And until there was a blood letting that both killed off the most aggressive while scaring those who remained, you were going to keep going.

When you look into how Hitler rose from within the National Socialists, how he wasn’t the first choice as leader… how the likely leader was shot dead during the 1920s Putsch. I don’t personally go along with the ‘single world war with a gap was inevitable’ theory.

WW2 as a world war required Hitler, as it was his particular idea of aggressive expansionism — an expansionism beyond the former local satellites that Germany had lost in WW1. Other possible leaders who could have taken over were unlikely to have engaged in a European and world war. Their aims were more localised and national.

You needed Hitler for the catastrophic outcome that was WW2.

Hitler’s aims were very ambitious, and despite the German military being a highly disciplined and effective fighting force, those aims proved beyond its capacity. His idea that a country the size of Germany could beat the Soviets— a vast multi-nation with a vast population and, in Stalin, a leader even more ruthless — being aided by allied support, it ultimately proved a risk too far. Once Russia had industrialised, it was a different proposition from its past.

Hitler planned Barbarossa assuming a decisive campaign measured in weeks to a few months — not a prolonged struggle. He miscalculated, and Russia, while losing battle after battle, managed to inflict enough casualties to slow and hamper Germany until it was ripe for the taking. They could take the manpower losses while Germany couldn’t.....Both were willing to fight to the last human, but Stalin just had a lot more of them.