Cromwell The Miserable Traitor

[KevinC]

well i wouldnt have given much to them.

in the words of a late comedien, "Ireland is an Island, which, by definition is surrounded by water. Fish live in water. So hundreds of thousands of irish died becuase they don't like fish?"

That's a very insensitive and unfunny post. Many of my ancestors had to emigrate from places like County Kerry where entire communities were devastated by the famine. My immediate ancestors chose to leave so they survived, and they were the fortunate ones. Bear in mind if you will that the ports were owned by the British, not the Irish, so access would not have been possible for an Irish fishing fleet.

[Flaxbourton Red]

You what???!!!! No difference between Nazism and Stalinism??!!! The German NAZI Luftwaffe rained death and destruction on our very own city of Bristol from 1940 until 1944. Stalin's Red Air Force dropped not one bomb on our city or any other place in the UK. Stalin's USSR bore the brunt of the NAZI terror regime and had the Red Army lost we were next on Hitler's menu of death and destruction. English women would have been sent to German brothels and Englishmen would have been sent to slave labour camps had we lost to the Germans.

Yes our friends the USSR, I like the friendly way they pointed nuclear weapons at bristol during the last 50 years.

They were also quick to think of us when they signed the pact of steel with the nazis.

And yet they saved us from Nazism. Yeah, the Nazi's were so kind to the Slavs as well.

There is a fundamental difference between Nazism and Stalinism. One ideology is based on exclusion and the other on inclusion. Whatever, its flaws (and there are many) at least Communism can be said to be aiming (in theory at least) for a future of inclusion, freedom and toleration. Whereas, Nazism was merely aimed at the elimination of all races for the benefit of the superior "Aryan" race.

Anyway, I don't want to come across as a Stalinist apologist becasue I hate Stalinism, but I do not accept it was the same as Nazism. It sounds to me like you've been reading too many ********* Alan Bullock books.

Are you saying stalinism is the same as communism?

[bucksred]

You what???!!!! No difference between Nazism and Stalinism??!!! The German NAZI Luftwaffe rained death and destruction on our very own city of Bristol from 1940 until 1944. Stalin's Red Air Force dropped not one bomb on our city or any other place in the UK. Stalin's USSR bore the brunt of the NAZI terror regime and had the Red Army lost we were next on Hitler's menu of death and destruction. English women would have been sent to German brothels and Englishmen would have been sent to slave labour camps had we lost to the Germans.

Gobbo, that is nothing compared to what Ivan had planned for us, as a port Briz (Liverpool, Glasgow, Southampton, Luuuuuundan, Felixstoew among others too), would have got a minimum two nukes, each five times the power of Hiroshima bomb, to deny use of it. An estimated five million Brits, including all war vets, trade unionists, politicians, generals, police officers, priests, teachers, and civil servants would have ended up in the Gulag had Ivan won. Make no mistake Ivan would have caused every bit as much damage and oppression as the Nazis, the difference is the Nazis were bungling amateurs by comparison, oh, I forgot, Ivan didnt like Jews either.............

We're quite lucky in that, the West Germans would have lost half of the population, and France too was fated for extreme oppression.

And Ivan carried out sgood few atrocities as Germany too, in their *ahem* "Liberation " of Europe too.

Katyn.

Letting Polish Freedom Fighters get murdered by the Germans.

Mass rape in EVERY country liberated.

Mass robbery of everything in the "Liberated" countries.

Mass deportations of their citizens aof all countries.

Detention after liberation of Allied ie British, A,merican, French, Polish and other nations POW's

Redrawing of borders on a scale matching that of the Nazis, along with the consequent displacement of millions of citizens.

Absorbtion of three countries in to the USSR.

Taking are huge chunk of Poland in agreement with Adolf, and KEEPING it, plus Bessarbia, Ruthenia, a good chunk of Finland, and part of East Prussia.

Yeah WONDERFUL folk the Ivans, no really.............

don't even go to their post war oppression of East Germany, Poland, (1953) the coup in Czechoslovakia (1948) Hungarian Uprising (1956), and the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968)

Great lads the Ivans eh!

And yet they saved us from Nazism. Yeah, the Nazi's were so kind to the Slavs as well.

There is a fundamental difference between Nazism and Stalinism. One ideology is based on exclusion and the other on inclusion. Whatever, its flaws (and there are many) at least Communism can be said to be aiming (in theory at least) for a future of inclusion, freedom and toleration. Whereas, Nazism was merely aimed at the elimination of all races for the benefit of the superior "Aryan" race.

