 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Queen Mother
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,CS Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:54 AM I'm sure many of you will have seen the headlines about the Queen performing a Nazi salute at the behest of her mother and uncle. It's obviously a nonsense to criticise the Queen - a young child - in this context. I'm quite curious however at the complete lack of reference to her mother in the film. Edward was - so I understand - a probable Nazi sympathiser, and the papers do make mention of this. But I wonder why no-one seems to be discussing his sister in law - then married to the King - in this film. After she's the one actually teaching her daughter the Nazi salute in these images. Does anyone know anything about the old lady or her possible political sympathies? Did she share Edward's admiration for HItler? She was for decades utterly adored and worshipped by the media and public alike. But it's almost as though she's invisible in these images so far as news commentary on them is concerned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Raggytash Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM Some of the public CS, some of the public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,CS Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:10 AM Note I'm not making any assumptions about this film, its meaning or anything and I'm not too interested in dissecting it. I'm curious about the Queen Mother and who she was (apart from being a hideous old snob by all accounts). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,CS Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM Just looking around on t'web and found this from the Independent on Sunday: http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Monckton.html "Experts assumed that the papers had been suppressed because they contained vitriolic remarks by the Queen Mother about the Duchess of Windsor. This, senior government sources have told the Independent on Sunday, is not the case. The reason that papers were withheld is potentially far more embarrassing: they spell out the true extent of the Queen Mother's pro-appeasement views on the brink of the Second World War. The papers, part of a collection of letters belonging to the first Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a close friend of Edward VIII, dwell on the relationship between the Queen Mother and the pro-appeasement foreign secretary Lord Halifax (left). The letters are said to show her hostility towards Churchill and her desire that the deeply unpopular Halifax be Prime Minister instead. The letters, which include private correspondence between the Queen Mother and Halifax himself, suggest the battle to preserve the monarchy was a concern which weighed above all others. As leader, Halifax was likely to have sued for peace with Hitler on the understanding that he allowed the monarchy to continue under a Nazi occupation." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,CS Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:21 AM http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/14/uk.queenmother In the spring of 1939 George VI instructed his private secretary to write to Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax. Having learnt that 'a number of Jewish refugees from different countries were surreptitiously getting into Palestine', the King was 'glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin.' Halifax's office telegraphed Britain's ambassador in Berlin asking him to encourage the German government 'to check the unauthorised emigration' of Jews. Cambridge University's library still holds correspondence between members of the royal household and Tory Minister Sir Samuel Hoare, a leading appeaser. Key documents remain 'unavailable'. In 2000 the Bodleian Library at Oxford University published papers lodged with it by the family of Lord Monckton, lawyer to the Prince of Wales. One cache, 'Box 24', was kept private. A civil servant briefed on the contents of Box 24 claimed it included evidence of the Queen Mother's pro-appeasement sympathies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:58 AM For Clapton's sake, does it really matter after all these years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:03 AM For Clapton's sake, does it really matter after all these years? Yeah - we might as well forgive and forget the people they were saluting while we're at it Waddya think? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:07 AM You can't do history backwards ! And you cannot draw conclusions from documents you have no read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:29 AM We are fully aware of the Royal families' friendship with Hitler. Our buddy Adolph Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: akenaton Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:39 AM Never forget time and place, Mussolini was adored by the "intelligentsia", a large part of British and American commerce saw Fascism as the only alternative to the spread of Communism in Europe. My old friend told me of pitched battles in the East End of London between Fascists and Communists public support was split pretty evenly between the factions. A different time a different place.....If we had been beaten history would have been written by the victors. If these people and their children had held up the "closed fist" a different crowd would be knocking on their coffins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:45 AM Par for the course. Why anyone should be surprised that this bunch of degenerate parasites behaves like this is beyond me. Why, it makes me feel almost slitty-eyed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Will Fly Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:01 AM Before we all start thumping our respective tubs from our own particular moral or historical viewpoint, it might be as well to remember that the object under scrutiny is a photograph of members of the then monarchy laughing and giving a Nazi salute. That evidence alone proves absolutely nothing about allegiances one way or the other. They may have been doing it with admiration - or they may have been doing it in derision - or they may just have been having a laugh. Trust the Sun to raise its readership to publish a photograph of a child doing such a thing stir a little shit and sell some more papers. I have no brief for the Royal Family, but I know that I don't really care what their affiliations and attitudes were back in the 1930s - and I certainly won't be contributing to any debate, one way or the other, by the amateur historians of Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:09 AM Nazi salutes were often given in derision. Early in WWii itself, I recall, there was a round dance to the distinguished songwriter [Red Sails In The Sunset, South of the Border &c &c &c] Jimmy Kennedy's satirical song, We're Going To Hang Up The Washing On The Siegfried Line, which involved goose-stepping in a circle giving a pretend Nazi salute. Putting a forefinger across the upper lip to represent a pretend moustache and exclaiming Heil Hitler while giving a pretend Nazi salute was a popular game among small children. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:15 AM "That evidence alone proves absolutely nothing about allegiances one way or the other." There's more than one photograph to base our opinions on - if the King hadn't married a divorcee, we would have had a monarch who admired and befriended Hitler. The nobility was riddled with fascists before and during the war; the Duke of Wellington helped set up a 'Government-in-waiting preparing for "Herr Hitler's victory" - on his deathbed, he was said to be still cursing "the Yids". All a long time ago, but my generation was brought up to respect, and even revere these people, and the family is still paraded in front of us as role models for our children Nowadays they are little more than window dressing, but it's still worth making sure the curtains are clean Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Will Fly Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:21 AM You're flogging a dead horse, Jim - there are many of us here old enough to be aware of the amount of pro-German and anti-German feeling in many areas of British society. It's not exactly new, or newsworthy for that matter. As for our children perceiving the monarchy as role models - in this day and age I somehow doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:24 AM In derision? Gosh. Talk about clutching at straws! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Raggytash Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:25 AM I'm not so sure Will. Apparently the outfit that was worn by George at the christening of his sister (don't know her name) flew off the shelves in the days afterwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Raggytash Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:32 AM Dave, fancy a bet on who turns out to be a monarchist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:47 AM Another of your gnomic responses, SS -- 0624 am. Once again I lack the privilege of the remotest idea of what you mean. But once again do not trouble to elucidate as I am sure it doesn't matter in the least. Ho-hum... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:05 AM "in this day and age I somehow doubt it." Probably could be right about the kids Will - it's the adults that continue to worry me. I was unfortunately put in a position of having to watch the (last) royal wedding (a guest in somebody else's home) - still getting over the waves of nausea at the sycophancy. Happily, one clip has become a regular feature in 'Have I Got More News For you' Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Stu Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:13 AM A load of rich Germans sticking up for a load of political Germans. Hardly any surprise there, surely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: akenaton Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:21 AM Completely agree with you on this one Will,....as they say on Mudcat, "time to move on".....after seventy years! ;0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: akenaton Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:26 AM Why don't our wonderful media start an "anti monarchy" campaign...now that would be a real move for "equality" I must be dreaming!! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other about the Royals. I think that film and photographs can easily be misunderstood with out all the information surrounding what is shown. Several newspapers and other sources report a claim by a lip reading expert that the film is just a typical piece of family footage and not what some people think it is. Make of it what you wish. This particular piece came from the Daily Mail,other papers echo it. "One of Britain's leading lip readers has cast doubt over a video claiming to show the Queen performing a Nazi salute, insisting that the seven-year-old princess was simply waving on the instruction of her father. Jessica Rees - who has worked with the National Crime Squad, The National Criminal Intelligence Service the Metropolitan Police and the FBI interpreting the spoken word - has insisted that Her Majesty is only raising her right arm to perform a playful royal wave. Having studied the footage in depth, forensic lip reader Ms Rees - who was born deaf - is adamant that the future Queen and her three-year-old sister, Princess Margaret, throw their arms in the air after being instructed by Prince Edward to 'give a wave' to a passing woman, who can't be seen in the grainy footage, released by The Sun last week." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166822/Was-Queen-just-WAVING-Lip-reading-expert-claims-Edward-VIII-encouraging-princess-gesture-shot-WASN-T-teaching-Nazi-salute.html#ixzz3gL2toUUz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM They would say that, wouldn't they? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Mooh Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM Sure, it is hard to read history backwards. I'm too young and not English, plus my veteran father rarely spoke of his wartime service in England and Europe, nasty stuff it was. But may I ask... Regardless of the royal attitude about Hitler in the '30s, isn't it inevitable that they would have swung around to become anti's sooner or later? Political interests swing a lot, usually in favour of self-preservation and once it was realized that Hitler wouldn't allow for the preservation of anything English, isn't it obvious that there would be no preservation of a crown with no country? Also, would not the resources of the royals be the easiest for Hitler to steal in finance his objectives? Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 19 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM I did say make what you will of it. What I also say is have you attempted to lip read the film yourself?, or is your answer based on a biased view of Royalty. Many people interpret the world according to their beliefs which may or may not be correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 19 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM No one would do a Nazi salute who didn't mean it, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM " isn't it inevitable that they would have swung around to become anti's sooner or later" No The Queen is married to a closet racist and one of the grand-brats struts his stuff in a Nazi uniform - which, at the very least, shows he is not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket. If they are going to stay where they are, they have to learn to do their job properly and show respect for the people who pay their wages, otherwise we might have to advertise the job (assuming that is still has relevance in the 21st century, of course) - plenty of people out there looking for work The attitude of Royalty, the politicians and the establishment in general, to the appeasement of rising Nazism is a subject very much brushed under the carpet and not talked about - no harm in taking a close-up look now and again. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM "They would say that, wouldn't they? Jim Carroll" .,,. So would you, Jim -- wouldn't you? Cheers ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 11:57 AM Sorry for apparent repetition: thought first posting didn't take so resubmitted in slightly changed form from memory |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 19 Jul 15 - 12:23 PM saxe -coburg-gotha? i had heard this name before but assumed it must have been changed long ago. however, i just read that it was only changed after the first world war. surely there must have been plenty of anti-monarchy sentiment around when they weren't even british? how popular was the young elizabeth even before she married the greek guy with even more names? obviously, they have had great PR over the years and we are a particularly supine and conservative nation but.....it's ridiculous isn't it? the whole concept of a monarchy surviving to have so much power and influence in the modern era. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 12:35 PM I'm considerably less worried about the power the royal family have (which is very little) than I am about the power held by the toffs of the Conservative party, in particular the arch-criminals Cameron, Osborne and Duncan-Smith, and their continuing abuse of that power. Instead of getting knickers knotted about something that the royals did 80 years ago, and which affects us not one jot today, why not concentrate on the repeated rape of the common man and woman being perpetrated by those actually in charge of the country right now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM "So would you, Jim -- wouldn't you?" I've dot the evidence of the Sunday Times photo (front page), with two very straight raised arms anfd two very flat palms to go on - what've they/you got to offer? Don't suppose the Royals got much passing traffic to practice waving to. But after all, they were keeping up a family tradition Gi' us a break Mike!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 19 Jul 15 - 12:56 PM i spend a good part of every day concerning myself with the crimes of the conservatives/1%/ruling elite - this monarchy name thing is to me just an interesting offshoot. however, i can't agree that they have no power today - most significantly in representing a class based system that induces a stupor among people - and all sorts of 'know your place' patriotic, military, estalishment - loving nonsense that leads so many to accept their place as subjects in a deferential and snobbish society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:05 PM You have a point, Achmelvich. However, I'd venture to suggest that it's not simply the existence of a royal as Head of State that's at the root of the stuff you complain about - there is a far stronger 'patriotic, military, establishment-loving nonsense' in the US, which has a federal-based system and an elected Head of State, than there is in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:07 PM Well, achmelmevitch, hope you enjoy your good-part-of-every day lucubrations of despair at how most other members of this democracy in which you find yourself living happen to have different ideas from yours about how they choose to be governed. But, there, that's the trouble about living in a democracy, innit? If the ones elected don't suit your rarefied ideas, you just have to swallow the fact & live with it, mate. Or else go somewhere where they might have a system you might prefer. If you can find any such... Now, back to my stupor of not realising how grievously oppressed I am being by this 1% you perceive. 1% of what, precisely, BTW? And how did they get into this iniquitous position of elite ruling the other 99%? Just asking... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:13 PM Did you bother to actually read what the lip reader said? Did you lip read the film yourself? Have you seen the film,or is your opinion based on a preconceived view of the Royals/,which in your opinion is confirmed by your interpretation of the photo Dismissing the lip reader's reading in the manner you do smacks of the idea that the Royals must be guilty because they are who they are why waste time on a trial. The lady's work is used by law enforcement agencies so they believe in her interpretation sufficiently to use it in criminal cases. Most people would give her opinion serious consideration at least, not dismiss it out of hand as you seem to. All I'm saying is the Royals deserve the same fair trial as anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:27 PM Michael, the present government were elected by 25% of the votes cast in the election. That hardly represents 'most other members of this democracy' does it - even one as brainwashed by Tory propaganda and deceit as you appear to be must surely be able to understand the significance of that statistic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM I'm not a monarchist but I find the they're not British argument a tad silly. On the maternal side the Liz is from a Scottish aristo family heavily mixed with English aristos. On the paternal side yes she has a lot of foreigners in the family tree but the royal line as such can be traced back nigh on 1000 years or so in Scotland and I dare say England too with in all that time only about three generations not being born in Britain. Sophia of Hanover and her son and grandson! But even at that both Sophia and George I would theoretically have qualified to play at rugby for Scotland as Sophia's mother was the Scottish born Princess Elizabeth Stuart sister of Charles I. The name thing is daft too. If someone has a German name because their British mother married a German then they are no more or less British than someone who has a British name because their German mother married a Brit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:41 PM BWM -- You know as well as I do that we have a constituency system, which precludes the actual %age of votes cast for any specific party being relevant: it means that the # of members representing parties in Parliament is what counts. A referendum of one-voter-one-vote recently approved of continuing this system and decisively rejected the adoption of any alternative system whereby actual %age of votes would determine the ruling assembly. You know this perfectly well, so stop being disingenuous. No system is perfect; but the present one is the one which has recently been democratically approved by a considerable majority of the electorate. So, like I said:- Live with it. Or try elsewhere where they might have a system which better conforms to your notions: if you can find one. Regards azzevva ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 01:43 PM I am proud to say that my family brought me up to be anti monrchist, when everyone else stood up in cinemas when the national anthem was played we had to sit down,it was great fun. Funnily enough my father who was a member of the communist party, used to say that he thought the queen mother was one of the best of the monarchy, that during the second world war she went around the east end of london,shortly after it had been bombed trying to raise morale. however, he also thought ray buckton leader of ASLEF was a good left winger, this was ray buckton who under the fifty year rule, was reporting back to mi5 during the 1973 miners strike on trade union meetings, an informer. it is easy sometimes to be misled by people at the time. there were a lot of things wrong with Churchill, but he was one of only a few who were not fascist appeasers, Iam inclined to agree with Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:09 PM Backwoodsman surely has more than two options? Yes he could just live with the electoral system. Yes he could leave and go elsewhere. But surely another option is to keep arguing his case and hope for another referendum or vote on the issue at some point? You can't tell people just to shut up and sit at the back of the bus! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM "of this democracy in which you find yourself living happen to have different ideas from yours about how they choose to be governed. " Did I miss a referendum on the monarch? - damn!! "Did you bother to actually read what the lip reader said?"' Yes I did - are you aware that the establishent can always find "an expert" to dig them out of trouble when necessary? It's called "damage limitation". This family comes with a track record. Why should good old Uncle Eddie seriously teach the Nazi salute? Bit of a mystery really!! Mystery solved Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:15 PM I think the next Scottish election could well show how ridiculous a first past the post system could potentially be. Commentators are suggesting that it is possible that the SNP may well win every single constituency seat. If it was FPTP then that would leave them with every single member of the Scottish Parliament. This would clearly be absurd as about 50% of Scots say they will vote for someone other than SNP. The Scottish system is far from perfect but it means that the parliament will actually end up much more balanced than that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:31 PM I stand by what I said, Michael, the current government is in power on the basis of the votes of a small minority of those who participated in the election - not 'most other members of this democracy' as you claimed. Of course I understand the mechanics of our electoral system. I also understand it is seriously flawed, when a party elected by 25% of votes cast is able to claim a majority, and thus take power - which means that the wishes of the other 75% are not taken into account. I find it even more galling when said party conducted a campaign of fear-mongering,, and actively avoided announcing and discussing its policies (they knew very well that, had they announced, before the election, the vile abuses they would inflict on the poor and disadvantaged, whilst seeking to grandly benefit the well-off, including themselves and their cronies, the chances of their winning the election would take a nose-dive). And you, too, are being disingenuous regarding the rejection of a PR system in the 2011 referendum - both the Conservative and Labour Parties conducted campaigns of spreading doubt and fear of a new system because they were fully aware that PR would result in both losing their guaranteed stranglehold on government, and their guaranteed places as the two largest parties in parliament - they campaigned for what is best for their own political careers, with little or no regard for what is best for the people of the United Kingdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:41 PM The image in question was I think from 1933. Kristallnacht was not until November 1938. We look at 1933 through the glasses of 2015, but in 1933 he was perhaps a bit uncouth, but within the bounds of political normality. The Queen Mother however was a nasty old snob with very expensive taste in wine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:41 PM And I'm not a Royalist either. But, on balance, I prefer a member of what we know as 'The Royal Family' as Head of State, rather than an elected career-politician, on the basis that the Queen or King is considerably less dangerous to the welfare of the nation than a President. Camermoron and his dreadful cronies are destroying the lives of the poor and disadvantaged as things are - imagine the damage they could do if it was President Camermoron. I'd slit my wrists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM not 'most other members of this democracy' as you claimed. .,,. Those quote marks imply that I used these precise words. Where, BWM? I didn't; not in any context whatever. They don't even represent a concept that would have fitted into any part of any postulation of mine. If you're going to argue with me, then argue with what I wrote, intelligently read by yourself; and not with something you vaguely remember, without checking, that I might have written. Otherwise continue communing with yourself... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM ...And whatever the reasons that you claim the referendum rejected any form of PR, the fact is that it did; by democratic one=person-one-vote choice of the entire electorate; who, according to you, must therefore be a load of sheep who vote at the combined bidding of party leaders protecting their own interests. Fine conception you have of democracy; it seems to be Vote As I Do Or It Shouldn't Count. Don't wish to appear rude; but I'm beginning to suspect that, when it comes to understanding what democracy is, you are just not right bright. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:45 PM Oh, yes, sorry: I did use that phrase in another post a bit further back. Apologies. My other point remains, however... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:55 PM EDWARD VIII was a nazi sympathiser that is crystal clear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 19 Jul 15 - 03:56 PM I'm so glad to see sutch a nice 2 sided debate as usual!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:22 PM No need to be rude, Michael, you know little, if anything, about me, so your attempts at provocation are completely meaningless and ineffectual, AFAIC. FYI, I was very well-educated, both academically and professionally, and I understand democracy perfectly well, but I also am sufficiently well-educated and intelligent enough to know that politicians are well-versed in how to press the right buttons to persuade elements of the electorate to vote the way they wish them to vote - frequently nothing to do with reason and information, but rather emotion and mis-, dare I even say dis-, information. Witness the kind of tactic used so frequently by the mouthpiece of the Tory party, The Daily Mail, in which they seek to sow seeds of discontent over e.g., immigration (scrounges, job-stealers, etc.) or Muslims (terrorists, child-abusers, yadda, yadda), the Labour Party (caused a world-wide financial crash, blah-blah-blah) by, at best, distortions of the truth and, at worst, bare-faced lies. You, too, know this perfectly well, but it suits your purpose in this exchange to pretend otherwise. Disingenuousness personified, sir. On this basis, I see little purpose in engaging with you further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:44 PM Agreed. Sincerely hope it keeps fine for you in the backwoods. Adieu... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:49 PM Likewise, I'm sure... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:01 PM Michael, on this occasion i reckon backwoodsman has hit the nail on the head, he is extremely right bright, and for your info one of my great grand fathers was chancellor of the exchequer in Disraelis government, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and one of my cousins is Nicholas Hicks Beach, both of these characters were and are very good in making sure that in the first case the wealthy kept their dosh to the detriment of the majority of the enslaved people and in the second case they are fed a diet of sensation sex and scandal, Nicholas Hicks Beach being or having been a writer for eastenders, religion used to be the opium of the people,now its eastenders coronation street and the royal family, this same royal family of which one of their menmbers EDWARD V111 appears to have been an admirer of hitler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Richard Bridge Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:12 PM Having to agree with a fair bit of what Primitive Tribesman says here. Even if in the past he has come across as a bit of a Blairite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:25 PM How long before you realise ALL political parties are liars |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 19 Jul 15 - 06:41 PM Jim, That's the trouble with experts they are only right when they agree with you,rubbish otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:02 PM Don't let Michael get to you, Backwoodsman. He's yesterday's man personified, lacking only a good nurse. Here's the thing about the royals, stuff you need to consider before you decide whether or not they're good eggs. First, they are at the very top of the pyramid of privilege. Second, they all live in very grand houses yet they do not know the meaning of the word "mortgage". Third, not a single one of them ever does an honest day's work. Oh yes, they get carted off in the most luxurious style possible, all at the taxpayers' expense, to foreign climes, where they wave unenthusiastically and condescendingly to "the natives", who were persuaded to buy cheap union jacks to wave back at them so that we can see on the news on the telly how "popular" the royals are. Fourth, Prince Charles is, by any standard you wish to apply, just about the biggest moronic buffoon in the nation. Yet he will most likely be our next "king". I mean, Jesus. Have we forgotten who he was shagging on his stag night fer chrissake? Not Diana, that's for sure! Finally, have you considered that, in order to visit their houses or lands, which were stolen from the people, you have to pay money? Money with her bloody face on it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Jul 15 - 07:37 PM "That's the trouble with experts they are only right when they agree with you,rubbish" ]You have any arguments with what I say, feel free to put me right Calling it rubbish proves nothing. The Royal's family history is a matter of - well, history really. The salutes were salutes, not waves - look at the photographs. Uncle Ted and his lady were mates of Hitler. What's rubbish about that, or will calling it rubbish make it go away? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:26 AM My lovely and much younger than me wife looks after aged* and obsolete me a treat -- why, here she comes right now [0615] to bring me my daily brekkie of crumpets and marmalade and tea. If there's one thing I do not lack it's a good nurse-equivalent. So keep your crass and jejune animadversions for someone who might appreciate them, my dear little infants. Play your games **without any further assistance** from your elder-and-better! And hope it keeps fine for you... ≈M≈ *83-&-counting **No promises, mind! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Musket and his tuppence worth Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:31 AM Fascinating debate. Some polarised views, some surprisingly reasonable either way. In any event, the tabloid newspaper in question seems to have achieved what it set out to, judging by how some on here have extended the debate beyond a reflection of social attitudes in 1933. Bridge is unfortunately on the button by pointing out attitudes to the Nazis in that year. They had more in common with UKIP than Genghis Khan at that time in how newspapers reported life in Germany and Ribbentropp & co were fawning landed gentry by offering an alternative vision to communism. On balance, I'm not sure this photo does anything to alter my opinions, as they are, on the role of a constitutional monarchy as a tool of democracy. If The Queen Mother sympathised at that time, she certainly changed her attitude come the war, refusing to go to Canada for safety and touring bomb sites, trying in the only way royalty know, to kept spirits up. That in itself was a first for royalty. Mind you Bridge, I have a nose for expensive wine myself but rather than set me off goose stepping or one of Michael's dances, I tend to sit giggling and farting after too much. Far more sociable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:31 AM The past is another country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:51 AM If The Queen Mother sympathised at that time, she certainly changed her attitude come the war, refusing to go to Canada for safety and touring bomb sites, trying in the only way royalty know, to kept spirits up .,,. Indeed so. I had personal experience of this, as she & her husband, George VI, came to inspect the damage at my N London school, Garden Suburb, in 1940 when it was bombed out -- I experienced every child's dream of a few weeks with no school as a result! I have told here before the story of the big girl [ie about 12 when I was 8] who ran up behind the king & slapped him hard between the shoulders, tearfully explaining, when asked not-too-gently by the headmaster & the Mayor of Hendon what-the-hell she thought she was about, that "I only wanted to be able to tell people I'd touched the King!" That's how much security royalty needed in those days! Another thing I recall is a woman just behind me calling out "Good luck" as they walked by, and the king unhesitatingly turning towards her and saying "Thank you" most politely. I am not a royalist exactly -- more an if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it-ist. But they had, & have, their virtues you know. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:10 AM Edward was definitely a nazi sympathiser. The Queen Mother seems to have rallied against the nazis when the war started. I find it a bit difficult to assess that photo, I reckon Edward was definitely trying to influence the children, perhaps The Queen Mother was keeping options open or perhaps she was casually trying to make light of the situation. it is all speculation apart from the fact Edward was a nazi sympathiser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:15 AM Jim, You missed a bit when you pasted my comment. "That's the trouble with experts they are only right when they agree with you,rubbish otherwise." Changes the meaning completely when you include the last word. You are dismissing an expert because her opinion disagrees with yours as to what was said by the persons in the film. Since your lip reading skills are superior to hers,tell us what is really being said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:15 AM on further reflection, I think the Quen Mother was keeping her options open ,she was allowing Edward to influence the children. but when the war came she had no alternative but to back churchill, which she then did whole heartedly, I come to that conclusion after seeing Jims posts about her prefernce for the appeasers rather than churchill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:22 AM I agree with GSS who posted while I was writing. I don't think anybody including myself disagrees that Edward was a Nazi sympathiser, what the rest of the family thought is speculation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:26 AM I only agree with GSS first post,less convinced about the second post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:52 AM Every country had Nazi sympathisers, including Ireland and USA. The difference was that Britain and its Empire was prepared to confront and make a stand against them, even though still reeling and destitute from the previous war, and with every family still mourning someone who did not return from it. Are you not grateful for that Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:06 AM There is no reasonable doubt that the then Queen Consort had been fiercely anti-German since 1914, much more so than her husband's family. She kept using the H word until her death. However, this does not mean that she was pro democracy (- particularly abroad -); Hitler may have appeared as an improvement. Such feelings were widespread, also in France and in the USA (John F. Kennedy). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:10 AM Oswald Mosley was interned during the war as was Richard Reynell Bellamy and most of the other blackshirts, it seems like other nazi sympathisers like Edward viii were more privileged. I am sure Jim is and I recall that jim said some of his relatives fought in the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Mr Red Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:11 AM according to sources I read, Edward went to Germany as a smoke-screen/fact finding mission. If you wanted to find out what was going on, would you make negative noises about a popular leader and go there? Or would you try subterfuge, and send a person who looked like he was ready to be your puppet? In the world of politics, not to mention international politics, let alone dictators! Nothing is as it seems on the surface. Hands up all those in favour of a puppet! I'll get my yashmak.......... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM "Are you not grateful for that Jim?" Grateful for what exactly? Every country did not have national leaders who were Nazi sympathisers - if they had, the outcome of the war would have gone very differently. The British establishment sat on its hands and watched Nazi Germany rise to power, while maintaining friendly relations with their leaders. Not only did they do nothing to halt the rise of fascism in Europe, they criminialised those who did by going off to fight in Spain - Nazi Germany was able to try out its newly reconstructed Luftwaffe on the people of Guernica. While Germany made its way into Poland and Czechoslovakia, still nothing - " peace in our time" right up to the point when there was no alternative. It was the people of Britain who made the supreme sacrifice, not those who only stood and waited - and waited - and waited. As news leaked out about the holocaust, members of the British society were preparing an alternative Government to welcome "Herr Hitler's victory - politicians were overheard describing the rumours of the gas chambers as "the lies of whingeing Yids". Who an I grateful to - not these people, but the ones who went out and fought and sacrificed their lives - members of my family included. "You are dismissing an expert because her opinion disagrees with yours" I certainly am not - I am questioning how genuine or complete that report was - the establishment always conveniently manages find an expert in times of trouble. Even her report has huge hole in it and admissions that not all could be read What exactly is your point - wasn't the feller teaching the girl to salute a Nazi sympathiser - did we get him all wrong - did those straight arms and flat palms look like a wave to you??? Personally, I do not believe the whole of the Royal Family to be Nazi sympathisers (somme certainly where) - I don't know what or even if they think politically. Given the times that the film was made and the fact that it was made and preserved, I find their behaviour distasteful - another nail in the coffin of Royalty, as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe educated idiots should have any place in the running of any country Jim carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:47 AM Jim Carroll is having the vapours it seems!