Monday, June 25, 2012

Most young people do not know Battle of Britain was fought in the air


'On the night of April 26-27, 1944, Jackson had been due to go on leave after completing his scheduled tour of 30 operations, but he volunteered for one more sortie ‘for luck’ before celebrating the birth of his baby son. This meant he was the flight engineer on a Lancaster aircraft that was returning from a bombing raid in Germany when it was attacked by an enemy fighter aircraft.

'When a fire broke out on the starboard wing, Jackson did not hesitate to act, even though he had been wounded. The Lancaster was flying at 200mph and at 20,000ft, yet he tackled the blaze in a most extraordinary fashion.

'Jackson clipped on his parachute and tucked a hand-held fire extinguisher into his life-jacket, before clambering out of the cockpit and back along the fuselage. His precarious mission had hardly begun when his parachute pack opened and the canopy spilled into the cockpit.

'By the time Jackson had managed to crawl further along the fuselage in the bitter cold, the fire had spread and he slipped, losing his fire extinguisher into the night. His face, hands and clothing were now badly burnt and, to make matters worse, he was then dragged through the flames and over the edge of the wing.

'Jackson was last seen by his fellow aircrew hurtling towards the ground with his parachute ablaze and only partly open. He landed heavily, breaking his ankle. Severely burnt, he was taken prisoner of war and paraded through a German town.

'The citation for his VC, received from George VI, concluded: "By his ready willingness to face these dangers he set an example of self-sacrifice which will ever be remembered."'
Or not.

In the O-level mêlée and the tensions between Mssrs Gove and Clegg about abolishing GCSEs to restore a degree of academic rigour to state qualifications, it is easy to overlook the consequential details of chronic ‘dumbing down’.

Lord Ashcroft commissioned a poll to coincide with the establishing of a permanent memorial to Bomber Command, which is to be dedicated and unveiled by the Queen in Green Park, London, on 28th June. The memorial honours the 55,573 men of Bomber Command who lost their lives during the Second World War. You’d think that knowledge of this might be part of the national consciousness, imbued through the fervent patriotism latent within our schools and inculcated through a history syllabus which focuses on our great island story...

Yet only just over two in five secondary school children know the Battle of Britain was fought in the air, according to Lord Ashcroft’s survey. Some 1,007 children aged 11-18 were interviewed face-to-face between 15-23 May 2012. The survey was conducted throughout Great Britain and the results are nationally representative. The research also shows that only one third of children know the Second World War began in 1939, while only one in five know what happened on D-Day.

The results of the survey highlight the importance of ensuring that current and future generations remember the sacrifices made by those who served Britain in time of war. Key findings include:

•Only 34% of children – including less than half (45%) of those aged 17-18 – knew the Second World War began in 1939. 39% knew it ended in 1945 (again including 45% of 17-18 year-olds).

•While 92% of children could correctly identify a picture of Churchill the insurance dog, only 62% correctly identified a photo of Sir Winston Churchill. •43% knew the Battle of Britain was fought in the air; 29% said it was fought on land, and 8% at sea. 20% said they did not know.

•Only one third (34%) correctly said the Battle of Britain took place in the 1940s, and only 11% of these – about one in 27 of the whole sample – knew it happened in 1940.

•Only a fifth of children had some idea of what happened on D-Day. The most frequent answer was that it was the day the war ended.

•86% correctly said there had been two World Wars. One in twenty thought there had been three.

•Nearly a third (29%) were unable to give any unprompted explanation of why Britain had fought the Second World War. This included more than a fifth (21%) of those aged 17-18 and a quarter of those aged 15-16.

•89% correctly named Germany as an adversary in the Second World War. Only 15% named Japan unprompted. Nearly a quarter thought Britain ’s enemies had included Russia , France , China , the USA , Australia or New Zealand.

•Only 61% correctly named the USA as an ally of Britain ’s in the Second World War. One in ten thought our allies had included Italy, Germany or Japan.

•Offered four different explanations for what Bomber Command is or was, only 36% correctly said it had been part of the RAF.

There was some encouraging news, however: 95% correctly identified the Royal British Legion’s poppy, and 84% knew what it signified. Commenting on the findings, Lord Ashcroft, who made a £1 million donation towards the new Bomber Command Memorial, said:

“It is sobering to find that so many children of secondary school age simply do not know important facts about crucial events in Britain ’s recent history. My own father fought in D-Day, and I was keen to discover how much today’s young people know of what happened just 70 years ago.

“I don’t mean to criticise the children. We must all take responsibility for ensuring that what we know is passed to the next generation. These findings show we can never be complacent about our duty to remember.

“One of the ways we can do this is to build lasting memorials to those who have sacrificed so much to serve our country. That is the purpose of the Bomber Command Memorial, which I am proud to support.

“The Memorial is long overdue. Those who flew on countless missions over Nazi Germany and occupied Europe , many of whom were barely out of their teenage years, knew the odds were stacked against them, and many did not return. All of us should be thankful for the sacrifice they made to ensure that we can all live in a free society.”