Anyway, I don't want to come across as a Stalinist apologist becasue I hate Stalinism, but I do not accept it was the same as Nazism. It sounds to me like you've been reading too many ********* Alan Bullock books.

So inclusive that 15,000 Polish officers, priests and politicians were murdered at Katyn.

So inclusive that together with the Nazis they divvyd Poland up between en, AND kept their share after the war.

So inclusive they Annexed three sovereign countries, and incorporatec elements of 3 others and annexed Northern East Prussia.

So inclusive that millions went to the Gulag, on alleged "Liberstion", the vast majority who were neither Nazis or fascists.

So inclusive any poor sod captured by the Nazis and who by some miracle survived was slunng in a Gulag

So inclusive that they didnt sign the Geneva Convention, which allowed Adolf to "legitimize" the subsequent treatment of POWs

So inclusive that Georgians, Tadjiks, Usbeks, Cossacks, Volga Germans, Tatars, Azerbaijanis, and Chechens whole communities were uprooted and sent to Siberia.

So inclusive that their German lackies built a wall across Germany to divide the country

So inclusive that millions of women, not just the beaten fascists were mass raped, and spread sexually transmitted diseases across Europe.

Yeah, Inclusive aint it...............and they carried out more than their share of unwarranted atrocities too.

[Flaxbourton Red]

Good post bucksred.

Perhaps those that are drawn to communism, are those that like the niave goodness of the theories dreamt up by that champaign swilling bearded german exile Mr Marx whose understanding of the working class was hard earned striving at the coal face of the British Library, living off his mates' wealth.

When asked if he thought communism would come in his time.

he replied "no, thank god".

Perhaps some leftist states are good places to live, Cuba maybe alright, who knows?,

but stalinism or "communism in one country" was nothing other than hell for the people subjected to it, it had nothing to do with communism.

Marx would have turned in his grave at the thought of Stalin.

[dagest]

Yes our friends the USSR, I like the friendly way they pointed nuclear weapons at bristol during the last 50 years.

They were also quick to think of us when they signed the pact of steel with the nazis.

Are you saying stalinism is the same as communism?

No certainly not, but many Stalinists considered themselves Communists. That's why talking beyond theories is always a tricky subject.

[dagest]

Gobbo, that is nothing compared to what Ivan had planned for us, as a port Briz (Liverpool, Glasgow, Southampton, Luuuuuundan, Felixstoew among others too), would have got a minimum two nukes, each five times the power of Hiroshima bomb, to deny use of it. An estimated five million Brits, including all war vets, trade unionists, politicians, generals, police officers, priests, teachers, and civil servants would have ended up in the Gulag had Ivan won. Make no mistake Ivan would have caused every bit as much damage and oppression as the Nazis, the difference is the Nazis were bungling amateurs by comparison, oh, I forgot, Ivan didnt like Jews either.............

We're quite lucky in that, the West Germans would have lost half of the population, and France too was fated for extreme oppression.

And Ivan carried out sgood few atrocities as Germany too, in their *ahem* "Liberation " of Europe too.

Katyn.

Letting Polish Freedom Fighters get murdered by the Germans.

Mass rape in EVERY country liberated.

Mass robbery of everything in the "Liberated" countries.

Mass deportations of their citizens aof all countries.

Detention after liberation of Allied ie British, A,merican, French, Polish and other nations POW's

Redrawing of borders on a scale matching that of the Nazis, along with the consequent displacement of millions of citizens.

Absorbtion of three countries in to the USSR.

Taking are huge chunk of Poland in agreement with Adolf, and KEEPING it, plus Bessarbia, Ruthenia, a good chunk of Finland, and part of East Prussia.

Yeah WONDERFUL folk the Ivans, no really.............

don't even go to their post war oppression of East Germany, Poland, (1953) the coup in Czechoslovakia (1948) Hungarian Uprising (1956), and the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968)

Great lads the Ivans eh!

So inclusive that 15,000 Polish officers, priests and politicians were murdered at Katyn.

So inclusive that together with the Nazis they divvyd Poland up between en, AND kept their share after the war.

So inclusive they Annexed three sovereign countries, and incorporatec elements of 3 others and annexed Northern East Prussia.