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:08 AM While Germany made its way into Poland and Czechoslovakia, still nothing When Germany (and Russia) invaded Poland, Britain gave them an ultimatum to withdraw or war would be declared. Just as Britain did over the invasion of Belgium in 1914. Britain did not have to do that, and many voices were raised against. Britain was still reeling and destitute from the previous war, and with every family still mourning someone who did not return from it. they criminialised those who did by going off to fight in Spain Not true. Thousands went from Britain to fight the fascists and they were not "criminalised." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:11 AM Au contraire, it was the best post in the thread so far. A careful response to several somewhat half-baked and ill-considered points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:13 AM I was responding to the inane accusation there that Jim was "having the vapours". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:15 AM The establishment always finds an expert to support them. Of course they do,just as their opponents do to support them. It is up to you which you believe. You do that by studying both and deciding which is the most plausible. You should try not to let your prejudices colour the matter. What is my point? I am questioning whether or not your argument is balanced or biased. My personal take on the whole thing is the Nazi issue was resolved 70 years ago in our favour,there are more pressing problems to be dealt with today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:17 AM International Brigade Memorial Trust, "They arrived back in Victoria Station on the evening of the 7 December 1938 where they were met by a huge crowd to welcome them back home, including amongst others, a number of senior members of the British labour movement, including Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour Party. For many of the veterans of the International Brigades, the struggle against fascism would continue. Many (where they were accepted) fought in the Second World War and many joined the International Brigade Association, which continued to press for a return to democracy in Spain." http://www.international-brigades.org.uk/content/returning-home |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:21 AM A careful response to several somewhat half-baked and ill-considered points. I just showed that some of that" "careful response" was bollocks, and much of the rest of it was too. How was Britain supposed to stop the rise of Fascism in Germany and Italy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:31 AM Jim, I must admit that the International Brigades returnees to Britain were not criminalised. They were not always treated well elsewhere. But this country did sit on its hands during the rise of fascism, Keith. We were ill-prepared for war in 1939 and there was the infamous attempt at appeasement. The mistreatment of Jews was well known well before the war started. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Mr Red Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:46 AM We are in danger of invoking Godwinson's Rule - given the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:50 AM What could Britain do t prevent the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy? Did any country in the world do more than Britain? No, so that is not a fair criticism. We were ill-prepared for war in 1939 Yes we were, and even more so at the time of Munich, because the Left persuaded us to disarm. But still we made a stand in 1939, and in 1940 stood alone against them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 06:54 AM Mr Red, Did you mean Godwin's Law? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:11 AM "Britain was still reeling and destitute from the previous war, " Britain was in a position to prevent German re-armament and to help prevent the rise of fascism - instead, it looked upon Germany as "the bulwark against Bolshevism" " Indeed, it was the sort of thinking which fits with Britain's WWI Prime Minister, Lloyd George's statement to the House the following year: "...in a very short time, perhaps in a year, perhaps in two, the conservative elements in this country will be looking to Germany as the bulwark against Communism in Europe........Do not let us be in a hurry to condemn Germany. We shall be welcoming Germany as our friend." (Commons, Nov,28, 1934" "Thousands went from Britain to fight the fascists and they were not "criminalised."" And thousands were. My father returned from Spain, having been wounded and imprisoned, to find that he had received an MI5 record as "a premature anti-fascist" He was an ordinary volunteer not an activist, not an officer - just an ordinary foot soldier whose only political activities had been confined to the demonstrations against Mosely's Blackshirts. When he applied for work, he found he had been blacklisted on the instructions of a security agent who had visited his former employer. When he applied for work, he found that his name had been circulated among potential employers in the area. He ended up becoming a navvy - we saw little of him until he finally left the road - I was 9, my sister was 6. "You do that by studying both and deciding which is the most plausible." It appears that is what is happening in the press - the English Times, this morning reports the film as showing an "apparent Nazi salute" - there is no mention of a lip-reader nor any suggestion of another interpretation. Even the right wing press - The Sun, the Mirror and the Telegraph, are treating the suggestion as inconclusive. "Jim Carroll is having the vapours it seems!!!" Bozo no Brain is apparently choosing to snipe from the undergrowth. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:21 AM If the Queen does another Nazi Salute let me know about it. Until then...she was 7 and it didn't even have it's eventual context. Not news. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM "Even the right wing press - The Sun, the Mirror and the Telegraph, are treating the suggestion as inconclusive." "Inconclusive" sums up the matter quite well I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:45 AM "Inconclusive" sums up the matter quite well I think." By the right wing press it does - the rest seems to be ignoring it. So it's really down to the evidence of the film and the past record of Eddie the Nazi-lover - and common sense of course. You will have to decide from your own particular stance - I've said where I stand, and why Your turn. By the way - Britain and 13 other Western countries were so strapped for cash after W.W.1. that they were able to send troops and men into Russia in 1922 to help The Whites crush the new Soviet Government. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:46 AM The queen was seven at the time? Aristotle said give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM The Daily Mirror 'right wing'? Don't think so, Derrick! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:56 AM ==I don't believe educated idiots should have any place in the running of any country Jim carroll== ,.., "Vapours" or not? -- debatable. But it is an established fact that, to Jim, 'educated' is a term of abuse. He has used it hostilely of me on more than on occasion; and even, IIRC, withdrawn it apologetically once or twice. What that says of his mindset, might be matter for some contemplation. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM One man's educated idiot is another man's genius. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:18 AM Jim, they were not "criminalised" and I doubt that MI5 really was responsible for your dad's employment problems. It is true that MI5 monitored those who went. Many were communists and believing in revolution they posed a threat to our democracy just like the fascists. Remember that from 1939 to 1941 British communists were in league with Hitler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:19 AM "While Germany made its way into Poland and Czechoslovakia, still nothing - " peace in our time" right up to the point when there was no alternative." Fair dos re the earlier appeasement policy but it is simply not true to say that Britain did nothing about the German invasion of Poland though! Both Britain and France had sworn to assist Poland. Germany invaded on the 1st Sept and received an ultimatum from Britain to withdraw. When that was ignored Britain declared war on Germany on the 3rd Sept as did France as well as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. They may not have had the ability to evict the Germans from Poland but they went to war over the issue which is pretty major! Certainly compared with the actions of others! The Soviets themselves invaded Poland and only made war on the Germans when they themselves were attacked! The US sat on their hands militarily and only actively joined the war against Germany when Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbour. I think we have to keep the knocking Britain's lack of action thing in persepctive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM they were able to send troops and men into Russia in 1922 to help The Whites crush the new Soviet Government. No. They were only there from 1918 until 1920. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM Allied Intervention |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:37 AM Third, not a single one of them ever does an honest day's work. I am not a roylist, but it does look as if No. 2 in line for the top job is, some of the time, doing what would be regarded as an honest days work if done by someone else. Not bad for someone who does not need the dosh. I suspect the royals know that it will only take one unpopular monarch for a majority of their subjects to want to vote them out. The celebrity card may not be enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:46 AM Backwoodsman, The line containing The Daily Mirror was pasted from an earlier Jim Carroll post,I confess that anomaly eluded me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:07 AM "They were only there from 1918 until 1920. What's the difference - they could afford to commit money ammunition and troops to support the anti-government forces. They allowed the re-armament of Germany - it was an open secret that this was happening and it accelerated when the Nazis came to power "Jim, they were not "criminalised" " They were given a record and prevented from working - treated as criminals, in other words For the religious minded among you, many of them, my father among them, were excommunicated from their churches. "Many were communists and believing in revolution they posed a threat to our democracy just like the fascists." Being a communist in this period (as now) was perfectly legal - in fact there were a number of Communist MPs The fact that the State could act against a legally operating political party, or in my fathers case, somebody who held left wing, anti-facist views, underlines the point of how close that administration was to fascism. "Remember that from 1939 to 1941 British communists were in league with Hitler." No they were not - they signed a treaty on non- aggression - Russia, following the revolution and the civil war, were in no position to do anything else. They built up their armaments and openly declared opposition to the rise of fascism in Germany (more than Britain did). In fact, one of Stalin's accusations against his opponents (Trotsky included) was that they were Nazi agents. They bore the brunt of Germany's attack and lost more people than any other nation 20 million people Time to call in a "real historian" methinks. Fair point Allan - my mistake " 'educated' is a term of abuse" Beneath even you Mike - I value and respect education and envy those who were able to move on to higher education, but an educated ape is still an ape. "The Daily Mirror 'right wing'?" Yup, 'fraid so - used to be vaguely left back in the day when comedy was funny - but the Goons and Hancock are all dead and Monty Paython retired (or should have, when he was winning). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:12 AM Thanks Derrick, hadn't noticed that! 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:21 AM Jim, in the election in May 2015, the Daily Mirror's main endorsement, was the Labour Party, with the Lib-Dems as its secondary endorsement. Hardly right-wing as I understand the term! Newspapers and the parties they endorsed during the 2015 General Election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:21 AM My stance Jim, Edward was guilty as charged,we have known about his sympathies for many years. The rest of the family,I really don't know. Their actions in later years didn't show any sympathies,what their private thoughts were I have no idea, just as I don't know what your thoughts are unless you tell me. Photographs and films are open to speculation,we only see what the lens allows us to see,we have no idea what is going on out of shot. Are they really giving Nazi salutes,or waving to someone off camera as claimed? Was the lip readers report correct or not? Would someone else have lip read read the film differently? "Inconclusive" remains my opinion,I don't see any thing to make a firm decision either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM "Being a communist in this period (as now) was perfectly legal - in fact there were a number of Communist MPs" .,,. Fact, Jim -- no, there was just one, Willie Gallacher; joined postwar by Phil Piratin. IIRC these were the only two Communist MPs ever in the British parliament. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:58 AM Crikey MGM - when were you at Garden Suburb School? I was there around 1953-55. The headmaster was Mr Keefe, and I remember Miss Brown and a very good teacher for handicraft, I forget his name. I also remember weekly visits to an indoor swimming pool neat Swiss Cottage, and the Jewish and Christian children having separate scripture lessons! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM " no, there was just one," There were several Labor/Communist alliance MPs and a number of councillors - beside the point. I was responding to Keith's reds-under-the- bed excuse for Britain's attitude to Spanish Civil War veterans. The Communist Party was not only legal, its policy was far from revolutionary - it never advocated revolution, rather it adoped a parliamentary policy, which made the action taken towards it undemocratic - nothing new there. Those who fought in Spain were a mish-mash of different beliefs - and none idealists, liberals, Marxist, Anarchist.... The uniting factor was that Spain had been taken over by a Fascist dictator supported by Nazi Germany - worth fighting for. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 10:52 AM "The rest of the family,I really don't know." Me neither. "Are they really giving Nazi salutes" It would appear so, and considering the company they were in, there is o reason to believe they weren't Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way blaming the kids fro what is happening, but quiet honestly, it looks like a Nazi salute to me, and to most other people. They seem far more interested in finding how the film was leaked at the present time - it will bbe interesting to see how they respond to THIS - might be a way of clearing it all up. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 10:52 AM Bonzo -- You can tell from the fact that it was bombed out while I was there; so obviously 1940, during the Blitz. We left London for Stony Stratford, Bedford & Northampton soon after, but came back in 1943. So my brilliant family left London just as the Blitz died down, & came back just in time for the flying bombs & V2 rockets, one of which destroyed the Prince Albert pub in Golders Green Rd ¼-mile from our house in Garrick Avenue & blew a couple of our windows out. I was at Hendon County School 1943-50. Which was your secondary school, as you came from same bit of London as me? You are obviously 12 or 13 years younger than me, so must be about 70-ish -- I'm 83. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Bonzo3legs Date: 20 Jul 15 - 11:17 AM My Dad went to Hendon County School (The County School in Golders Rise?) and I have a testamonial letter dated 18/06/42 from the Headmaster EW Maynard Potts at the time he left! Somehow I got into Queen Elizabeth's Boys Grammar School in Barnet in 1957 and proceeded to waste the next 7 years - I left with 5 O levels and no A levels! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 11:26 AM An honest day's work. Hmm. A privileged and cosseted fast-track through the military, gets to decide what he wants to do and when, plenty of time off to go and wave at the natives (he's been just about everywhere to do that, which is basically all about promoting the family brand at our expense). I suppose he works quite hard when he's doing one of his exciting helicopter flights (another thing he got to choose). I'm just sitting here musing over a possible comparison between his career path and that of an imaginary callow, spotty youth from the local estate who goes off to join the army. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,CS Date: 20 Jul 15 - 11:56 AM Thanks for that link to the Guardian piece Jim. I was wondering if the story about these seemingly controversial suppressed documents that I referenced at the beginning of the thread, would reemerge. It would be most intriguing to see their contents revealed. The Queen naturally enough, as a child, shouldn't be the focus of the story here and it's unfortunate that the focus of press attention has been in the wrong direction. But there may be a story worth hearing about the royals surrounding her at the time, notably here the Queen Mother (gawd bless her), Edward and indeed the Queen's father, the then King. I for one would be interested in hearing that story and I think it would be one worth hearing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 11:58 AM Prince Wills not fast-tracked thru the military at all; did the full 44-week officer training course. Many royalties would just have gazetted him in as a colonel from day 1, but he became a cornet (cavalry 2nd Lt) on passing out like anyone else. Then had to do full course at Cranwell to qualify to fly helicopters. And you make that sound like some sort of privilege, while in fact any young officer could apply for such a course and go on it if passed the necessary tests. You are coming across as a bit sad, I am sorry to say, Steve -- pathetically eaten up with envy. Probably not really the case at all; I'm sure you are in fact a charmingly delightful & contented person: but that is unfortunately not how you are making it sound. Yes, Bonzo; that's the school. Potts was head in my time, but I was just after your father - 1943-50. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:04 PM And you come across as a royalist sycophant. There are plenty of those obsequious sorts around, unfortunately. None so blind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:05 PM Does anyone really believe that, if Prince William did receive 'special favours' in the RAF, it would be any different if he had been President Cameron's son, or President Blair's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:11 PM "pathetically eaten up with envy" Somewhat typical response of the right, I'm afraid Mike - nobody "envies" these people - they/we just resent having to pay for their over-inflated lifestyle while at the same time, being expected to look up to them and put up with their shenanigans. This is not envy, it's a rightful sense of injustice, (clearly not part of your own made-up) which you and yours are forever defending. ENVY, MY ARSE! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:13 PM And you are coming across as a doctrinaire revolutionary booby, Steve. Again, for the nth time: I am not a royalist, sycophantic or otherwise; but simply an if-it-ain-t-broke-don't-fix-it-ist. Royalty, like any system, has its pros and cons; but it's the one we happen to have, so why not just accept it and work within it, rather than lousing up a tolerably efficient way of working for one which probably wouldn't work any better for reasons of intolerant ideological prejudice? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:14 PM I don't envy anyone's arse, Jim. I'm not that kind of boy. 