178 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

If I was a school teacher I would be utterly ashamed of my profession for allowing such a state of ignorance to exist. However, the blame does not lie solely with the teaching profession.

I think the generation born in the years immediately after the War (I still think of it as "the War" and not one of many wars) are well informed about it but not because we learnt about it at school. I don't remember being taught anything about WWII at school and WWI got only a passing mention because the two wars were regarded as recent events and therefore were not covered in history lessons.

However we learnt about the War from our parents' generation and, being naturally curious about such an immense event, read up about it ourselves and also watched films about it, although we realised that Hollywood, somewhat understandably, had a very strong American bias.

Why didn't the post-War generation pass on what it had learnt from its parents?

25 June 2012 at 08:56  
Blogger ann said...

I am prone to thinking that some conspiracy is in the making: a conspiracy to deprive our youth of history and knowledge of that sort. In search for possible reasons for this one thing comes to mind: the less they know, the less they care, and that makes the brainwashing easier.

25 June 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

The teaching "profession" has much to answer for.

The rise in illiteracy/innumeracy and lack of simple comprehension of history, geography and literature is startling. Dumbing down of exams has reached fraudulent proportions.

They are now paid more, resourced more, have smaller class sizes and are supported by assistants.

How can they be so bad at what they do?

Their ineptitude is bordering upon criminal.

...And yet they say that THEY should be the ones in charge of education policy.

Come off it. Time to start dishing out the P45's

25 June 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger Tony B said...

Ann - paranoid piffle. It's clear to me that our kids, or mine at least, ARE being taught about history, the world wars,etc (if you didn't want them to know about it,why bother at all?) they probably just aren't being taught very well. Teachers are not all expert historians, and children aren't all interested in history. The Second World war ended 60-odd years ago. So this is a bit like expecting everyone over 40 to know everything there is to know about what happened around 1910. Absurd.

It does worry me sometimes that my son comes home and tells me they were learning about "life in the trenches in the second world war", accompanied by pictures clearly taken in the first, and thinks that the D-Day landings happened in Calais..but is the correct information going to make a huge difference to his life or anyone else's? No.

25 June 2012 at 09:27  
Blogger Roy said...

Before anyone tries to defend school teachers by pointing out that I should have begun my comment by writing "if I were a school teacher" and not "if I was a school teacher" I will admit my grammatical error. I did learn about the subjunctive at school but having left school in 1965 I occasionally forget about such things!

However, even if I were to forget 90% of what I know about the Second World War I would still be far better informed than most of the children in that survey.

25 June 2012 at 09:27  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Tony B

So this is a bit like expecting everyone over 40 to know everything there is to know about what happened around 1910. Absurd.

No, it is very much like expecting everyone over 40 to know the broad outlines - not "everything" - about what happened between 1914 and 1918.

25 June 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger Gareth said...

Suggest that the acquisition of knowledge should be the primary role of a student to most educational professors in this country and prepare to be lambasted as a Victorian age, child-hating, Professor Gradgrindian dinosaur. Young people apparently need "skills" which are relevant to the 21st Century, to prepare them for "jobs which do not exist yet."

And yet the main reason why this is happening is because of the fact that, if you want to teach something to a classroom, you have to make them shut up, sit behind their desks, stop texting/tweeting/watching porn on their mobile phones and write things down. And I'm afraid that this is getting progressively more and more difficult in many schools and even colleges.

25 June 2012 at 09:31  
Blogger Tony B said...

>No, it is very much like expecting everyone over 40 to know the broad outlines - not "everything" - about what happened between 1914 and 1918.

Well,I do. But I taught myself, I didn't learn about it in school. I think many of these tut-tutters either forget that they learned much of what they know off their own bat, or else they actually know less than they pretend. From everything I know about the educations that my boys are getting, they are getting the broad outlines. They just get a few facts wrong.

I also have to say I find it more than a little offensive that of all people , Lord Ashcroft the tax evader has the cheek to criticise the public education he's apparently not prepared to help pay for.

25 June 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger Simon said...

I was at school, I suspect, much more recently than the vast majority of your congregation, Your Grace. Children are taught about the world wars, but there was always a bizarre emphasis (at least at my primary school, under the National Curriculum; at my independent secondary school, which was free to set its own curriculum up to year 9, the teaching was much better) on "what it was like living in the war" - important, certainly, but I did leave primary school with almost no knowledge of why either world war was fought or what happened in them. I could draw a diagram of an Anderson shelter and sing the songs which were popular during air raids but my knowledge didn't extend beyond that, so the results of this survey are not much of a surprise.

25 June 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger Galant said...

I agree with Gareth. I think this is a case of culture trumps educational efforts. There might be problems with how things are taught but children know how to learn about what interests them, even if they have to work to find it out.