So inclusive that millions went to the Gulag, on alleged "Liberstion", the vast majority who were neither Nazis or fascists.

So inclusive any poor sod captured by the Nazis and who by some miracle survived was slunng in a Gulag

So inclusive that they didnt sign the Geneva Convention, which allowed Adolf to "legitimize" the subsequent treatment of POWs

So inclusive that Georgians, Tadjiks, Usbeks, Cossacks, Volga Germans, Tatars, Azerbaijanis, and Chechens whole communities were uprooted and sent to Siberia.

So inclusive that their German lackies built a wall across Germany to divide the country

So inclusive that millions of women, not just the beaten fascists were mass raped, and spread sexually transmitted diseases across Europe.

Yeah, Inclusive aint it...............and they carried out more than their share of unwarranted atrocities too.

As I said, Communism as a theory is inclusive. As Wythenshaw says the bastardized Stlaininst state can hardly be claimed to be "Communist" at all, although as I've already said the Stalinists considered themelves to be Communists or at least Socialists. It's a bit like when Tony B.Liar calls himself a Christian Socialist and then future genrations assasinate the charcters of Christians and Socilaissts on the basis of Tony's behaviour.

Let's not forget Bucks that Europe was carved up with the connivance of Churchill and Roosevelt at the Potsdam Conference. And it probably worth mentioning that the US did not ratify the Geneva Convention until 1977 either. I'm intriuged by your use of "Ivans". Are you referring to Russians, Communists or the Soviet Union?

[Mr Mosquito]

Let's not forget Bucks that Europe was carved up with the connivance of Churchill and Roosevelt at the Potsdam Conference. And it probably worth mentioning that the US did not ratify the Geneva Convention until 1977 either. I'm intriuged by your use of "Ivans". Are you referring to Russians, Communists or the Soviet Union?

Post war Europe was carved up by agreement between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta. For those that continually question me, the three great war leaders are below - thank them for the freedoms you enjoy today.........

[dagest]

Post war Europe was carved up by agreement between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta. For those that continually question me, the three great war leaders are below - thank them for the freedoms you enjoy today.........

Oops, that's what I meant. Sorry, I was in a rush to watch the CL final.

[Mr Mosquito]

Oops, that's what I meant. Sorry, I was in a rush to watch the CL final.

No doubt that Churchill was rather a nasty aristocratic toff with his attitude toward the miners during the 1926 General Strike. However, Churchill more than made amends leading this country during WWII and he was fond of Cromwell. Roosevelt was an extremely clever leader giving munitions support to Britain while the USA was supposed to be neutral during the period September 1939 - December 1941. As for Stalin - he was the 'man of steel' required to lead the USSR to victory at whatever the cost in life and property. Cometh the hour cometh the man !!! and Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were head and shoulders above the rest in terms of leadership capabilities.

It may come as a surprise to many of you that my favourite leader of the 20th Century was President Truman. Truman took over from President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."

During peacetime, Truman presented to Congress a 21-point program, proposing the expansion of Social Security, a full-employment program, a permanent Fair Employment Practices Act, and public housing and slum clearance. The program, Truman wrote, "symbolizes for me my assumption of the office of President in my own right." It became known as the 'Fair Deal'.

[bucksred]

Gobbo, Dagest and others who think Communism is a good theory, but warped in practice-ask yourself one question why did that paragon of the left Lenin set up Cheka, precursor or the NKVD, and later KGB, in the very early 20's. This secret police force has NEVER changed-indeed its Russian successor FNB, is the same. It ALWAYS watches its own people, and anyone who deviates from its perceived norrm, is not just watdched as they are in the free West, but actively abused, beaten up, thrown into jails, sent to Siberia.

Just why has lovely cudly Russia, hung onto every scrap of their illegal land grabs from 1939 onwards.

Youre quite right about Uncle Joe, Roosevelt, and (reluctantly, but as we were a fading power by then) Churchill at Yalta divvying up the world. But if you really think Uncle Joe was being part of a team, you are seriously deluded. Uncle Joe kept his offensive plans from Bagration (July 1944) onwards from the Western Allies, and only made them known to us, when we got in trouble (Normandy 19544-Bagration) The Polish Offensive (Jan 1945- The Battle of the Bulge), and didnt even inform us of his Berlin offensive till it happened). He was absolutely determined to capture as much territory as he could of central Europe, and had he got past the Elbe River, do you seriously think the Red Army would have retreated, as the US 9th Army did from the Leipzig area. The only place they were forced to give up, was Yougoslavia, where Titi saw through the bull, and insisted on keeping control.