😎 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:18 PM No, I shan't envy your arse in the least, Jim. I am sure it fulfills its function perfectly well, but I am quite satisfied with the one I happen to possess, thanks v much just the same. It is sitting perfectly adequately on my typing chair without any undue effort whatevs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:30 PM If the Haters don't wish to be accused of envy, perhaps they need to stop making the noises of the envious. There's plenty of it on this thread. I'm not in the least bit envious, I wouldn't want their lives under any circumstances, but I do prefer an apolitical, powerless, benevolent figure as head of state rather than a greedy, self-interested career-politician with an agenda, and the power to dump us in the shit around the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:31 PM Jim, They were given a record and prevented from working - treated as criminals, in other words No they were not. Being a communist in this period (as now) was perfectly legal - in fact there were a number of Communist MPs I know, but MI5 had to monitor them because, as subversive revolutionaries, they were perceived as a threat as radical Islamists are today. "Remember that from 1939 to 1941 British communists were in league with Hitler." No they were not - Yes they were. From 1939 until 1941 the CPGB was very active in supporting strikes and in denouncing the government for its pursuit of the war describing the war as the product of imperialism on both sides, and in which the working class had no side to take. What's the difference - they could afford to commit money ammunition and troops to support the anti-government forces. It was a very small commitment to an international voice, before the army had changed to peacetime establishment, and in no way comparable to fighting another world war! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:34 PM international voice? Force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:15 PM `"No they were not." Yes they were, maybe not by the police, but by the security services - how else would you describe being blackklisted from work? "I know, but MI5 had to monitor them because, as subversive revolutionaries" No they did notr have to do any such thing - the people who went were not subversive revolutionaries - they were democrats fighting fascism - may be subversive as far as you and MI5 is concerned (in fact, I have no doubt it is), but they went to defend a legally elected Government who was being ousted by a Fascist, with the aid of foreign troops "I know, but MI5 had to monitor them because, as subversive revolutionaries" No they weren't - do nor be stupid. Strikes were the only mewans for workers to better their lot - like membership of the Communist Party - perfectly legal -despite the fact that people like you would hev it otherwise. The war was an Imperialist one - Britain showed no interest in what was happening to the people of Germany How dare you describe trades unionists and anti fascist democrats as "subversive revolutionaries" were you bitten my Maggie the Vampire when she was in power. You really are aright-wing extremist, aren't you? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:26 PM What the hell are you people on - we haven't got as police state in Britain - YET Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:31 PM What's all this about head of state? The royals are, in practice, not head of anything. Like it or not, all the executive power is in the hands of politicians. As for "ain't broke", do me a favour, will you. The next king is a disreputable philanderer, enjoying a royal wedding at our expense that, in view of his dishonest love life, was a complete farce. His betrayed wife was then treated disgracefully by the rest of the family. Charlie believes in remedies that would make the average witch-doctor look like a professor of medicine, and he enjoys intellectual chats with his plants. The Queen's husband is a racist, Prince Harry allows someone to take a picture of his naked 'arris whilst servicing a lovely young woman from behind and another dresses up at a party as a Nazi. Yet another consorts with the sort of shady characters that most of us here would avoid like the plague. One could go on. I mean, how broke do you actually want it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:50 PM So what would you prefer? And how are you going to get it without considerable disruption? Serious questions. Genuinely curious. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:55 PM No acknowledgement from the Professor, KAOH, that he was incorrect regarding how long British troops were in Russia. I can't help but notice these things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:00 PM So you do admit that it ain't ain't broke then... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:24 PM Rag, Jim claimed they went in 1922. They went in 1918 and came back in 1922. Jim, how else would you describe being blackklisted from work? They were not, except for sensitive work requiring security clearance. the people who went were not subversive revolutionaries - they were democrats fighting fascism Guardian, "The Communist party of Great Britain took responsibility for organising the recruitment of volunteers in Britain, and leading communists held positions as officers and "political commissars" with the British battalion in Spain. While historians have tended to see the members of the British battalion as genuine volunteers rather than as communist "dupes", the rhetoric that the communists used in the civil war (defending "democracy" against fascism) sits uncomfortably with the excesses of Stalin's Russia at the height of the terror. The degree of political control exercised by the communist leadership of the battalion, and especially the treatment of those volunteers who fell out with the political commissars for political reasons, has attracted particular debate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:31 PM Your quote verbatim Professor "No. They were only there from 1918 until 1920" Now which bit are you denying you wrote the above or: "They went in 1918 and came back in 1922" Take your pick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM Jim, The war was an Imperialist one - Britain showed no interest in what was happening to the people of Germany Nonsense. That is also the standard communist propaganda line on WW1. That is nonsense too. We declared war on Germany in 1914 because they refused the ultimatum to withdraw their invading troops from Belgium, and in 1939 because they refused the ultimatum to withdraw their invading troops from Poland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:36 PM Rag, I did not intend to type 1920 the first time. Even I make mistakes sometimes. Thank you for spotting it for me. Will you now remonstrate with jim for his mistake which he said "does not matter?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 20 Jul 15 - 02:59 PM So were you wrong at 08-23am when you typed: "No. They were only there from 1918 until 1920" or were you wrong when you claimed at 02.24pm when you typed: " Rag, Jim claimed they went in 1922. They went in 1918 and came back in 1922" Or are you lying now when you type: "Rag, I did not intend to type 1920 the first time" Any which way you are deceitful, untrustworthy and basically dishonest in the extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM No, I am a person capable of mistyping 1920 for 1922, and then acknowledging the mistake the moment it was brought to my attention. I am flattered that you find it so hard to believe that I am fallible Rag |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:06 PM I was not actually wrong at all. The British forces were only there until 1920. Only the Japanese stayed after that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:17 PM "So you do admit that it ain't ain't broke then" .,,. Can't quite make out where you are coming from here, Hen. I'm the one who said "if it [ie the royal system of govt] ain't broke don't fix it"; so you presumably must be the one who thinks it is... So you haven't answered my question, except to imply the opposite of what you had said before. So here is the exchange again --- "Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:31 PM What's all this about head of state? The royals are, in practice, not head of anything. Like it or not, all the executive power is in the hands of politicians. As for "ain't broke", do me a favour, will you. The next king is a disreputable philanderer, enjoying a royal wedding at our expense that, in view of his dishonest love life, was a complete farce. His betrayed wife was then treated disgracefully by the rest of the family. Charlie believes in remedies that would make the average witch-doctor look like a professor of medicine, and he enjoys intellectual chats with his plants. The Queen's husband is a racist, Prince Harry allows someone to take a picture of his naked 'arris whilst servicing a lovely young woman from behind and another dresses up at a party as a Nazi. Yet another consorts with the sort of shady characters that most of us here would avoid like the plague. One could go on. I mean, how broke do you actually want it? Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion - PM Date: 20 Jul 15 - 01:50 PM So what would you prefer? And how are you going to get it without considerable disruption? Serious questions. Genuinely curious." Anaswer! Answer! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:18 PM "Nonsense." Insted of name calling - tell us what it was? There is no question of it being Imperialist in WW1 - it was a war between Empires over world dominance - pretty much as it was in WW2 "We declared war on Germany..." Oh, piss off Keith - you lost that war once nbefore despite your army of phantom "historians" "Will you now remonstrate with jim " Mind your own business and stop trying to get support where you have none - (don't count Mike - he's in and out like the Severn Bore (apt comparison, eh what) "hey were not, except for sensitive work requiring security clearance." My father was a carpenter, his fellow I.B volunteers were everything from dockers to labourers - are you suggesting I am lying? "The Communist party of Great Britain " The Communist Party took a leading role in The Spanish Civil War (sort of), because it and the Soviet Union saw it as an opportunity to stop fascism - the vast majority of the International Brigades were non-Communists. This really is primitive, pro-fascist propaganda. I ask again - how dare you describe anti-fascism and trade unionism as "subversive" - what kind of an extremist are you? Your veiw of democracy with "subversive" trades unions and Anti-fascists and an above the law secret service shows it is a police state you favour Britain appeased German militarism and flung Britain's youth into another blood-bath - Stalin's Russia, Roosevelt's America and Churchill's Britain were allies - making them all subversives. I really don't mind going on with this - every time you put finger to keyboard you once again show us what you are made of. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:37 PM Just to keep the info pot going, Jim: I continue to think that, when the Keith'n'Carroll Show is playing, he has pretty well every time the right of it, and you haven't. Don't see what the well-known tidal phenomenon near where my first wife came from in the Forest of Dean has to do with it: it only flows one way, not in & out; and how is a comparison of my interventions with it in any way 'apt'? and 'apt' to what? And where's all your 'support', for that matter? I don't see a vast conclave of Mudcatters parading across the site carrying banners inscribed in letters of fire:- "Good Old Jim" -- "Trust in Carroll" -- "Jim Carroll is the stuff to give the troops" -- "Crack out the barrel and we'll all drink to Carroll!" Do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 20 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM Jim, "We declared war on Germany..." Oh, piss off Keith - It really is true Jim. Look it up. 1939 and 1914, both times in response to German aggression and invasion of a neutral country we were treaty bound to defend. Nothing remotely "imperial" about that. And communists believed in revolution and subversion. They did. Sorry. And MI5 did not have the time or resources to follow round thousands of SCW vets to see what jobs they were applying for. Of course I do not believe that story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Olddude Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:41 PM I don't think it was that uncommon . Charles Lindbergh also was a supporter in the very early years. Then went on a campaign to buy war bonds to defeat him. I think hitler was a master manipulator like Charles mansonand so many evil ppeople. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 04:53 PM In general, I tend to avoid wasting time answering silly questions. But let's have a go. So what would I prefer? Well, bearing in mind that the royals run nothing at all except for some large tracts of land that their ancestors stole from the people, and a set of huge palaces that they didn't pay for and which we are expected to maintain, their removal would cause no disruption save for the temporary protests of that section of the population that they have duped for centuries. Of course, I have as much chance of getting it as I have of doing away with religion. Doesn't stop me dreaming about it though. Or arguing for it. Somebody has to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:00 PM I have just been to France on holiday and it occured to me then that we may have been better of if we had got rid of them when they had some power. Trouble is, Cromwell and Co were not all that good a democracy. We had our revolution too soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:17 PM Unfortunately, the most active BS posters do not seem to read their newspaper articles completely, let alone their history books. The real topics behind the general discussion are not the Kaisers and Hitler, but Putin, Ali Khamenei, and Bashar al-Assad etc. Very easy to do the wrong thing, and definitely not a classical case of left wing vs. right wing. In such a complex context, glorifying any past leader, however deserving, would be extremely dangerous, because what may have been good politics then would probably be disastrous now. Fortunately, at a second glance, almost all of them give us very little cause for admiration. The lady in question was noted for her bravery during the war, but not for any support of democracy in Germany or elsewhere. As for more poweful politicians, Jim quoted Indeed, it was the sort of thinking which fits with Britain's WWI Prime Minister, Lloyd George's statement to the House the following year: "...in a very short time, perhaps in a year, perhaps in two, the conservative elements in this country will be looking to Germany as the bulwark against Communism in Europe........Do not let us be in a hurry to condemn Germany. We shall be welcoming Germany as our friend." (Commons, Nov,28, 1934"Such a statement was sorely missed when Germany was still a democracy. What can we learn from that, when facing today's leaders listed above? Hint: any quick answer is bound to be totally wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Howard Jones Date: 20 Jul 15 - 05:53 PM It is easy to look at this with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, the horrors of Nazism were still to emerge. They were regarded as silly and were the objects of ridicule. Giving a Nazi salute was regarded as humorous. It took a number of years, right up to the start of the war, before a lot of people changed their view. Appeasement was a popular policy right up to the moment that war became inevitable. There were strong arguments at the time, which now seem with the benefit of hindsight to be both misguided and morally wrong. However much the same could be said about opposition to military action in the Middle East - who knows how that will look in 70 or 80 years' time? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:07 PM as a side issue and thread drift but still interesting, Von Stauffenberg who attempted to assassinate hitler had all his land seized by himmlers relatives, guess what himmlers relatives still own thousands of acres of von stauffenburgs land. funy old world |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 20 Jul 15 - 07:29 PM Appeasement was a popular policy when Hitler had already invaded several sovereign territories and was known to have been persecuting Jewish people for years. As a policy it was complacent and morally unjustifiable. Hindsight can inform us only of its consequences but it doesn't take hindsight to see what a lousy policy it was. Hindsight is useless for helping us to make moral judgements. We have to make the moral judgements before we take action, but, more often then not, morals take the back seat. What we have had in the Middle East is lousy policies for decades and lousy unintended consequences. We shored up the Shah because he was a bit nicer about oil than his democratically-elected predecessor, then make mortal enemies of his successors, leading to decades of proxy war on Israel's borders. We invade Iraq, kill Saddam and leave it in a state far worse than if he'd been left in power, with hundreds of thousands of its citizens dead and hundreds of thousands of families bereaved. We kill Gadaffi in Libya and within a couple of years the place is a hellhole. We install a Jewish state in an Arab region, creating tens of thousands of refugees, and reap a whirlwind for decades and live in constant fear of terrorism in consequence. We bomb a country back to the Stone Age then wonder why we see on the telly a 14-year-old Afghan boy who never goes to school who Is an expert at maintaining Kalashnikovs and who's in charge of defending his Helmand village against the Taliban. Yep, that's what we left there after all those years. I don't think we need 70 or 80 years of hindsight to work out what's right or wrong, somehow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:18 PM "It really is true Jim." Yeah sure Keith - all those historians (and "real bookshops") and that "I continue to think that, when the Keith'n'Carroll Show is playing," Lot more than the Keith and Carroll show Mike, hadn't you noticed? At least Keith has the bottle to dispaly his own stupidity - you seem quite happy to let him be your front man Thanks for the correction Mike - seems I got it wrong - that should have been the Cambridge bore (with a small b) What've we got? Going off to fight fascists is subversive. Being an active trades unionist if being subversive. Being a member of a legal party is being subversive Allowing the secret service to persecute people who object to fascist dictators supported by the two rising European fascist nations at the time when Germany is strutting its stuff on German Jews, trades unionists, left wingers, et al - is being subversive. Bingo - I think we have a keen supporter of a police state (or two - silence is golden). Keep it up, the pair of you, this is fun Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 21 Jul 15 - 03:50 AM I more or less agree Steve. You missed out Syria though... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:12 AM The only alternative to a king or queen in a parliamentary democracy would be someone who actually wanted the job. That was the sound argument that stopped Australia from going down the republican route the last time they debated it. Regarding some of the comments by Mr Carroll. If he is a chip off the old block, I'm not surprised his father couldn't find employment. Decrying people for attaining a decent level of education? I think some of those chips landed on his shoulder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM I did miss out Syria. That's what happens when you're having a rant. ;-). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:24 AM Jim, I claimed none of those things were subversive. As usual, you can not answer what I actually say, so you pretend I said something else and answer that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:35 AM "Regarding some of the comments by Mr Carroll" Why can't you people (particularly the anonymous ones) just respond to the points made rather than sniping from behind. It's not as if you haven't been given an argument, yet you insist on all this ""Mr Carroll", shit - and now an attack on my long-dead parent, who had the bottle to stand up to fascism and, along with the rest of us, paid the price for it. All a little squalid, don't you think, and only it only helps to convince that such people have no argument and need to hide behind personal invective If you can show where I've ever "decried anybody for attaining a decent level of education", I'll happily "show my arse in Lewis's window", as we used to say in Liverpool. I never have, I have commented on how that education has been squandered by the recipient - my comments have obviously hit their target. Give yourself a break - if you can't be honest, be quiet. In my old age, I'm quite proud of the part my family played in fighting fascism They took to the streets in the thirties to protest against Mosely's Blackshirts, only to find that these thugs were defended, extremely violently, by the good-old British Bobby, often on horseback My devout Catholic grandmother was jailed for throwing a stone at Mosely - the stone hit its mark and she always said "it was guided by the hand of God". Quite proud that my father was recorded as being a "premature anti-fascist" (this was how they were recorded in the MI5 files - they wore it like a badge of honour) Now - if Keith or any of you has anything more in defence of a British police state, let's have it - it's pissing with rain, so I'm not going to get much done outside today. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Hilo Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:36 AM Keith does not do well at history and Jim is even worse. What history they know would not fill a thimble. What is amazing is why these two spend so much time embarrassing themselves ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 21 Jul 15 - 04:49 AM I agree with Jim, anyone who posts anonymously and then posts cowardly gutter sniping,and does not have the balls to identify themselves illustrates the weakness of their points and merely shows what unpleasant people they are. That applies to everyone whatever their political leanings, and in political and non political discussions. I too am proud of my parents activities in the 1930s, one of them gave up a privileged background to try and help the disadvantaged and the other was thrown in prison and made to do hard labour because of a political speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:12 AM "Keith does not do well at history and Jim is even worse" Then feel free to correct me instead of sniping from the sidelines "Stand not upon your going, but go" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:18 AM I am not sniping. I am simPly stating a fact. I am not , as you put it, on the sidelines. I have read the posts on this thread and yours to be disable . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM You are not stating a fact, HiLo. You gave us your unsupported opinion. Whatever you think of Jim's posts they have substantial content and your shallow and brief dismissal says quite a lot more about you than about him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Hilo Date: 21 Jul 15 - 05:38 AM Yes they have substantial content , I will grant him that. However. Verbosity is not always an indication of knowledge. Jim breaks two of the cardinal rules of reasoned historical discussion.... He does history arse backwards. He applies ethos and morals to the past would be incomprehensible to the people living there. He also confuses popular myth and history. In the study of history, aknowleding only those facts which support your views is called bias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:19 AM "I am not sniping." Yes you are - you have put up no argument yourself, you just snipe at mine I really do get a little bored with all these poison pen letters. I don't base my argument on "ethos and morals" - I try to point out the unjust nature of past behaviour to those who defend it as fair and right. Perhaps you'd like to specify rather than - well - sniping - yopu haven't so far? Don't just lie there Lilo, put up an argument. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:32 AM You are still sniping. Let's see you pick up a point or two from his posts and respond properly with some counter-arguments. If you can! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM my opinion and this is only opinion is that Edward was definitly trying to influence the children, we can only speculate on the queen mother, i reckon she was keeping her options open and going along with it. she clearly made a decision once the war started not to sit on the fence any more, but at that earlier time bearing in mind her preference for halifax rather than churchill, i reckon she was being[ and i am trying to be charitable] a cute hoor, and hedging her bets. thank god for churchill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 21 Jul 15 - 09:44 AM I think it's impossible for any of us to know what was going on in the photo/film, or in the minds of the royals at that time. We have serious issues in the UK, and in the rest of the world, right now in 2015. What point is there in busting one's balls about what one family might or might not have been thinking and doing eighty years ago (apart from the green-eyed Haters, of course, for whom it's a convenient excuse to spew their bile). Why not concentrate on the things that are really important, instead of this crock of pointless, irrelevant shit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 10:29 AM "I think it's impossible for any of us to know what was going on in the photo/film, or in the minds of the royals at that time. " We know full well what ws going on in the mind of one particular Royal's mind in the film and we've got the photographs to prove it. Little wonder that this topic is proving somewhat embarrassing for some of 'er Madge's loyal subjects Is the fact that some of the Monarchy were friendly with the Nazis irrelevant? - maybe to some Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Backwoodsman Date: 21 Jul 15 - 10:44 AM Guess what - you can't change what happened yesterday, so you certainly can't change what happened eighty years ago. You lot get your panties in a bunch about it if you like. I've actually got a life, and very pleasant it is too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:08 AM " so you certainly can't change what happened eighty years ago." But being aware of it might (just) make sure it never happens again - it's what history is all about Don't think anybody's panties are in a bunch exept those of her Majes loyal subjects, do you? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:32 AM Only you made a big issue of it Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 11:35 AM "Only you made a big issue of it Jim." Not really Keith, (the press is full of it) but it is interesting to see all those figures disappearing over the hill when the going gets tough Byee Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 21 Jul 15 - 03:02 PM It never got tough Jim. You made your silly claims, (Britain was in a position to stop Germany rearming, Britain stood by and allowed Poland to be invaded, etc.) and they were refuted, and then you claimed I had said things I had not, and it was just too silly to continue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Jul 15 - 06:57 PM Jim Carroll says: Is the fact that some of the Monarchy were friendly with the Nazis irrelevant? - maybe to some It seems to be quite possible that the Royals were friendly with the Nazis. That being the case, what do we do with such information? I suppose, especially on the Internet, that the natural tendency is to pass judgment on the Royals and say that they are horrible people worthy of disdain - oh, and by the way, they should pay reparations for the reprehensible misdeeds they committed in the 1930s. I dunno. Seems to me, that the better response would be to ask why the Royals were sympathetic to the Nazis. That would remove the satisfaction of being able to take the Moral High Ground by condemning "those people," but it might make us learn something. It's clear the the American Hero Charles Lindbergh was also a Nazi sympathizer - but why? I'm not particularly concerned about separating the sheep from the goats here. I want to know why the sheep did what they did, and why the goats did otherwise. I have a feeling that both did what they did, for what they thought were good reasons. So, what were those reasons? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:28 PM "The only alternative to a king or queen in a parliamentary democract would be someone who actually wanted the job". Not so - they could pick some poor sod at random and say, "we expect you to do it, whether you want to or not". Of course, in one way of looking at it, that's what we've actually got, except that the poor sod gets picked at birth. I can't actually see how bureaucratically getting rid of the royals would make any significant difference whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Rob Naylor Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:30 PM Joe, There were loads of people throughout Europe and the USA who were either Nazi sympathisers or who believed Hitler was "good for Germany": "Adolf Hitler is a born leader of men, a magnetic dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is the George Washington of Germany." - Lloyd George, former UK Liberal PM during the first world war, writing in 1936 AFTER the German annexation of the Sudetenland! "One may dislike Hitler's system, yet admire his patriotic achievement." - Winston Churchill, talking as late as 1938. And in 1945, AFTER the war, and with the full atrocities of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau etc publicly known, Eamon De Valera, Premier of the Republic of Ireland, made a point of visiting the German Legation in Dublin to sign a Book Of Condolence for the death of Hitler. The Irish government also took away the rights to employment, pensions and healthcare of over 5,000 Irish citizens who'd joined the British army to fight the Nazis. De Valera offered sanctuary to a number of Nazi fugitives wanted by the Allies for war crimes, at least one of whom was implicated in the deaths of over a million people. There are loads of other examples. So whatever your take on the royal family, I'd suggest this photo/movie is pretty tame considering some of the things said and done by other public figures/ governments several years later, when the full extent of Nazi atrocities had become, or was becoming, very clear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:41 PM Well it isn't a natural tendency with everyone, as this thread demonstrates. I'm not going to judge a seven-year-old even if it was a genuine Nazi salute, which it wasn't. The incident does say at least something about the family mindset at the time; though Hitler had still to do his dirtiest deeds, he was already a known megalomaniac who had patently not learned the lessons of the past, and there was undeniable support for him within the royal family and little inclination, it seems, to keep it private. However, there's a lot more to this unprincipled and not especially intelligent breed than that, as I outlined in my posts of 19 July, 7.02 pm and 20 July, 1.31pm. They are well worthy of disdain, but on far wider issues then their alleged support, once upon a time, for Hitler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Jul 15 - 07:49 PM "The fact that Germany was rearming was an open secret - the allies (victors of WW1) did nothing to stop that happening and when volunteers attempted to stop the rise of Fascism they were criminalised by the security agencies as "premature anti fascists" - (1936.18939) - premature my arse!! As this is about royalty - did you know that a couple of weeks ago the law making it illegal to criticise Henry VIIIs marriage to Ann Boleyn was removed from the statute books - that's how anachronistic royalty is. You become aware of it Joe; it's as much part of British history as is the fact that The South and North once went to war over slavery - long time ago, but hopefully, never forgotten. "Seems to me, that the better response would be to ask why the Royals were sympathetic to the Nazis." Quite agree, but the first hurdle is to get people to accept that they did and that is was important. There's an interesting novel, well worth reading, entitled 'Dominion' (C.J. Sansome), which speculates on what Britain would have been like had we surrendered at Dunkirk - (not a history book certainly, but it can be bought in "real bookshops"). One of the most memorable incidents was a description of the Jews being rounded up in Warren Street, in London's West End and carted off to an unknown destination. Fiction, certainly, but this was what those supporting Nazism in pre-war Britain were signing up to - there, but for the grace of God. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Stilly River Sage Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:17 PM Charles Lindbergh was only one of many Americans who were Nazi sympathizers, a lot more organized in his views than offering a fashionable salute. Throw him into the revisionist dustbin of history, if part of him was flawed, the entire man must be discarded. Eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:23 PM I can't see how the delay in regard to Ann Boleyn has anything whatsoever to do with royalty being anachronistic, It's how England works, and I'm sure that'd be just the same without the royals. ......... The question of why there was sympathy for Hitler a part of it surely was the kind of tunnel vision we get when trying to make sense of a frightening and complicated world. We identify an enemy that scares us, or horrifies us, and look around for who is against that enemy, and then we set aside the nasty stuff about that person. So we look at the Bolshevists and see Hitler as a defence, and pass over the stuff that sounds bad - maybe it's exaggerated. Or we focus on Hitler, and tolerate Uncle Joe. Or in the modern world we pick on Assad, and for as long as we can we overlook or deny the fact that his most effective opponents were Islamist fanatics. As for appeasement, it's too easy to forget that it was only a very few years since tye nightmare of the Great War. It's no wonder that anything seemed better than going throught that again. "Appeasement" wasn't a dirty word while there seemed any desperate hope it might mean avoiding a new, and far more deadly, war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:41 PM Er, even though we knew full well what Hitler's expansionist tendencies were, that he had invaded Czechoslovakia and that he was persecuting the Jews... I'm sure that, even then, appeasement might have looked like a dirty word to many people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 21 Jul 15 - 08:42 PM Not to mention his military support for Franco. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:20 AM "Dear old pals, jolly old pals" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 04:51 AM The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics, both of whom were seen as a threat to peace. The Royals would also be very aware that the King's cousin the Tsar had been butchered by the Bolshevics along with his wife and all their children. That horror had happened, and the horrors that so influence our thinking now had not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:11 AM thanks jim ,very interesting information |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:22 AM "The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics" You ssaid they were allies - make up your mind "both of whom were seen as a threat to peace." No they weren't - the Bolsheviks were the ones who took the Russian people out of World War One - theirs was the country that was invaded by 14 countries during the Civil war They were seen as a threat to capitalism - that was why they were considered the enemy The left parties in Russia split over whether the new Soviet Government should work to spread its policies world wide - the Boilshiviks opted for "Socialism in one country", confining their activities to The Soviet Union (still much criticised) The Tsar and his family were not executed because they were royals, but because they had been made a part of the campaign to return Russia to its old system On the other hand, the British establishment decided they could work with the Nazis if they could control their excesses, so they did nothing to stop their rise Edward VIII was counting on a Nazi victory to place him back on the throne. You really do know nothing of this, do you? Go read a book instead of spouting 'the official version'. You seem to be adopting the 'Norman Tebbitt view of history' JIm Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 06:54 AM They were seen as a threat to capitalism - that was why they were considered the enemy Yes. A threat to peace. In 1939, Russia invaded both Finland and Poland, and it was in alliance with Hitler for the first two years of the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:16 AM There was a letter in our local rag this morning (the Bude and Stratton Post) which severely criticised The Sun for publishing the material. Unsurprisingly, I suppose, the letter writer is a bit of a royalist. As the polar opposite of that myself, perhaps it's hard for me to be objective, but it got me thinking: suppose a journalist got hold of the stuff then didn't release it. Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner they're accustomed to, lest we forget, and who are masters of media manipulation themselves when it comes their own promotion. I think it would have been remiss of that journalist. I hate Murdoch and I hate The Sun, and wouldn't have the thing in my house even if they paid me (especially as I'm a Liverpool fan), but, on this one occasion, kudos to them for getting it dead right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:42 AM Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner... Apart from the seven year old, we pay no money to keep any of those shown in the clip because they are all dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:54 AM True and then we can add her four children, 8 grand children, 4 great grandchildren ..................... so one becomes 16 plus the original one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM Clutching at straws, Keith, and I think you know it. If you insist on picking me up on technicalities, I might just have to remind you of your Geoffrey Wheatcroft brain-fart. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:26 AM "Stuff about a family that we pay good money to keep in the manner..." Not this old chestnut again!!!! We - if you are referring to the minority who are net tax contributors (i.e. those who pay tax but do not take more out in tax credits and benefits than they pay in tax) to the UK's coffers pay absolutely nothing towards the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Family Our Head of State costs about one third less per year than the President of France and a tiny fraction of the cost of the President of the United States of America. Costs met from a tiny portion of the profits made by three of the best run and managed businesses in the country: The Crown Estate - pays for the real official costs of the Head of State The Duchy of Lancaster - pays for a limited number of other "royals" excluding the Prince of Wales and his family The Duchy of Cornwall - pays for the Prince of Wales and his family. The net profits remaining contribute hundreds of millions to the Exchequer every year - not including personal income tax now paid by every member of the royal family. All the above clearly and plainly audited and reported each year for all to see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:44 AM As to the period in question i.e. about 80 years ago, any reason that our team of usual suspects have not mentioned the millions slaughtered, displaced and imprisoned by that darling of the masses - Joseph Stalin? Whereas Hitler in the mid 1930s had barely got started. When the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed, both parties to that agreement knew full well that within the next decade they would be at each others throats (Not only Germans read Herr Hitler's book, the Soviets had had a peak too) for the Germans it had to be before 1944 and for the Soviets it had to be after. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:47 AM Could I suggest that if you want to discuss Uncle Joe you start a separate thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM Excuse me, but don't you think that profit-making enterprises owned (equals usurped, of course) by the royals should pay tax on their profits like everyone else? Including those tax receipts in the calculation is mischievous. Tesco makes hundreds of millions per annum and pays tax on it, but we don't have a separate state fund which we use to keep the chairman and board of Tesco in massive palaces that we pay the upkeep for, and pay them all very handsome stipends to boot, do we now? Perhaps we should be grateful to these 'ere royals for having ancestors that robbed the nation blind then are so kind as to make profits on their ill-inherited gains? So grateful that we pay thirty-odd million a year into their expense accounts? Have you seen how some of them spend their time? (Why, probably not, as they do it behind closed doors, fenced-off country estates and security guards -- that we also pay for!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM Not clutching at straws and not a technicality Steve. You complain about paying for Royalty on the grounds of an eighty year old clip that besmirches no single living royal. It is you clutching at straws Steve. Rag, have you looked up the dates of Britain's involvement in the Allied Intervention now? Is that why you hid your face away and gave us all a brief respite from your inanities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:46 AM Keith, nothing has changed in principle apropos of our paying for the royals. As for besmirching, I've demonstrated how we don't need to in two earlier posts that I've already referred back to, as they are excellent at besmirching themselves. Were it not for a sycophantic media machine propping them up, they would be seen by all for what they truly are - a bloody badly-behaved laughing stock. Just watch Charles next time he's on telly if you don't believe me. A farce on legs, and one with a disreputable past to boot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 15 - 10:51 AM That is rich coming from you professor. When you learn to spell my pseudonym I MAY respond, but in the meantime .................... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 12:23 PM Rag, you are confusing me with someone who cares if you respond. (Does anyone?) Steve, your views are quite commonplace, but your attempt to use this video clip to support them is ridiculous. (Unless you agree with the Rag that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 15 - 01:11 PM Sorry Stevie old son but I fail to see the similarity or any point in your comparison Tescos and the Head of State of the United Kingdom - apples and oranges old chap. What arrangements and deals were struck between Parliament and Tescos hundreds of years ago - I thought that Tesco had only been in existence since 1919. But as I said the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a penny but if they did it has been calculated that it would amount to 53 pence per person in today's money , a few years ago it stood at 69 pence so their "costs" are coming down All very transparent, well reported and super-critically audited. In the 1930s Raggy nobody was making jokes and taking the piss out of "Uncle" Joe, primarily because it was rather well known that he was a murderous, dangerous bastard who had killed millions. In the 1930s Hitler was rather a comical figure who designed his own uniforms, sported a ridiculous moustache and strutted about surrounded by a group of sycophants - thousands of people went out of their way to make fun of him - in 1940 one Charles Chaplin became his best known mimic, but by then everyone had realised what a dangerous little clown Hitler was but as a democide he was a boy scout compared to Stalin and Mao. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM "Yes. A threat to peace." Capitalism had just caused World War One - that's what gave the Russian Revolution its incentive German industrial capitalism would go on to bring about World war two In the intervening period 14 capitalist countries invaded the Soviet Union, which at the time had virtually no army as it had been dismantled in 1917, no industry to manufacture weapons and a semi-feudal peasantry what peacew would that be a "threat" to exactly. Stalin's excesses had s.f.a. to do with the ideals of Bolshevism. The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler - though the British establishment was right up too the point when it was given no alternative. The U.S. did nothing to halt the rise of Fascism until Pearl harbour Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:01 PM "Arrangements and deals" were struck between parliament and the royals that legitimised the usurping of land from the common people, not to speak of deals that gave the royals unjustified rake-offs from the blood, sweat and tears earnings of same common people. Just because "deals" were struck hundreds of years ago it doesn't mean that they were any fairer than "deals" struck recently. That's a logical fallacy, arguing from antiquity. In fact, Tesco is not allowed to strike "deals" that bypass the law that applies to everyone else, despite the best efforts of their army of accountants. Apples and apples. But as I said the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a penny but if they did it has been calculated that it would amount to 53 pence per person in today's money , a few years ago it stood at 69 pence so their "costs" are coming down I think you need to make your mind up whether they cost us a penny or not. :-) Actually I saw a swastika badge for sale for 53p once. Making a chap like like me pay 53p for the royals would be tantamount to forcing me to buy that badge. Ah well. I suppose the good Lord did warn us that to them that have, it shall be given, to them that have not, it shall be taken away. Makes Osborne a hell of a good Christian too, innit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:17 PM "because it was rather well known that he was a murderous, dangerous bastard who had killed millions." Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:29 PM Jim, The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler Yes it was. Guardian, "And alliance indeed it was. " http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM ===Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death=== .,.,. Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time: were the subject of Koestler's novel Darkness At Noon, 1940, "set in 1938 during the Stalinist Great Purge and Moscow show trials"(Wikipedia). ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:36 PM There was good reason for the popularity of both Hitler and Stalin. The Great Depression was worldwide, over ten years of hopelessness for the whole human race. In times of hopelessness, the leaders on the extremes preach messages that are very appealing to the suffering masses, and the faults of the extremists tend to be disregarded or disbelieved. Hitler created an economic miracle in Germany - near-instantaneous prosperity after years of paralyzing inflation. Those who enjoyed or admired that prosperity no doubt thought Hitler's detractors were creating or exaggerating stories of his atrocities. How could such a benevolent leader do such horrible things? Of course, it must be untrue. I'm sure there were many in England and the U.S. who hoped for a Hitler to bring their countries out of the Depression. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:40 PM Professor please remind me and the other good people on this forum where I suggested "that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven" (your quote 22nd July 2015 12.23pm) I really don't remember doing that, although if YOU are suggesting that it is in fact the case ............... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM This in reply to comment that those in the clip are all dead except the Queen. Raggytash - PM Date: 22 Jul 15 - 08:54 AM True and then we can add her four children, 8 grand children, 4 great grandchildren ..................... so one becomes 16 plus the original one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 22 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM Again I will ask where do I state: "that the Queen's children and grandchildren are all somehow contaminated by their mother's innocent antics when aged seven" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:05 PM Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress (after Stalin's death Correct,Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:30 PM No it isn't! -- see my post 5 back |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:43 PM Michael, you are being far too black and white. Yes there were commentators who reported on Stalin's atrocities but there were also plenty of naysayers who were ready to discredit Stalin's opponents. And, after all, Stalin had the trump card in his hand after the war, having been instrumental in Hitler' s downfall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:52 PM "Yes it was." No it wasn't - as somebody here said "The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics" - Oh, that was you. Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Germany and then set about preparing for war with them - anything done between the two on the part of the Soviets was defensive. This is not to say that the pact was the right thing to do, though I'm not sure what alternative the Soviet Union had in the circumstances - Stalin had ceased to be interested in building a Socialist state, but the idea that the Soviets were allies is a nonsense - as you rightly said, the Soviets and the Bolsheviks were natural enemies. Russia became an ally of Britain and later, The U.S., when they got round to joining in. "Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time" The Moscow Trials were aimed at politicians and were sold as trials of enemies of the Soviet Union - Fascists - exactly how Trotsky and other leaders of the old guard were described (again, so much for the Soviet Union being an ally of Hitler) The Trails hardly touched the ordinary man in the street, who were fed the propaganda, and fell for it, as did the left and liberal left outside. Stalin was idolised by the Russian people, even after the 20th congress. He was, in fact a leader who was in the right place at the right time, pretty much like Churchill who one minute could be shooting down striking miners in South Wales and next, be adored as a wartime leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:54 PM "Stalin's tyranny was far from well-known and did not become so until 1956 when his crimes were exposed by Khrushchev at the 20th Congress" Now that is odd Jim - Fitzroy Maclean was present during Stalin's great purges in the late 1930s and he most certainly knew and told people about what was going on. I think what Khrushchev wittered on about at the 20th Congress was purely face saving and for inter-party domestic consumption - the Russian people after all could see what was going on before their eyes plainly enough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:58 PM "Yes it was." No it was not as somebody said "The Nazis were the natural enemies of the Bolshevics" - oh - that was you!! The Soviets signed a non-aggression pact with Hitle, them prepared for war with him. The Soviets allies were Britain and the US (when the latter finally decided to join the war) "Rubbish. The Moscow Trials were well-known at the time" Of course they were, and Stalin sold them as an anti Nazi move against enemies of the State (so much for an alliance with Hitler). Stalin's opponents, Trotsky being the leading one, were presented as allies of Fascism - and that line was accepted inside and outside Russia (by bothe the left and the liberal 'fellow travellers'. He presented The Soviet Union as a 'Workers State, in need of defending The Soviet people idolised Stalin because basically they never reaslised what he was until long after his death. His relationship with the people was largely based on being in the right place at the right time - pretty much like Churchill, who could happily shoot down striking miners in South Wales and then become an adored wartime leader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 22 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM Agree absolutely, Steve. But this assertion, that no-one knew what he was up to until Kruschev blew the gaffe in 1956, is unutterable pigshit, as you well know -- implying that these 'commentators' & 'naysayers' you admit to weren't even there. Even when it was known, and admitted by Kruschev et al, there were plenty of doctrinaire commies, several in my acquaintance [& indeed my own family] who just didn't want to know. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 22 Jul 15 - 04:13 PM Weird, innit. When people with whom we would like accommodation do despicable things, we find it so easy to turn a blind eye. You're not wrong, Michael. It's rather reminiscent of an earlier part of this thread when it was said (by me among others) that we sought appeasement with Hitler despite our knowing that he had been persecuting Jews for years, had an aggressive expansionist policy, had sent his bombers to Spain to help Franco and had invaded Czechoslovakia. I think we call it being in denial. Or worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 22 Jul 15 - 05:22 PM Jim, The Soviet Union was never an ally of Hitler Yes it was. Not just me saying that, read this. Guardian, "And alliance indeed it was. " http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Rob Naylor Date: 22 Jul 15 - 07:02 PM Jim: The Soviet people idolised Stalin because basically they never reaslised what he was until long after his death. This is bollocks. I'm sitting here in Russia now, where I've worked for a good part of the last 4 years. I've had a lot of discussions with Russians and other formerly Soviet nationalities about Stalin due to the recent "semi-rehabilitation" that Putin is encouraging. Most of them, especially those with ties to Ukraine, Kazakhstan and the Baltic republics, have family stories from parents, grandparents or great grandparents about the climate of fear that pervaded every town, city and village during his time. People disappearing at night. Being afraid to upset a neighbour in case he denounced you, etc. He wasn't *idolised* by most people, but he was feared. Tremendously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Rumncoke Date: 22 Jul 15 - 09:19 PM Just out of general interest - when did Americans stop using the gesture to salute their flag and to take the oath of allegiance? It was considered correct for depictions of Ancient Romans so it was used in films and in paintings. Hitler's own version was the one used at my school to indicate a readiness to answer a question put by a teacher - I don't think that there was any other significance - but in years to come I suppose it might be re interpreted... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: LadyJean Date: 23 Jul 15 - 12:42 AM Read "Wigs On The Green" by Nancy Mitford. It was written in the years before WWII, and includes a character named Eugenia, who is an eager young facist. Mitford makes her sympathetic. Her adoration for Hitler and a fictitious British facist called Captain Jack, are shown as a charming sort of youthful idealism. In her Facist dream, Jews are to be sent to "Jerusalem the golden, with milk and honey blest." Not gassed. I don't think people believed that Hitler would really do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:05 AM Interesting question, Rumncoke, and Wikipedia has the answer. It was called the Bellamy salute, named after Francis Bellamy, the Christian socialist minister and author who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge and salute were instituted in 1892. Mussolini's Fascists adopted what the called the "Roman Salute" in the 1920s, and the German Nazis quickly copied it. The U.S. instituted the hand-over-heart salute when Congress amended the Flag Code on December 22, 1942. So, maybe the Queen Mum was doing an American salute? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:46 AM "This is bollocks." No it isn't - Stalin's excesses were aimed at his political opponents, not the Russian people as a whole The Moscow Trials were aimed at The Old Bolsheviks, not the people. "The power of the party, in turn, now was concentrated in the persons of Stalin and his handpicked Politburo. Symbolic of the lack of influence of the party rank and file, party congresses met less and less frequently. State power, far from "withering away" after the revolution as Karl Marx had predicted, instead grew in strength. Stalin's personal dictatorship found reflection in the adulation that surrounded him; the reverence accorded Stalin in Soviet society gradually eclipsed that given to Lenin." I was in Russia in the 1960s and even then, the attitude towards Stalin was ambivalent - "a flawed genius". Stalin fostered 'the cult of the individual' in the name of Bolshevism and was pretty successful in doing so - he usurped political power by removing his political opponents - "The Terror" was aimed at them, not the people as a whole. When we visited Lenin's Tomb, it was explained to us that the mass of the visitors that queued were largely made up of Russians who treated the visit as a pilgrimage. In the mid sixties, W.W.2 was referred to as "The Great Patriotic War" and Stalin was still regarded in the same terms as was Churchill back home. The idea that any dictator could enslave an entire nation is a nonsense - no leader could terrorise an entire people - Hitler won the support of masses of the German people, Stalin did the same in Russia. The difference was that Hitler sold Germany the idea of a racially pure 'Reich' while Stalin traded on the dream of communism. Whatever the faults of the Soviet Union, the lot of the people was far improved than it had been under Tsarism, and Russia moved from a semi-feudal State to an industrial economy, a contender on the world stage - peoples lives improved immensely. The collapse came when the economy failed and when the Soviet leadership finally abandoned the dream of Communism - not from popular pressure. The same was true elsewhere in the communist bloc A friend and I thumbed our way into Prague on the day that the Russians opened the up border after the 1968 invasion We had been picked up hitching, by a couple of students in Germany who were returning home to see that their families were ok. When we got to Prague, we were found empty rooms in a student hostel and were taken around to meet some of the people who were part of the anti-Soviet opposition - not one person we met wanted to change the political system in Czechoslovakia, but they objected to Russian interference in Czech affairs The support was for 'The Velvet Revolution' - a break from the old one-party system in order to achieve communism, not for a return to capitalism. WE spent several nights with our student friends (and a young North Vietnamese soldier on leave), at the local park where the Russians were billeted, arguing with them - the gist of the argument was that the Russian leadership had betrayed the revolution. If you went to Germany following the war, you would be told that the German people never supported what Hitler was doing because they didn't know what was going on. The same is very much the case in the former Soviet Union since the fall of Communism – "we were all suppressed" CULT OF PERSONALITY Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Keith a Date: 23 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM Stalin deliberately allowed millions of Ukranians to starve in the twenties and thirties. They were not all political opponents, and their plight was known inside and outside of Russia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM There is no evidence that this was a deliberate act - the suggestion is that it was the cause of gross mismanagement of the collectivisation plan and the move to industrialisation. The Genocide claim was based purely on the opposition to collectivisation by the Ukrainians - it remains unsubstantiated. It occupies the same place in history as the 'Irish Holocaust'claim, the difference being that there is a mass of documented information to back the claim that The famine was deliberately mismanaged to turn a natural disater into a solution of "The Irish Question". I in no way defend Stalin and his behavior, but I have little doubt that for the most part he believe that what he was doing was for the good of the Russian people, as twisted as those beliefs may have been.in doing so, he debased what I believe was a noble ideal. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM "Eighty years ago, millions of Ukrainians died in a famine that many label a genocide by the Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin." "Some historians, like Yale University's Timothy Snyder, who has done extensive research in Ukraine, place the number of dead at roughly 3.3 million. Others say the number was much higher. Whatever the actual figure, it is a trauma that has left a deep and lasting wound among this nation of 45 million. Entire villages were wiped out, and in some regions the death rate reached one-third. The Ukrainian countryside, home of the "black earth", some of the most fertile land in the world, was reduced to a silent wasteland. Cities and roads were littered with the corpses of those who left their villages in search of food, but perished along the way. There were widespread reports of cannibalism. Ms Karpenko says that when school resumed the following autumn, two thirds of the seats were empty." "They say that Joseph Stalin wanted to starve into submission the rebellious Ukrainian peasantry and force them into collective farms. The Kremlin requisitioned more grain than farmers could provide. When they resisted, brigades of Communist Party activists swept through the villages and took everything that was edible. "The brigades took all the wheat, barley - everything - so we had nothing left," says Ms Karpenko. "Even beans that people had set aside just in case. "The brigades crawled everywhere and took everything. People had nothing left to do but die."" "As the hunger mounted, Soviet authorities took extra measures, such as closing off Ukraine's borders, so that peasants could not travel abroad and obtain food. This amounted to a death sentence, experts say. "The government did everything it could to prevent peasants from entering other regions and looking for bread," says Oleksandra Monetova, from Kiev's Holodomor Memorial Museum. A file picture taken on October 22, 2012, shows Russia's President Vladimir Putin (R) and his visiting Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yanukovych Viktor Yanukovych (L), like the Kremlin, says Holodomor was not genocide "The officials' intentions were clear. To me it's a genocide. I have no doubt."" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25058256 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25058256 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM Again - speculation from outside, inconclusive. The Ukrainian Holocaust was a theory mooted from The Cold War period, and, like the Irish Holocaust theory, has never been proved one way or the other. Similar descriptions came from Ireland in their hundreds and were, and still are being denied as being deliberate. History and evidence will sort out truth from propaganda. Stalin, as meglomanic as he was, had nothing to gain by deliberately wiping out so many people. Studies of the claim have been made, nearer the time of the events, which have debunked the claims - either accounts may be true, but without taking them in context, none are reliable. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 10:53 AM No intention of entering into one of your "my "real" historian can piss higher than your "real historian" competitions, and I've certainly no intention of tryiny to rehabilitate Stalin - I've said what I believe he was. I've been interested in Modern European history for most of my life and I've always been aware of the claims surrounding the Ukrainian famine, so I really don't need to dredge the net to prove the unprovable. As far as I ma concerned this statement more or less sums up how I understand it " Compared to the Holocaust, there has been little serious study of the famine even among its survivors." And this essay more or less reflects my own views, make of it what you will. Genocide or a vast tragedy If you have anything to add that doesn't come with your usual agenda, feel free. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 23 Jul 15 - 11:58 AM remember when the queen mother used to be wheeled out of her house once a year on her birthday so she could wave at some soldiers going by? jeez - that was annoying. possibly not as annoying as starving in ukraine, but pretty close |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM "History and evidence will sort out the truth from propaganda. That doesn't seem too likely. I can't think of any cases where it has. If anything it works the other way. "Holocaust" seems a fair term to use where millions of people get wiped out by human actions. The question of how far that was preplanned by government is important, but it's not the central question, which is whether the deaths happened, and whether that could have been prevented. It's very reasonable to apply it to what happened in Ukraine in the 1920s and Ireland in the 1940s. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 23 Jul 15 - 02:45 PM there is a mass of documented information to back the claim that The (Irish)famine was deliberately mismanaged No there is not. If there were, there would be a consensus among historians about it. You will remember from previous discussions that there is no consensus even for negligence or incompetence, never mind deliberate fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:08 PM And there speaks the voice of reason |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:17 PM "If there were, there would be a consensus among historians about it." Oh dear - those damned historians again!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 23 Jul 15 - 03:59 PM There are fashionable views, but over extended periods there is rarely if ever a "consensus among historians" any more than a consensus among musicians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:23 PM "but over extended periods there is rarely if ever a "consensus among historians"" Ah, but there's historians and "real historians" who sell their books in "real bookshops" And then, there's phantom historians who say what you want them to say - like "gottle of gear " Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Joe Offer Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM This is a very interesting discussion. Please remember to keep the personal animosity out of the equation. OK? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 15 - 05:27 PM My view on the word Holocaust, capital H, is that it should only be used for the systematic murder by the Nazis of six million Jews and other people belonging to various minorities. Find other words for other mass slaughters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:09 PM Democide - that's another word The league table of the worlds top ten of democides dating back to the time of Genghis Khan were responsible for the deaths of over 189 million people - How odd that out of that 189 million four Communist leaders account for over 121 million of them - Mr Carroll tells us that the deaths under Stalin were down to: "the gross mismanagement of the collectivisation plan and the move to industrialisation." The people Stalin deliberately targeted and intentionally wiped out were "Kulak" Farmers (In the UK they were the equivalent of the Yeoman or Free land owning farmers) The unfortunate side effect of wiping these people out, that Stalin & Co were perfectly well aware of was that in destroying them for political reasons he deliberately rid his country of the only people who knew how to farm the land efficiently, the result was food shortages and famine - not once in all the time that the communists ruled Russia was it ever self sufficient and able to feed itself - such was not the case under the Tsars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 23 Jul 15 - 07:40 PM nothing wrong with communism. problem is that a few mass murderers have committed terrible atrocities in it's name. see also christianity, capitalism, islam etc. see american imperialism called freedom. see the uk government bringing in fascism and calling it choice. if you have any difficulty understanding how the 1% are fucking up the world read naomi klein's 'shock doctrine' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:27 PM "Mr Carroll tells us that the deaths under Stalin were down to" I don't ptell anybody any such thing Mr Teribus - I point out that the evidence of intent is shrouded in Cold-War rhetoric - it might well have been deliberate, but it could just as well have been incompetent mishandling of collectivization and industrialisation. I am no Stalin supporter, but at the same time, I'm not prepared to draw my conclusions on the word of nations who sent Europe's youth to their deaths in order to retain their grips on colonies, or slaughtered up to 15 million Congolese, or earlier, manipulated a famine in Ireland which led to 1 million deaths and 1 million emigrations. Unless you have information the rest of us don't possess, neither of us knows whether the Ukraine Famine was deliberate or one of incompetence. Achmelvich is right holocausts and mass murders no no political or religious boundaries - we know for a fact that over 11 million human beings were deliberately put to death under German industrial capitalism - largely exterminated because of their race, ethnic origins, political beliefs or their metal or physical state of health. Four Communist leaders? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Jul 15 - 08:34 PM OK, Teribus, but six out of ten were not communist. Incidentally, those of us who harbour a smidgeon of idealism in our probably-deluded brains that communism might just be an answer to capitalism's horrid exploitations do not necessarily accept that the horrible experiments in state communism, as practised in China and the Soviet Union, were ever the right way to go. It's worth remembering that western capitalism is very good at snuffing out genuine attempts at communism, such as in Venezuela and Chile. When Stalin was indulging in mass murder, he wasn't doing communism, any more than Catholic priests who abuse children are doing Christianity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Rob Naylor Date: 23 Jul 15 - 10:31 PM JC: Stalin, as meglomanic as he was, had nothing to gain by deliberately wiping out so many people. Absolutely he did, although it wasn't so much "genocide against the Ukrainian people" as "elimination of class enemies". This is about as accurate as your comment that the Soviet people "idolised Stalin". There's a big difference between an enforced "cult of personality" and genuine idolising of someone. There have been a number of attempts to portray the mass starvation of 1932-33 as "an accidental result of collectivisation" but they don't really hold water when you look at the announcement made by Stalin in 1929 that "the Kulaks will be liquidated as a class". Kulaks being that group of slightly better-off peasants who were able to feed themselves and produce a small surplus and thereby might be in a position to resist or ignore "building socialism in the countryside". Typically they'd have a couple of cows and maybe 10 acres of cultivatable land. Some had more, but that was typical. Hardly landlords! In December 1929 Stalin announced: "Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their production with the production of kolkhozes and sovkhozes". There was a resolution of 30th January 1930 "On Measures for The Elimination of Kulak Households in Districts of Comprehensive Collectivisation" which divided kulaks into 3 categories: - to be shot or imprisoned on designation by the local security services - to be deported(internal exile)after confiscation of property - To be evicted from their smallholdings and used as forced labour in local gulags Seed corn and seed potatoes were forcibly (and deliberately) confiscated in 1931/32, so it is hardly surprising that harvests suffered hugely in 1932/33. Sounds pretty deliberate to me. Any unbiased thorough investigation of the period would be likely, IMO, to arrive at a similar conclusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:23 AM "Absolutely he did" Stalin's 'thing' was his 'man of the people' image, which largely worked. Slaughtering millions of peasants and workers really wouldn't have helped that, not on that scale. "There's a big difference between an enforced "cult of personality" If it was enforced it was incredibly effective - how exactly was that done - a soldier billeted with every family? "There have been a number of attempts to portray the mass starvation of 1932-33 as "an accidental result of collectivisation" " There have been numerous attempts to portray it either way, neither are conclusive. As the Canadian article points out, there have been no actual studies carried out on the period, neither from within or without the Ukraine - just Cold War rhetoric from both sides - not reliable either way. Stalin was a ruthless monster, and he ranks with the world's worst - I certainly don't intend to defend his monstrous acts, especially as I believe he hijacked a chance to make the world a better place in my time, but I remain unconvinced on this particular one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,HM King Musket III Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:44 AM Just having a browse, wondering why people were still debating pre war attitudes to atrocities that hadn't really started happening., Scanning down, I noticed a comment from the usual suspect saying "no... If it were true, the historians would have had a consensus about it." Dunno what that snippet was about, and didn't bother reading to find out but thanks for giving my day a start with a chuckle Keith. Much obliged and all that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:25 AM Rutgers–Newark Colleges of Arts & Sciences Rutgers–Newark Colleges Of Arts & Sciences Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights Ukrainian famine, 1932-1933 "Known in Ukrainian as Holodomor or "death by hunger,' the Ukrainian famine is categorized as genocide in the annals of history, however muted its presence is in mainstream history textbooks. " http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/ukrainian-famine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:54 AM "Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights" Seen that one Keith - exactly what difference does it make to the argument other than it being yet another cut-'n-paste you have dredged up? One of the great mysteries about the Ukraine famine is that there has been virtually no serious research into the facts of it - it is usually something that those who think the world is a wonderful place and in need of no change, toss round and points at saying, "Look, if you upset the apple-cart, this is what will happen" (pretty much as you are doing here). The old Soviet regime superficially defended it, but between them, nothing conclusive was ever decided on and it remains a propaganda ping-pong. The Canadian research study was interesting in that, if you set a totally neutral group of people in front of the known facts, the result remains inconclusive - it remains an enigma There is one fairly comprehensive work that was written in the 40s defending the action of The Soviet Union, but it was written at a time that makes it suspect, and I'm sure people like yourself would fall over yourself to point out that the author was a Trades Unionist and "not a real historian" and therefore, not to be trusted, especially as he comes up with a different claim than your own. For me, The Ukrainian Famine is a plum ripe for plucking for those who would show us the evil ways of communism - why hasn't it been plucked, why does it remain floating out there in no-man's land? Anyway - scrabble away with your cut-'n-pastes and let's see if anything new emerges Meanwhile, for those seriously interested in the history of the period (and not just winning prizes), I really would recommend the highly readable, 'The Kings, Depart', by Richard Watt, history at its very best, covering the period from the end of World War One, through to the rise of the Nazis. "The usual suspect saying "If it were true, the historians would have had a consensus about it." - You're right Muskie - comforting to know nothing changes and God is still in his heaven Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM "I think you need to make your mind up whether they cost us a penny or not" No I don't Stevie - The UK Head of State and the Royal Family do not cost the British Taxpayer a single penny - former Prime Ministers and their families (Most notably one Anthony Charles Lynton Blair) costs the UK taxpayer a fortune. Doesn't mean that a purely hypothetical exercise in costs cannot be made. Cheaper to run than any European President and far, far cheaper than the US President our HOS comes out as being extremely good value for money. An example of Shaw logic at work - I made reference to the list of top ten democides that have existed in the world dating back to the time of Genghis Khan: "six out of ten were not communist" Ah but Stevie old son the four who were communist were responsible for the deaths of 64% of the 189 million people killed by that top ten - True? Helps to view things in context and with a health dose of a thing called perspective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 05:40 AM Jim, the cut and paste refutes your claim that, "There have been numerous attempts to portray it either way, neither are conclusive." Can you find a single authoritative source suggesting it was not deliberate genocide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 15 - 06:22 AM You said four out of ten were communist. I said that six out of ten were not. And numbers games are very dodgy when you're trying to rank events on some kind of immorality scale. I should also remind you that no mass slaughters were ever committed under the flag of any communist ideal, any more than ISIS represents real Islam or a minority of Catholic priests who abuse children represent true Christianity. The Crusades were allegedly fought under a banner of Christianity, but we all know that that isn't what it was really about. No communist manifesto ever required millions of people to be murdered, and claims to the contrary, or actions to that effect, are mere perversions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:07 AM "No communist manifesto ever required millions of people to be murdered, and claims to the contrary, or actions to that effect, are mere perversions." Not perversions Shaw just simple well recorded fact - or the reality of the situation when a bunch of ideologists try to apply an unworkable political system to life and then find themselves totally inadequate for the job in hand. Instead of adapting their political ideals to match up to and cope with real problems they try in vain to alter how things actually happen in life to conform to their impossible ideas of how they think they should work - result utter chaos and total breakdown that has to be blamed on "someone else" - and that Stevie, old son, is when the purges and the mass blood-lettings begin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM "Can you find a single authoritative source suggesting it was not deliberate genocide?" Oh, for ***8 sake Keith - will you never get tited of trying to prove by negative The subject has not been researched, not even by the Ukrainians - you want to use silence as proof - why not? The article points out that the famine is "muted" in history" - why, fear of upsetting the Stalinists, not rocking the boat - far morle likely that either the evidence does not exist, or it that what it contains details that would upset too many people You have proved over and over again that your definition of "authoritative" is those who agree with you. You have not read anything on the subject, once again, your "knowledge2 is limited to selected cut-'n-pastes. Can you thik of aa single reason fror arguing for somebody who is not interested enough in a subject to have learned a little about it - I can't? Go and win your glittering prizes elsewhere if you are not prepared to read up on your pre-decided arguments Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:03 AM "Can you find a single authoritative source suggesting it was not deliberate genocide?" Oh, for ***8 sake Keith - will you never get tited of trying to prove by negative I am proving by positive Jim. I can put up plenty of historians like those of Newark College who say it was deliberate genocide, but you will find none who disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM "Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished in this farming area, known as the breadbasket of Europe, with the people deprived of the food they had grown with their own hands." http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:15 AM Stephen Kotkin, a professor of history at Princeton, is the author of "Stalin, Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878–1928." "Stalin's rule is rightly associated with two of the most horrific episodes in Ukraine's history: the famine and the 1937-38 mass executions of Ukrainian intellectuals and political figures, both of which took place across the Soviet Union. " http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/opinion/stalin-father-of-ukraine.html?