I think the bigger problem is a question of values and discipline. If the children don't value something, they wont care about it. I think those values are passed down, for the most part, and sadly, I think our own generations don't really value such things. Adults need to start changing the values system. Placing things in their proper places of priority. A quick parade, a day of holiday, oops, I mean remembrance, and we're satisfied that we've done our part. That's not remembrance. Living out our lives and arranging out society in the consciousness of what has happened, learning our lessons, and building upon what we have learned, is remembrance. Our children will never remember such sacrifice or values, because for the most part we don't. I'm a child of the 80's and 90's, maybe we don't care because our parents didn't either, or maybe we're just lazy, sinful, selfish human beings.

25 June 2012 at 10:03  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

School teachers are obliged to teach the National Curriculum - if you want to point the finger of blame I suggest you direct it at the Frankfurt School Fabians in the last government who made sure that ignorance is bliss. Whole chunks of history have been removed - young people are taught nothing of the constitutional struggles of the 17th century which led to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement...it is a shambles. Teachers do as they are told, sadly, but there it is.

25 June 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger Preacher said...

Ann.
I agree with you & the root of the conspiracy is. Who else, but our old pals, the EU. History is being dumbed down, forgotten or rewritten to accommodate the rise to power of the unelected, unwanted, unwelcome Eurodictat.
To steal a line from a well known hotel proprietor, mister B. Fawlty, "Don't mention the war".
I well remember the Trafalgar celebrations, the re-enactment of said Battle was between, the Reds & the Blues. No awkward problems there to stumble EU progress see.

25 June 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Tony B said...

Mrs Proudie - was that satire? If so all well and good. If not, "young people" haven't been learning about those things since at least the 1970s.

25 June 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
In the late sixties I was involved with an attempt to make a movie film about Bomber Command. That was when I first learnt about the incredible endeavours of these brave young men. More recently I met a Lancaster bomber pilot, active at the end of the war, at Duxford and that was a privilege to meet someone who had faced the enemy fighters and suffered the flack from the precision Ack Ack.


As a nipper I with mates climbed the fence into RAF Kenley and played on wrecked and abandoned aircraft including a two engine bomber.

Comics in that time had war hero features. It was fun then to play about the war, even though today it would be seen as macabre to relish in such violent behaviour and many parents won’t let their children have toys that represent violence. It did me no harm and I grew up with a respect and some understanding for what it was about.

If anything, today’s culture is less likely to produce a selfless valour but thank goodness our forces today do not flinch from the duty they are called to undertake.

25 June 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Galant said...

Looks like the kids might get their 'education' on the Battle of Britain after all - from the usual sources - http://www.deadline.com/2011/10/gk-films-plans-wwii-battle-of-britain/

25 June 2012 at 10:32  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Tony B

But I taught myself, I didn't learn about it in school. I think many of these tut-tutters either forget that they learned much of what they know off their own bat, or else they actually know less than they pretend.

I'm pleased to say that I am in agreement with you on that. As I said in my first message when I was at primary school in the 1950s history stopped at the end of the 19th century as far as our text books were concerned.

However our teachers did sometimes mention 20th century events when talking about things they thought might interest us. (Actually they may have been trying to extend our general knowledge). For example, I still remember learning in primary school that Alcock and Brown were the first people to fly the Atlantic non-stop. If you were to ask most people today who first did that I suspect the most common answer would be "don't know" followed by "Lindbergh"!

At grammar school I dropped history before doing my O-levels because I wanted to concentrate on the sciences and, too a lesser extent, languages. However since leaving university history is one of the few subjects that I have continued to learn about. It is much easier to educate yourself about history than it is about chemistry, say.

Therefore I fully agree that it is important for people to teach themselves about important historical events so they form part of their general knowledge. However, I do think that everyone at school should be taught the broad outlines of history in chronological order to form a framework for future learning. I am not against teaching "themes" in history but that should not be done instead of chronology.

25 June 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger Tony B said...

I agree,Roy. But Lord Ashcroft and His Grace appear to expect young schoolchildren to be experts on the Second World War. I think that is a tough ask: I consider myself pretty knowledgeable in that area, but taught myself, and that continues pretty much into the present.

But I actually wish I knew more about the experiences of my own grandparents - the human dimension - than the dry facts, and that I suspect may be what schools are aiming for. Real people's experiences of D-Day are so much more interesting than the official histories.

25 June 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Isn't the point more of how the bold Lord Ashcroft himself would like to be remembered?

Not as the tax dodging, dual nationality holding oligarch with a personal fortune that surpasses the GDP of the Country in which he lives; but more as the worthy guardian of the memory of the sacrifice of the Allied air-crews of Bomber Command. But what about those who had the good fortune to survive? The actual individuals and their fellow countrymen to whom he could have contributed his support and thrown in the odd monument when they were alive, by paying British taxes and basing his global empire in the land they defended.

A bit of honesty here please - however and crucial the contribution made by BC operation - to the war effort - these operations were indiscriminate and murderously vicious - something of which few people, once they saw pictures of the results after the war - were not proud enough to glorify with a specific monument.

So why now, when most of the participants are dead - why not when they were alive and alert enough to feel the appreciation of a grateful Country?