The Yanks, then, were extrodinarily naive, as now, about the Reds. Britain went to war with Nazi Germany over Poland, and did its utmost to ensure its freedom, but in the face of Russo/American deals, failed totally, due to our enormous debt.

As to my description of Ivan, its to Russia/Soviet Union, equally applicable, because the Russians are the dominant state- they regard Ukranians, Uzbeks, Kazahs, Tadiks, Georgians, Azerbaijanis at inferior races. As witnessed by every part of the former Soviet Union, which wasnt Russian, jumping ship ASAP, on the break up of Communism. Some members of EVERY minority of the Soviet Union, bar Jews fought against them.

The Russians over the course of history, are every bit as bad as the Germans and French, for nationalist rascist wars. Quite why in the face of all evidence to the contrary, everyone thinks the "Soviet Workers Paradise" is so wonderful never cease to amaze me.

Even Romanian peasant soldiers during Operation Barbarossa-the initial invasion of Russia in June 1941, couldnt beleive how badly off the Russians were, and they were from one of the most reactionary, fuedal societies still left in Europe in 1941. German troops, started beleiving Nazi propaganda, once they saw what hovels, most Russians still lived in. Even WW1 vets in their forces were shocked that conditions were worse, than in 1916-17, when they were there first.

Final thang, anyone care to answer this question: Why did the German Armed Forces (That includes the Nazi Waffen SS, by the way), STILL, even in the face of total and utter defeat, on the Eastern Front, get a steady stream of Russian deserters, EVEN during the battle for the Seelow Heights, the final act before the storming of the ruins of Berlin?(About a month before the end of the war) Despite there being almost two MILLION Soviet troops, up against 900,000 or so rag bag and bobtail men of the Wehrmacht (Only about a dozen elite units, the rest were remnants, old men, police, untrained Navy/Luftwaffe/Police/Home Guard/Hitler Youth batallions)

As to my favorite US President. Well I have two: JFK, despite his foibles, was the greatest leader the Free World. Wonder how things would have been, had he not been assassinated

Second: Reagan, he might well be a jerk, and a failed actor. Fact is, his decision, to escalate the Arms Race, while widely hated at the time, was in fact the right decision, as the Soviet Empire couldnt compete, as Gorbachev quickly realised, thereby leading to the end of the Cold War. I doubt very much any of those since could, or would have made that bold decision. The only Western leader, bar Kennedy, to actually STAND up to the Soviet Empire

Sadly subsquent leaders, from the US, and Europe have failed to have the ability to follow up that with anything concrete, to all our detriment.

[Flaxbourton Red]

. For those that continually question me,

Tones of authoratarian totalitarianism creeping through.

also

I thank stalin for nothing, genocidal egotist.

[Mr Mosquito]

Tones of authoratarian totalitarianism creeping through.

also

I thank stalin for nothing, genocidal egotist.

So you'd rather live under a NAZI jack boot or be an authoritarian totalitarian NAZI wearing the jackboots? That is my question to you.

[bad_shrek]

So you'd rather live under a NAZI jack boot or be an authoritarian totalitarian NAZI wearing the jackboots? That is my question to you.

good question!

I've always thought jackboots were quite fetching!

[Mr Mosquito]

good question!

I've always thought jackboots were quite fetching!

I've always fancied women in jackboots too .....

[Dorset_Cider]

All this discussion about hamburgers and black forest is making me very hungry.

Na..... different country again?

[bucksred]

Na..... different country again?

Czech........mate?

[Mr Mosquito]

Gobbo, Dagest and others who think Communism is a good theory, but warped in practice-ask yourself one Youre quite right about Uncle Joe, Roosevelt, and (reluctantly, but as we were a fading power by then) Churchill at Yalta divvying up the world. But if you really think Uncle Joe was being part of a team, you are seriously deluded. Uncle Joe kept his offensive plans from Bagration (July 1944) onwards from the Western Allies, and only made them known to us, when we got in trouble (Normandy 19544-Bagration) The Polish Offensive (Jan 1945- The Battle of the Bulge), and didnt even inform us of his Berlin offensive till it happened). He was absolutely determined to capture as much territory as he could of central Europe, and had he got past the Elbe River, do you seriously think the Red Army would have retreated, as the US 9th Army did from the Leipzig area. The only place they were forced to give up, was Yougoslavia, where Titi saw through the bull, and insisted on keeping control.