_r=0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM Show me a simple recorded fact that shows any communist manifesto requiring mass murder and I'll show you that membership of the Catholic Church requires one to sexually abuse children and that being a Muslim requires you to behead infidels. Alternatively, take off your ideologue's blinkers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM Show me a simple recorded fact that shows any communist manifesto requiring mass murder There is none Steve, but the fact remains that an extraordinary proportion of them have resulted in just that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:28 AM See earlier points dismissing this silly attitude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:38 AM The manifestos of political parties all over the world are about as far from reality as you can get - political parties are known by their actions and the results of those actions. "The revolution was foreseen by the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky who died more than 30 years before it. He wrote: "Ungodly atheism is near, our children will see it. International decided that the European revolution will start in Russia and it will as we do not have reliable resistance in administration nor society. The mutiny will start with atheism and robbery of all riches they will start to depose the religion, destroy temples and turn them into barracks and barns, engulf the world in blood and then themselves get frightened"." Orwell's "Animal Farm" was based on the Russian Revolution - the main characters Napoleon = Stalin; Snowball = Trotsky. In the book "Napoleon overthrows Snowball as Stalin overthrew Trotsky and Napoleon took over the farm on which the animals were living on. Napoleon became a tyrant and used force and propaganda to oppress the animals" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:22 AM "I can put up plenty of historians like those of Newark Colleg" I'm sure you can and will, but it does not alter the fact that there has been no solid reliable evidence I aked you why I should bother to debate with someone who is not interested in the subject to go beyond dredging the net for his information - you have just confirmed that I shouldn't bother Come back when you've read a book (or maybe you could pick up some jargon from your mate, Torybus Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:43 AM the fact that there has been no solid reliable evidence There is. It is still within living memory. I have shown you that there is enough "solid reliable evidence" to satisfy the historians. Once again, you people imagine yourselves better informed about history than historians! McGrath actually believes they are followers of whims of fashion! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:54 AM however, there are very many versions of capitalist ideology that require the wishes of millions of people to be ignored; their livelihoods to be fucked; their environments to be trashed and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident. at least communism is based on a good intention - that we should help each other. global capitalism is just greed no matter how much you try and find a moral justification. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 11:42 AM "It is still within living memory." Living memory needs to be researched and written down to be understood - not partially borrowed from to suit personal agendas. Where can we go for this "living memory"? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:37 PM " there are very many versions of capitalist ideology that require the wishes of millions of people to be ignored; their livelihoods to be fucked; their environments to be trashed and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident. at least communism is based on a good intention - that we should help each other." Now whatever box of Christmas crackers that came out of must have been exceptionally cheap. 1: "The wishes of millions to be ignored" Correct me if I am in error here but in the "Big, Bad Democratic West" we get the choice to vote in who we think will give us what we want. We are free to strike, protest and demonstrate against things we do not like. Not so in "Communist" countries, if you did that you would be deemed to be "An Enemy of the State" arrested charged imprisoned and possibly shot. Acid test on those "good intentions" Achmelvich - go and ask the Poles, the Hungarians and others who enjoyed living under the beneficence of Communist Russian rule if they would welcome those days back? My guess is that you'd get short shrift. 2: "their livelihoods to be fucked;" Under any communist system you do what you are told, work at what you are assigned to for the good of the State - a state by the way that you as a working class prole could never be part of unless invited into the club by the communist elite - less than 5% of the population of the USSR were Communist Party Members and they ruled the place for THEIR benefit, at no time at all did the wishes of the people ever feature. 3: "their environments to be trashed" I take it from that that you have never been to the former Soviet Union or any of their former Republics - you have not seen trashed environments until you have. At the last count I think it was 27 rotting wrecks of ships and submarines with nuclear reactors quietly fizzing away left to rot by your communist pals up in the Kara Sea. 4: "and their lives to be sacrificed to the war machine in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. 1% gain - and if any of the rest of us gain it's a lucky accident." Oh I think that is very true that the Soviet Communist Party Members were all too willing to send their conscripts to their deaths in various scraps round the world 15,000 odd killed in Afghanistan alone. 5% not 1%. As to "any of the rest gain it's a lucky accident"?? Oh poor victim me type sniveling, funny thing is that the harder you work and the more you apply yourself - the luckier you get. That is the trouble with "socialists" it is always someone else's fault, always someone else's responsibility, it is always up to some else to do something - bollocks do it yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM More superciliousness - very convincing! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:27 PM Historians' findings, very convincing. Jim's whims, not convincing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:28 PM Interesting how the Big Bad Democratic West, paragons when it comes to letting people vote for what they think they want, has a history of undermining other regimes that want people to vote for what they think they want (Chile) and installing their own men who make people do what they're told under pain of death or disappearance (General Pinochet, not exactly a commie). There are plenty more examples of the West propping up people who like to tell people to do exactly what they're told. Oh yes, western democracy can be a very moveable feast. Incidentally, the right-wingers among the leaders of the BBDW are very concerned to keep people uneducated about their own political systems. Efforts to increase the education of children in politics usually arouse howls of communist plotting. Better keep the people ignorant. It's a slight inconvenience when this approach has the unintended consequence of, for example, four million people voting UKIP, but hey ho. And, when you have the Murdoch empire and the Mail onside, it's so much easier to sell your propaganda and smears to under-educated voters, innit? On the whole, I have a feeling that this capitalist/democracy malarkey isn't exactly a done deal. Before criticising what you regard as other failed political experiments, it's as well to cast out the plank, I reckon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Jul 15 - 02:50 PM History, like economics, is a branch of literature, not a science. For that matter, the same can be said for much that is often referred to as science. That doesn't mean it can't tell us important stuff. The same is true for other branches of liteature. But a consensus among historians, if any such thing ever exists, is no more capable of closing an issue than a consensus among novelists would be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 02:50 PM "Historians' findings, very convincing" You've met somebody who's read one then? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM Just a hint, Jim: you are at your least lovable when indulging in heavy, aggressive — but entirely unconstructive — sarcasm. To say nothing of your least convincing! Advice intended in helpful & friendly fashion, you will of course understand. But I expect nevertheless that you wish I would piss off. Best regards azzevva ≈Michael≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:32 PM "Advice intended in helpful & friendly fashion" Accepted ads such MIke XXX Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Jul 15 - 03:34 PM But it would be pleasant to discuss with somebody who's actually read a book Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Jul 15 - 04:16 PM Jim, I have posted the views of a number of historians. You have posted absolutely nothing at all that remotely supports your silly assertions. If you have read a book that informs your opinion, give us the title and author. Confident prediction, you have not. Just whims from Jim, and his empty head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM "Jim, I have posted the views of a number of historians." Historian again- have you tried to get help - an exorcist might be the solution. I, at least, have taken the trouble to read up the period. I suggest you do the same. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:05 AM Jim, we are discussing history. That is why I refer to the findings of historians. Your objection is just that they contradict your cherished prejudices, again. You claim to have " read up the period." If you have read anything that disputes Stalin's culpability for the deaths of millions of ordinary peasant people, tell us where. I have quoted a number of historians who are quite clear that he was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Teribus Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM "I, at least, have taken the trouble to read up the period. I suggest you do the same." Have you Jim? We have only your word for it, and when asked to elaborate on whose work you have "read up on" you seem extremely reluctant to provide source, work and author. Not surprised at that really Jim, in the past your sources quoted and taken by you as being the "gospel truth" turned out to be highly speculative and unsubstantiated newspaper articles, in newspapers that if used to argue a case against any point you support are instantly dismissed by you as being biased right wing rags. Keith A on the other hand has given his sources, works and authors who at least are qualified historians who specialise in the subject and who have been trained to examine events from different perspectives before arriving at their conclusions and reading of events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM Name one book about the subject you have actually read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Jul 15 - 09:27 AM "We have only your word for it, " We don't need your word on it; you pronounce - you seldom quote or claim to have authority to back up what you say - and you always do it in a sneering manner, as if those who disagree with you are lesser beings. Happy to supply my reading list to you any time you wish - have constantly attempted to recommend books I feel important, as I have just done on the other thread. One of the most important books on the period was Robert Conquest's The Great Terror - on the thirties rather than the Famine My point on reading is that it is essential if you are going to understand subject fully and in context - Keith seems to be immune to this and prefers to either selectively quote scooped up bits that fit a decided line of thought, or invent them when they don't - that is the sum total of his reading, it would appear. I ave no ideawhat your is, as you hardly ever quote - just pontificate Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jul 15 - 10:42 AM Keith seems to be immune to this and prefers to either selectively quote scooped up bits that fit a decided line of thought, or invent them when they don't Not true. I was unable to find any sources at all that support your view that Stalin might not be culpable. You have also failed to produce any such. What I pasted in were just typical examples of what historians say about it. I could easily produce more. You have yet to produce anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 11:04 AM Come along and name a book you have read on the subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 25 Jul 15 - 11:35 AM hello teribus. in replying to my post what do you keep banging on about soviet 'communism' for? if you tried really hard you may find about half a dozen folk in this country who have still not realised that that whole episode was a disgusting and lethal experiment. as was the system in russia before it and the one that has emerged in recent years. i used to like the slogan 'neither washington nor moscow but international socialism'while it's still broadly true for me moscow has little influence in the world these days apart from what their oligarchs and gansters can buy by selling off stolen state assets. My post was about capitalism -do you really have no criticisms of it's various modern day applications around the world? (i don't buy crackers - we lefties tend to be a bit sniffy about the more commercial aspects of the annual celebration of consumerism) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:39 PM Rag, like Jim I have read the great Terror by Conquest, albeit the revised edition. I was surprised he referred to it as both editions unequivocally hold Stalin responsible for that terror. I have also read the biographies by Deucher and Rigby. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:49 PM Astonishing ............. did you understand them |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:17 PM And what makes you imagine you have any warrant to be so o-so-bloody-superior? Trim your nasty raggy tache & mind your manners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:22 PM the raven chides blackness |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:30 PM Michael, you criticise people for being rude more than most here, yet are one of the rudest people on the forum. Perhaps you think that your age entitles you to this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:43 PM "I was surprised he referred to it as both editions unequivocally hold Stalin responsible for that terror." Everbody holds Stalin responsible for that terror - nobody is suggesting otherwise - what's your point "I have also read the biographies by Deucher" You mean Deutscher? Hmmm!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM Michael, I will harken to your admonishment on the proviso that you harken to the illiterate garbage that KAOH normally issues. I'm sure neither of us would wish to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:08 PM Some recent instances of my rudeness, if you please, Steve? Within, let's say, the last year or two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM I don't find Michael rude at all. Compared to a lot of the shite that goes on here, he is the essence of decorum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:27 PM Raggytash -- I have made no secret of the fact that I am often in far closer agreement with Keith than with all the rest of you oh-so-selfrighteous wellmeaners. One of the major insufferablenesses of you lot over there on the port side is that sickening air of moral superiority for your opinions that you adopt, with the manifest overtone that only the unregenerate evil could possibly differ with them, whilst you are all possessed of every scintilla of virtuous saintliness known to manifest itself in this sad world in which people are given votes by extreme your grace & favour and then proceed to cast them in ways of which your mightinesses disapprove. And what, pray, are your claims to regarding yourself as more 'literate' than him (us)? For a start, you appear to have only the sketchiest idea of wherein 'literacy' obtains or exists. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:28 PM Thank you, HiLo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:39 PM And a word of comment, Steve. You tend to repeat your effects to the point of extreme tedium, which detracts immeasurably from the cogency of your arguments. What, for instance, is the purpose of your constant harping on the fact that I happen to have been born some years before you, and to have contrived to avoid death up to now? A really pathetic substitute for any sort of intelligent dispute. Do you think me too senile to keep up with your almighty intellect? I flatter myself I could outperform your puny intelligence in any sort of contest that might be devised to that end; if I could be bothered. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:51 PM And some people might, I suppose, have once found a modicum of wit in all those hilarious references to my need for a "nurse"; till you flogged the joke unmercifully to death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST Date: 25 Jul 15 - 02:54 PM "And what makes you imagine you have any warrant to be so o-so-bloody-superior" Perhaps Michael you could elucidate on your own superiority. No, please don't, you have already done so far too often. I have no doubts about your command of the English language However despite that knowledge you seem to say very little. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:06 PM Perhaps not, Guest. Matter of opinion But at least I am not so pusillanimous as to post offensively but anonymously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:13 PM Not pusillanimous Michael, merely an oversight on my behalf. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM Ah, it's you all along! Well I never! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM Oh I'm sure you did Michael, when you were younger perchance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: The Sandman Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:09 PM "Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: MGM·Lion - PM Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:06 PM Perhaps not, Guest. Matter of opinion But at least I am not so pusillanimous as to post offensively but anonymously." Hear Hear, Michael has style, its always a pleasure to read the out pourings from the aforesaid booby, his claptrap, codswallop and crapola is delivered with elegance that makes one wonder if he has kissed the Blarney Stone, long may he continue to pontificate his philisophical peregrinations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:47 PM Don't be fooled, Guest. Michael's "command of the English language" is entirely predicated on pretentious and arcane (he thinks) constructions that he uses to try, unsuccessfully because he's so easy to see through, to browbeat us with into bouts of completely unnecessary mental processing. Frankly, it's plain rude (though "plain" would seem to be a word that has bypassed Michael's lexicon). A person who has true command of the language comes across as elegant, simple, lucid and easy to understand, without the need to be patronising. I'm afraid that Michael fails on every count. He could be successful, of course, as he has the intellectual potential to be erudite, but he does need to find some way of extracting his head from up his bottom first. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Queen Mother From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Jul 15 - 07:51 PM And as for Michael's bleatings about his not being rude, just have a look at his 02.27pm post. Rudeness personified. |