We can not keep relying of the fact that WW2 brought out the best in us as a united Nation in the past, to prop up the short comings of dis-united Nation in the present. Least of all by erecting a memorial largely sponsored by a cynical political puppet-master, who if the same circumstances of 1939 arose again would more than likely high-tail it to his safe haven fiefdom of Belize.

School children should be aware of past wars and their contexts of course; but is it so important that they should be criticised for not knowing pointless details like specific dates or glorified, dubious old generals?

I would rather they appreciate the real damage done to ordinary peoples lives as a result of politicians' wars. Even now, the media does still not show the true horrors or cost of war in Afghanistan(which we have been fighting in for twice as long as WW2) lest we see the stuff of nightmares - but it should: maybe then, the present generation would do more to scrutinise the actions of politicians more closely and avoid them in the future.

25 June 2012 at 11:47  
Blogger Tony B said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 June 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Tony B said...

Dreadnaught - hear,hear.

25 June 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

We learned about the War from one of our teachers - but it wasn't in a history lesson. Our class teacher when I was 10 had lived through the Liverpool Blitz, and thought all of us growing up in Liverpool should know what she had seen and heard. We all saw the bombed out areas of the city, and many had had parents in the Forces (I was the odd one out - my parents were both in reserved occupations).

But does my daughter know? Not from me. I talked about what life was like when I grew up, not what life was like in the War. And I couldn't talk about what grandad did in the War - he just went to work and came home again. My daughter was never interested in history, anyway.

But if we don't know history, we are doomed to repeat it. Two generations fought physical Wars for us. We now have to fight an ideological war, to prevent us from ending up doing what Germany says anyway. Same difference. Will I tell my grandchildren? Yes. Will they listen? Debatable!

25 June 2012 at 12:35  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"So this is a bit like expecting everyone over 40 to know everything there is to know about what happened around 1910. Absurd."
Not "everything" - just one of the most important things, ever.

25 June 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

however and crucial the contribution made by BC operation - to the war effort - these operations were indiscriminate and murderously vicious

This is not a profound statement. You admit operational necessity, and then you repudiate that necessity by attaching the adjective 'murderous.' You seem to want it both ways Was it the right thing to bomb Germany or not? If it was not right, then say so. Declare that it would have been morally preferable to absorb the marginal casualties that would have been otherwise inflicted on allied forces and civilians in order to save the Germans from the bombing. Otherwise, accept that war is a hard and brutal event that entails hard and brutal missions.

And there was nothing 'efficient' about it. The Circular Error Probable of a daylight precision bomber in 1944 was around 5000 feet. That's why hundreds of planes were dispatched to destroy one target. A single attack against one ball-bearing plant would cause destruction over a two-mile radius. Bomber Command flew at night with a resulting decrease in accuracy. Today we have the accuracy to destroy a target with one or two weapons. In 1944, they would commit 8000 500-lb bombs to destroy a target. And almost all of them missed.

Too bad for the Germans underneath. That's what happens when you start a war. All things considered, I would bomb the hell out of Schweinfurt before I would add risk to the life of Tommy Atkins.

carl

25 June 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Albert said...

As Churchill put it: The Battle of France is over. The Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.

Given that children are systematically taught to despise Christian civilization by secularists and other cultural-misfits and illiterates, it is hardly surprising they do not know the battles and the cost of defending Christian civilization.

25 June 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Tony B said...

"Not "everything" - just one of the most important things, ever."

Oh? Which bit of that is "one of the most important things ever"? knowing the date of the Battle of Britain?

25 June 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Tony B said...

>Given that children are systematically taught to despise Christian civilization by secularists and other cultural-misfits and illiterates, it is hardly surprising they do not know the battles and the cost of defending Christian civilization.

Leaving aside the rather silly characterisation of "secularists", I feel I ought to point out that most battles fought by Christians have been fought against other Christians.

25 June 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Churchill was right, too. There is no man in the whole of Western civilization who is greater than Winston Churchill. For it was he who kept Britain in the war, and saved the world from the long dark night of the Third Reich. How is it that men so easily forget what they almost lost?

To obtain knowledge of history is to admit that life is not 'all about me.' And what has a narcissistic generation to do with that admission? They take for granted what they possess. They think prosperity and liberty are their inalienable birth rights. They care about nothing beyond the limits of their own horizon. This is why they do not learn. "I wasn't born then. Why should I care? And how does it benefit me in any case?"

When people come to believe there is nothing beyond themselves, they eventually act on that belief. They will assume what they possess. They will cease to care about what came before. They will give no concern to what comes after. They will spend their lives in a self-indulgent pursuit of self-gratification. What else is there to do if a man believes that life is nothing but a sequence of meaningless ephemeral experiences? It is the elevation of "Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die" into a philosophy of life.

carl

25 June 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Tony B said...

It's a bit of a leap to dismiss an entire generation based upon a tin-pot survey by Lord Ashcroft, I would have thought.

25 June 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Now, if he had asked them about the Nazis, it would have been another matter. The obsession with teaching that subject seriously distorts history teaching.