bucksred, I hope you'll understand that I can't answer every one of your points regarding the Red Army without writing a huge essay but I'll try to answer a few salient points. 'Uncle' Joe Stalin was, in fact, part of the team effort with the Americans and British. The Americans and British were more than ready to supply the Red Army with munitions as long as the Red Army did the bulk of the fighting. The Red Army thus took the bulk of the casualties fighting the NAZI's to the relief of Churchill and the British High command who dreaded a repeat of the losses inflicted on us during World War 1. The Red Army kept their side of the deal also by giving up parts of Berlin - that they'd captured at great cost in lives of Red Army soldiers - to the Western allies. After Joe Stalin's death in the early 1950's the Russians tried to wrest Berlin from the allies by cutting off supplies. Joe Stalin more or less always kept to his word with regard to dealings with Britain and America during WWII. The real problems with the USSR, from the West's perspective, seemed to have started after Stalin's death.

[bucksred]

bucksred, I hope you'll understand that I can't answer every one of your points regarding the Red Army without writing a huge essay but I'll try to answer a few salient points. 'Uncle' Joe Stalin was, in fact, part of the team effort with the Americans and British. The Americans and British were more than ready to supply the Red Army with munitions as long as the Red Army did the bulk of the fighting. The Red Army thus took the bulk of the casualties fighting the NAZI's to the relief of Churchill and the British High command who dreaded a repeat of the losses inflicted on us during World War 1. The Red Army kept their side of the deal also by giving up parts of Berlin - that they'd captured at great cost in lives of Red Army soldiers - to the Western allies. After Joe Stalin's death in the early 1950's the Russians tried to wrest Berlin from the allies by cutting off supplies. Joe Stalin more or less always kept to his word with regard to dealings with Britain and America during WWII. The real problems with the USSR, from the West's perspective, seemed to have started after Stalin's death.

As far as the British were concerned, you would be right in your succinct assesment. We didnt want casualty rates like WW1. We couldnt afford them either, our Armies and Air Force were disbanding units to keep others up to strength

The US wanted a Second Front in 1942, persuaded otherwise by Churchill. and again in 1943- rto help Uncle Joe, who they incredibly thought of as a man of his word!!

Fact the German Army had 3/4 of its fighting forces involved in Russia, and about 90% of its best forces. Stalin would not allow ground units to fight, and only tolerated two air units: The RAF at Murmansk, to guard the port, and the Normandie Nieman french unit. Both units movements were closely watched at all times. Indeed the Brits couldnt wait to leave. My dad did Arctic Convoys, and he said the Soviet Navy was less than supportive at all times. Surly, slow, un coperative, and all this after the allies had risked valuable shipping over what 2000 miles of enemy controlled sea. They were still being attacked by U Boats a day and a half from Murmansk, well within Soviet Air, let alone sea power.

The russians were quite happy to hand 2/3 of the ruins of Berlin, they gained Leipzig, Halle, Magdeburg, Schwerin, and aprroximatly half of what did become East Germany, which the Yanks had already captured. The industrial centres there were left by the Yanks (Naively) for Ivan to loot.

They also broke their word on Poland (The reason Britain declared war), Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Greece. They also hung onto allied POWs liberated to make sure all Russians in the Western Zones were handed over to the tender mercies of the NKVD. Make no mistake, Ivan wanted control of Eastern Europe, and had they been able to Germany to, to ensure Soviet hegemony over Europe.

They also refused to enter the war against Japan, something the US wanted them to, until they were given Japanese territory, for doing so.

They were in WW2, to get what they could, and they succeeded, in most, only Czechoslovakia escaped, only to fall in 1948. and Germany, where they dismally failed, as evidenced by the flow of around 10 million Germans from the East to West Germany, and 800 or so the other way over the 35 year existance of the "country"

Team player my @rse, co operated when it suited them, ie gained them something. Truman saw through it, and the Cold War then ensued.

They did win the war, boy did they.............Eastern Europe sadly paid the price for it all.

[Mr Mosquito]

They were in WW2, to get what they could, and they succeeded, in most, only Czechoslovakia escaped, only to fall in 1948. and Germany, where they dismally failed, as evidenced by the flow of around 10 million Germans from the East to West Germany, and 800 or so the other way over the 35 year existance of the "country"

Team player my @rse, co operated when it suited them, ie gained them something. Truman saw through it, and the Cold War then ensued.

