BS: Queen Mother

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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:17 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 02:24 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jul 15 - 12:34 PM

international voice?
Force.

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: 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: 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 - 12:14 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 - 12:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Jul 15 - 09:12 AM

Thanks Derrick, hadn't noticed that! 😎

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: 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: 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,Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM

Allied Intervention

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.