25 June 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I agree with Roy. I never learned about the details of the war at school but somehow acknowledgement of the courage and bravery of the men and women of that time was ever present.

Not only did our parents and their generation teach us we also learned from films and TV.

Who remembers Arthur Haynes of "up to me neck in muck and bullets? Uncle Albert Tatlock on Coronation Street too? The war films that were such a crashing bore that we had to endure around the evening fire which provoked questions and left an indelible impression. The comics we read filled with stories of war heroes - the Victor and Valiant?

Times have changed.

25 June 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger Tony B said...

" I never learned about the details of the war at school"..so we can assume that education has actually improved,then?

25 June 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

You seem to want it both ways Was it the right thing to bomb Germany or not?

Yes it was right and the effort moral and valiant. But your insulting straw-man proposition of moral self sacrifice is unworthy.

What was the significance of fire-storming non-industrialised Dresden or the second A-Bomb on Nagasaki - beat the Nazis into submission by smashing all its coffee cups? Force Japan to surrender twice?

In 1945, Arthur Harris decided to create a firestorm Dresden. He considered it a good target as it had not been attacked during the war and was virtually undefended by anti-aircraft guns. The population of the city was far greater than normal due to the large numbers of refugees fleeing from the Red Army - Germany was virtually dead on its feet - it was a non combatant safe haven.

As for the Schwienfurt ball bearing factories, there was indeed legitimate reason for mass bombing and disrupting production but
the price in personnel and materiel was cocked up by the US chiefs of staff insisting on daylight raiding and splitting the air force available to them instead of concentrating all on the one target - at least according to Albert Speer.

The efficacy of the raids and the manner in which they were conducted on the ball bearing factories is hotly disputed as they only took out little more than one third of the capacity underneath the bomb doors.

I find it rather patronising of you too, to suggest you personally would do it again for 'Tommy Atkins' when he had been fighting for two years already when your lot saw the opportunity to prosper from engagement and also 'get even' for Pearl.

The US bombed the crap out of Vietnam and still lost. Non-nuclear bombing even from a great height or distance, does not win hearts and minds or demoralise people - it didn't work against us in 1940, or the Viets or the Iraqis - never actually been on the receiving end have you, or your families at home - should try it sometime it may change your John Wayne view of the morality of deliberately targetting
civilians.

I don't get the significance of your reference to my apparent lack of profundity, unless you regard that as your own personal attribute and domain. And as for 'efficient' - I don't recall where I used that expression?

25 June 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Nearly a quarter thought Britain's enemies had included Russia, France,China, the USA, Australia or New Zealand.

This does not come as a surprise. If youngsters are reading this blog they could easily arrive at this conclusion considering the xenophobic stance that some communicants who consider themselves educated adopt.

They could also think that is possible for an illiterate moron to become an astrophysicist, which is still not the case. Just remember kiddies, if you are reading this, a lot of fiction occurs on blog sites.

Some information for the xenophobes. A few years ago a survey was conducted where Brits were asked "What is the best thing about living in Britain "? A lot answered "the proximity to France ".

25 June 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I’m afraid it is all too clear that many here do not have children, have little idea as to what they are actually taught or little idea as to what is and isn’t in the National Curriculum. Just to take one example, are some commentators actually aware that History isn’t part of the National Curriculum after age 14. I can ensure you that many children are taught in reasonable detail about WWs 1 and 2 – and a good thing too, although they do seem to go a little too lightly, for my taste, on the role one of our major political parties played in appeasing the Nazis. If anyone actually bother’s to look at the National Curriculum, the GSCE syllabus or actually speak to some children they will see that the reason for why some children having gaps in their knowledge is that the syllabus tends to concentrate/specialise on certain areas and allow options. The approach is one of depth rather than breadth – I’m afraid it is pretty difficult to have both. It does mean that children miss out on the old narrative approach to UK history, but which narrative would you teach, but there is also a positive side in that children do spend more time in looking at different viewpoints and in handling and challenging source material than used to be the case in my day. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be changes in the teaching of history – but perhaps we need to rise above the level of a debate in the Daily Mail (pro appeasement paper and publisher of the forged Zinoviev letter)

25 June 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Tony B,

Leaving aside the rather silly characterisation of "secularists"

Silly? Are you sure? Churchill's assumption, surely, was to link non-Fascist (or Communist) Western culture with Christianity. Secularists who attack Christianity thus attack Western culture - in fact, if truth be told, many of them attack Christianity as a way of attacking Western culture. The more dim-witted and culturally illiterate secularist doesn't seem to spot this. Churchill saw it clearly.

I feel I ought to point out that most battles fought by Christians have been fought against other Christians.

Well obviously, given that they have tended to live in proximity with other Christians. But aren't you missing the point that ought to come with context? Our greatest battles have been against secularists: the Jacobins in France after the Revolution, the Communists, Nazis etc. Put the matter another way, and you could say that most of the battles of secularists are fought against Western and Christian civilization.