They did win the war, boy did they.............Eastern Europe sadly paid the price for it all.

From the cold and analytical perspective of 2006 we can also write that the USA gained massive wealth from selling the allies armaments to fight Germany; the USSR gained huge amounts of territory from the collapsed Third Reich; and Britain's was a curious type of victory in that we gained no land nor wealth, in fact we became bankrupted by the war effort and lost the remains of the Empire.

As for the Royal Navy and merchant sailors of the Arctic convoys ask your dad, as I believe they are still seen as real heroes in the Russian ports they took supplies to. The former Soviet government tried to honour them with medals but, due to the Cold War, our government denied them access to the ceremonies.

[bucksred]

From the cold and analytical perspective of 2006 we can also write that the USA gained massive wealth from selling the allies armaments to fight Germany; the USSR gained huge amounts of territory from the collapsed Third Reich; and Britain's was a curious type of victory in that we gained no land nor wealth, in fact we became bankrupted by the war effort and lost the remains of the Empire.

As for the Royal Navy and merchant sailors of the Arctic convoys ask your dad, as I believe they are still seen as real heroes in the Russian ports they took supplies to. The former Soviet government tried to honour them with medals but, due to the Cold War, our government denied them access to the ceremonies.

He died just before the medals were awarded, but he has no fond memories of either Russia, or its gratitude Gobbo, sorry. The losers in WW2, were the British Empire, and Germany. Everyone else got something out of it. Neither of those two did.

There are always winners and losers in War. Uncle Sam, was already on the rise, and the war, gave it undisputed power, but Ivan, was worse off than the Yanks before the War, and finished every bit as powerful. Uncle Sam realised it, just too late to make a difference in the war.

Ive also seen its wonderful acheivements all over africa. Most african countries peoples are actually worse off NOW, than they were as colonies, due to Soviet, and Red Chinese exports of their "workers paradise" to the poorest continet on Gods earth. Ask Zimbabweans, inflation just hit 1000% this last week, all this through failed marxist dogma, and state control.

[Guest Orj]

The German descended Queen Victoria, as head of the Church of England.

Are you not German descended too?

How many years do you have to go back before being descended of Germans ceases to be a bad thing?

Just wondering, like.

[Mr Mosquito]

Are you not German descended too?

How many years do you have to go back before being descended of Germans ceases to be a bad thing?

Just wondering, like.

My continental ancestors came mainly from what is now Denmark and Northern Holland - I'm therefore English and not German.

[Guest Orj]

My continental ancestors came mainly from what is now Denmark and Northern Holland - I'm therefore English and not German.

But the English are, by definition, descendants of three most powerful nations of Germany - the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes, who migrated from Schleswig-Holstein around 390 AD. The Jutes ended up with the Isle of Wight and a little patch of Kent, the Angles got everything north of an imaginary line between Ipswich and Birmingham while the Saxons, who had effectively incorporated the other two tribes, took the rest, including Bristol.

Therefore, if you are truly English, you are a descenant of a Germanic tribe, much the same as HRH.

So, what's it to be? Are you a German-descended Englishman or Dutch-descended non-Englishman?

[Guest Orj]

Post war Europe was carved up by agreement between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta. For those that continually question me, the three great war leaders are below - thank them for the freedoms you enjoy today.........

Thank Roosevelt? I'd rather not if it's all the same.

His populous had no interest whatsoever in doing anything of any substance to help us out in our hour of need. The general feeling amongst the Yanks was one of apathy and disinterest. Roosevelt may have sent a couple of boats over with a few potatoes and spud-guns but they didn't declare war on the Japanese until they lost a hefty chunk of their fleet in the raid on Pearl Harbour.

Furthermore, they still didn't get involved in the European theatre until the Germans and the Italians declared war on them - hardly a selfless attempt at defending the freedoms of the British.

The Battle of Britain, which made Hitler think twice about invading Britain (something he was never certain to try to do anyway as he had a great deal of respect for the British) was fought without the aid of Teddy and his self-interested people.

As for Stalin, he spent a significant chunk of WWII as an ally of Hitler and only changed his tune when Hitler turned on him and decided to invade his country - hardly a strong-principled proponent of the freedom we are supposed to thank him for.

Neither of these men acted in the higher interest of freedom, rather they reacted to the situation before them in the way that suited them best. The only nations who acted with any real principles and ideology in WWII were the British and the French; and that was only after the pair of us failed to enforce the Treaty of Versailles which forbade the Germans from rearming post WWI.

Churchill is deserving of a bit of gratitude, mind you. He took over from Neville Chamberlain, a true man of principle who stood up for the freedom of the Poles, and did a rather good job of rallying his people and gaining superiority of the skies over the Germans. Of course, Churchill was a believer in the superiority of the German-descended Anglo-Saxons and was a devoted Royalist so he hits the mark in a number of areas.

[Mr Mosquito]

But the English are, by definition, descendants of three most powerful nations of Germany - the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes, who migrated from Schleswig-Holstein around 390 AD. The Jutes ended up with the Isle of Wight and a little patch of Kent, the Angles got everything north of an imaginary line between Ipswich and Birmingham while the Saxons, who had effectively incorporated the other two tribes, took the rest, including Bristol.

Therefore, if you are truly English, you are a descenant of a Germanic tribe, much the same as HRH.

So, what's it to be? Are you a German-descended Englishman or Dutch-descended non-Englishman?

To be pedantic, I'm more of a Dutch (Angle) descended Englishman by build, looks and temperament. Anyway, your Queen Elizabeth is from a Southern German family and she cannot trace her bloodline to Alfred the Great. Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha AKA Elizabeth Wesson !!!! is, therefore, an imposter. The last legitimate English Monarch - i.e. descended from Alfred the Great by bloodline - was King Richard III. I've often looked around Ashton Gate on a matchday and wondered if a more legitimate King/Queen is amongst the City faithful. Alfred the Great was King of Wessex and Bristol is now the major population centre in Wessex, our true Monarch could even be lurking on this forum !!!

[Guest Orj]

To be pedantic, I'm more of a Dutch (Angle) descended Englishman by build, looks and temperament.

The Angles are from Schleswig-Holstein - the northernmost of the 16 Bundesländer in Germany. There is no such thing as a Dutch Angle. True Englishmen, like HRH, are German descended - anything else is an imposter.

[KevinC]

To be pedantic, I'm more of a Dutch (Angle) descended Englishman by build, looks and temperament. Anyway, your Queen Elizabeth is from a Southern German family and she cannot trace her bloodline to Alfred the Great. Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha AKA Elizabeth Wesson !!!! is, therefore, an imposter. The last legitimate English Monarch - i.e. descended from Alfred the Great by bloodline - was King Richard III. I've often looked around Ashton Gate on a matchday and wondered if a more legitimate King/Queen is amongst the City faithful. Alfred the Great was King of Wessex and Bristol is now the major population centre in Wessex, our true Monarch could even be lurking on this forum !!!

I'm not sure I follow your argument about the present queen being an "imposter", in that pre Richard lll there were occasions when rival claims were made for the English throne. Were any of those who succeeded to the throne "imposters" too?

[Mr Mosquito]

The Angles are from Schleswig-Holstein - the northernmost of the 16 Bundesländer in Germany. There is no such thing as a Dutch Angle. True Englishmen, like HRH, are German descended - anything else is an imposter.

Extensive research is currently underway at many Universities on this subject. Genetically and linguistically the English people are most closely linked to the people of present day Northern Holland not Germany. Your German descended Queen is barely English and even by the snob/toff criteria for a legitimate English monarch she fails as she is not descended from Alfred the Great - the West Saxon King that English Monarchs MUST be descended from to be legitimate.

You're right about there being no such thing as a 'Dutch Angle' See map below showing where the English people are mainly from i.e. present day Holland, Western Germany and Denmark.....

In the fifth century AD, people from tribes called Angles, Saxons and Jutes left their homelands in northern Europe to look for a new home. They knew that the Romans had recently left the green land of Britain unguarded, so they sailed across the channel in small wooden boats.

"Bede tells us that the Germanic settlers came from Anglian and Saxon regions of continental Europe, within the modern territories of Holland, Southern Denmark, and Western Germany."

Source: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Medieval_...ies/anglos.html

[Guest Orj]

"Bede tells us that the Germanic settlers came from Anglian and Saxon regions of continental Europe, within the modern territories of Holland, Southern Denmark, and Western Germany."

So, we are all Germanic. Glad that's settled.

[KevinC]

So, it's scattered showers heading from the east..........