25 June 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger Albert said...

It's a bit of a leap to dismiss an entire generation based upon a tin-pot survey by Lord Ashcroft, I would have thought.

Again, you miss the point. It is not the children who are being critiqued, but those who have taught them - and I don't mean particularly their school-teachers, but the culture which values nothing.

25 June 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

@Barking of Barchester

"Whole chunks of history have been removed - young people are taught nothing of the constitutional struggles of the 17th century which led to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement.."

Funny then I how had to help my son with his homework on the lead up to the Civil War a few months back! We even used a book by Tristram Hunt who I guess you would describe as a Frankfurt School Fabian.

As a Fabian who spent many hours in his youth arguing with members of the Marcuse fan club might I suggest no such synthesis is possible. And if there was it would have been so boring and incoherent that it could not have won 3 General Elections.

25 June 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Tony B said...

Albert, it wasn't clear but I was referring To Carl's post - "To obtain knowledge of history is to admit that life is not 'all about me.' And what has a narcissistic generation to do with that admission? They take for granted what they possess. They think prosperity and liberty are their inalienable birth rights. They care about nothing beyond the limits of their own horizon. This is why they do not learn. "I wasn't born then. Why should I care? And how does it benefit me in any case?""

25 June 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you, Tony for the clarification. I did in fact think you were referring to Carl.

I think my point stands. We cannot isolate the teachers as uniquely blameworthy for children's lack of grasp and value in what they have. It's a cultural problem - it stems from the secular attack on what our culture is built on. As Churchill saw.

25 June 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger Tony B said...

"children's lack of grasp and value in what they have"

I don't think it's justified to leap to that from childrens apparent failure to grasp some details about Word war two.

25 June 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Albert

Of course history would tell us that there were not a few Christians (both Catholic and Protestant and I daresay other varieties) who were supportive of the onslaught on Christian civilization, and who were not above organising their own onslaughts against other civilisations.

To argue that secularists have a monopoly on attacks on culture would seem to be a somewhat ahistorical and indefensible view.

25 June 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Tony,

I don't think it's justified to leap to that from childrens apparent failure to grasp some details about Word war two.

For me, this whole conversation takes place within a given context - that our received culture is under attack. Sometimes it is under attack because people want to attack our culture (e.g. those attacking from the left) and who do so by attacking what has underpinned our culture - Christianity. Others - less intelligent, I think - attack Christianity for their own reasons, without realising that to do so is to attack our culture.

The Battle of Britain is an event that shows us that neither of these two things should be taken for granted.

I don't think anyone is actually trying to draw the conclusion you say we are. Rather we already know that Christian/Western civilization is not valued, therefore (at most as confirmatory evidence) children do not know about a crucial battle in defending it.

25 June 2012 at 16:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Tory boy,

To argue that secularists have a monopoly on attacks on culture would seem to be a somewhat ahistorical and indefensible view

Yes, it would be, if I was making it. Christianity certainly can attack Civilization - given how old it is and how violent human beings can be it would be surprising if Christians had never done so. Your first paragraph is therefore true, but uninteresting.

The point is that secularism just is an attack on Western Civilization.

25 June 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Jon said...

Carl, I don't know that your point is accurate.

"When people come to believe there is nothing beyond themselves, they eventually act on that belief. They will assume what they possess. They will cease to care about what came before."

What came before were my grandparents, and their families and friends, some of whom I have had the great privilege to meet. You don't have to believe in God to recognise the sacrifice that they and their generation made. Indeed, as the cult of the suicide bomber shows, it's possible that religious affiliation decreases sensitivity to loss of life, and the sacrifice it entails.

25 June 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Tony B said...

But Albert, they do know about it. All that has been shown is that some of the presumably small number who were asked about it (and we don't know who they were) are hazy on some of the precise details. If you are inclined to believe the poll in the first place, which coming from that source, I'm not.

25 June 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger Jon said...

Albert - only if you think that Western Civilization is Christianity. (FYI - Jesus wasn't European).

I suspect most people would be more affiliated to the values of the Enlightenment, upon whose foundation, Western Civilization eventually emerged from the Church- sponsored morass of ignorance which predated it.

25 June 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

Simon @ 09:50 - and there you have it, the so-called 'National Curriculum'. Obstensibly a good idea, but hijacked by 'liberal' (and worse) 'educationalists'.

On a wider note, the teaching of British history became an embarrassment, because of the increasingly multi-ethnic presense within the classroom; deferred, because of their 'sensibilities' etc.

The teaching of history became something of an 'apology' for our own history. An absurdity!

25 June 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Jon,

only if you think that Western Civilization is Christianity. (FYI - Jesus wasn't European).

I neither said, not believe that. Nor was it entailed from what I said.

I suspect most people would be more affiliated to the values of the Enlightenment, upon whose foundation, Western Civilization eventually emerged from the Church- sponsored morass of ignorance which predated it.

Even if that were not a lazy interpretation of history, it ought to be seen to false in the fact that no era invents itself.

Tony,

All that has been shown is that some of the presumably small number who were asked about it (and we don't know who they were) are hazy on some of the precise details. If you are inclined to believe the poll in the first place, which coming from that source, I'm not.

Of course polls can be misleading, but that does not make them without value.

25 June 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm not really surprised that some children aged 11-14 don't know many of the details. It's a grim subject, perhaps more suited to older children. It's also a big subject if one takes the Great War as the starting point and move through to the Cold War.

People pick this sort of stuff up as they go along. At the moment, I'm more concerned about the distortions that organisations like Help For Heroes put on the notion of war and our armed forces in general.

At least in GCSE History (the last time I looked, which was a few years ago), the war poets were used to approach some of the issues of the time. In particular, the hideous and pointless waste of life in the Great War, leading on to the fight for freedom in the second World War.

25 June 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Strangely, I was thinking about the Cold War earlier today and about how few youngsters probably realise how close we were to nuclear war a few decades ago. I doubt any of them would know who Bruce Kent was, and most would probably not know what Greenham Common was all about. I was at the tail end of the Cold War mentality but I recall there was a very real fear in the general population of a nuclear holocaust.

25 June 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Bruce Kent" I bet some would say he is the man behind the Batman mask. :)

25 June 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, let us not get too carried away with condemnation of the pupils and teachers over history. In the great scheme of things, the children involved were born in the closing seconds of the last millennium. Thus, the second world war was a very long time ago, and for many even their grandfathers would have been too young to have been around.

As a child, the Inspector was not that impressed with history. He saw it as a purely academic subject, and learnt the names and dates by rote. Paradoxically, he did have an interest in the 39-45 war and researched it thoroughly. As with the majority who post here, that war (…or ‘the war’ as adults then called it…) would have been too recent an event to be considered history, but those who had taken part were very much around and in great numbers.

It was only in his early twenties that the Inspector fully realised the importance of history and that there is precious little under the sun when it comes to human behaviour. The trick of course is to tie in what is happening now to when it happened in the past, as we all need to know the outcome.

EU as the new Roman Empire and Merkel the current Caesar anyone ? Newly ‘acquired’ Roman territory was allowed to continue to rule itself in the short term until the Romans felt it right to step in and make provinces out of them. Hard luck Greece. You spent hundreds of years as part of someone else’s empire and now your brief time of independence is all but over…

25 June 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

On a visit to a Roman Fort in South Germany just south of the Rhine. The description read that the Fort became redundant during the migration of European people during the years 406 to 408 AD.

Similarly a Roman villa complex was unfortunately burned at the same time

Not sure the Romans would describe it quite like this!

Phil

25 June 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

I suppose perhaps I need to be clear. My point is that it is not just the teachers who are told to promote a certain view of history

Phil

25 June 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger David B said...

I have mentioned this before, last November, but His Grace might be heartened to be reminded that local to me are two admirable groups of volunteers, who, with some funding help, are responsible for the Sunderland Museum at Pembroke Dock, and another group at Sageston has renovated and made into a little museum the control tower of the wartime Carew Airfield.

This latter group also maintains the graves of the Dutch, Canadian, British, South African, and a I think another couple of nationalities in a local churchyard, and they are immaculate.

They do their bit to keep these memories alive, and no doubt there are similar groups around Britain.

I don't see these threads as for argument and quibbling about rights and wrongs, but more for remembrance and gratitude to the generation before mine.

So I shall stop here.

David B

25 June 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Tony B said...

My son, who goes to remembrance day service every year, correctly described D-day but placed it in 1945. He knew who Churchill was and accurately described the Battle of Britain though he was unsure of the year - "1940 something ". He correctly placed the Battle of the Somme in the first war.

25 June 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Tony B said...

His younger brother placed d-day in 1952! But he's only 8 and I don't think they cover it until year 5.

25 June 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil Roberts.the [...Roman...] Fort became redundant during the migration of European people

Rather like our Immigration centres at ports, what !

25 June 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Yes it was right and the effort moral and valiant. But your insulting straw-man proposition of moral self sacrifice is unworthy.

It is neither insulting nor unworthy. Your statement ...

A bit of honesty here please - however and crucial the contribution made by BC operation -to the war effort - these operations were indiscriminate and murderously vicious - something of which few people, once they saw pictures of the results after the war - were not proud enough to glorify with a specific monument.

.. was a general statement about the bombing campaign. That campaign was neither "indiscriminate nor murderously vicious." To say otherwise is to slander the men who planned it and fought it. The bombing campaign was a necessary campaign fought at great cost in Allied lives and within the techological limits of the time. It was inevitably going to cause great hardship for the German population. We should make no apologies for that fact.

What was the significance of fire-storming non-industrialised Dresden ...

I cannot defend what happened to Dresden, but the whole of the campaign is not characterized by Dresden. Indeed, Dresden is set apart by its unique nature - which is why people always refer to it.

... or the second A-Bomb on Nagasaki

Did I miss something in my history lessons? I don't remember Japan surrendering between August 6th and August 9th. The date of the Emperor's broadcast was August 15th. In fact, the second bombing convinced the Emperor that the Americans could and would annihilate Japan without closing for a bloody fight. And the Emperor had to survive an attempted coup to prevent him from surrendering after the second atomic bombing.

As for the Schwienfurt ball bearing factories, there was indeed legitimate reason for mass bombing and disrupting production but the price in personnel and materiel was cocked up by the US chiefs of staff insisting on daylight raiding and splitting the air force available to them instead of concentrating all on the one target - at least according to Albert Speer.

The Americans insisted on daylight bombing because it allowed bombardiers to see the target. I half-expected you to criticize Bomber Command for night raids because those raids amounted to little more than dropping bombs blind over cities. The daylight raids allowed for some degree of accuracy and therefore a hope in hell of destroying the target. Additionally, no one had ever conducted a Strategic Bombing campaign of that magnitude before. They were making up doctrine and learning as they went. After the war, the USAAF evaluated the effectiveness of its missions with hopes of applying those lessons to Japan. But the effectiveness of the planning has nothing to do with the morality of the effort.

I find it rather patronising of you too, to suggest you personally would do it again for 'Tommy Atkins' when he had been fighting for two years already when your lot saw the opportunity to prosper from engagement and also 'get even' for Pearl.

I mentioned Tommy Atkins because Bomber Command was a British command, and this is a British weblog. I thought it would have been patronizing of me to refer to the American GI which is what of normally would have said. My father was in France in 1944 - in the hedgerows with a machine gun. I would have seen a lot of Germans killed for the sake of my father.

(continued)

25 June 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

(contined)

Now as for the rest. The problems of Europe in 1940 had nothing to do with US non-involvement. If you had been fighting already for two years in 1941, it is because you refused to act in 1935 and 1936 and 1937 and 1938. England didn't have the stomach for war.nor did it have the stomach to prepare for war. You stood by and watched Hitler re-arm. You did nothing. You watched him re-militarize the Rheinland. You did nothing. You watched him build divisions and tanks and aircraft. You did nothing. You watched him absorb Austria. You did nothing. You hid behind the Royal Navy and the French Army. You threw the Czechs - your own ally - to Hitler as a bone to a mad dog in hopes of appeasing his desires short of war with Britain. Whe you finally did act, it was too late. By all rights, Hitler should have won the war in the spring of 1940. If it hadn't been for Winston Churchill, he would have. And what was ultimate Churchill's strategy? Survive and get America into the war. That was England's only chance. I wouldn't be too critical of American involvement in that war. You are a free nation because of it.

The US bombed the crap out of Vietnam and still lost.

The US lost in Vietnam because it chose to fight a war of attrition from a position of strategic defense. The defeat had nothing to do with the incapacity of airpower. The strategy was a reply of Korea, except Korea was a peninsula. To isolate the battlefield, the US would have had to drive west into Cambodia all the way to the Mekong River. Ultimately however the defeat was a political defeat. The US population couldn't 'see' progress towards victory because progress was not measured in battle lines and territory taken. It was measured in the casualties inflicted and in exhausting the North Vietnamese ability to keep supplying an Army. The strategy when combined with an unwillingness to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail proved unsustainable.

Non-nuclear bombing even from a great height or distance, does not win hearts and minds or demoralise people

I don't care about 'winning hearts and minds.' I care about destroying the enemy's ability to fight.

- it didn't work against us in 1940

England was fortunate in the Battle of Britain. Fortunate because Hitler blinked. If he had continued the campaign against the RAF instead of switching to terror-bombing the cities, he would have collapsed the RAF. Yet another opportunity to win the war that Hitler threw away. You are right. Terror-bombing didn't work. But terror-bombing was never the point. We didn't terror-bomb Japan. We didn't terror-bomb Germany. Strategic bombing does work. It isn't the whole solution. It is a part of the solution.

or the Viets or the Iraqis - never actually been on the receiving end have you, or your families at home - should try it sometime it may change your John Wayne view of the morality of deliberately targetting civilians.

Fatuous nonsense. I haven't recommended targeting civilians at all. Perhaps I should live on the coast so I can experience a shore bombardment before I comment on the invasion of Normandy. Was that bombardment any less indiscriminant? Or the allied artillery that blasted little towns in which the Germans were entrenched? Should I have to experience that as well before I can say that war requires hard decisions that inevitably kill innocent people?

I don't get the significance of your reference to my apparent lack of profundity, unless you regard that as your own personal attribute and domain. And as for 'efficient' - I don't recall where I used that expression?

That was the fault of my poor writing. The issue of efficiency is the underlying issue. The only reason the campaign was so destructive was because the technology at the time was so limited.

carl

25 June 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, a comprehensive post. There was a discussion about ‘the rules of war’ last year on this site. The Inspector’s opinion then as now is you cannot sanitize war with rules. You just need to get it over as quickly as you can. As Churchill said “Whatever the cost”

The same can be said of the war on drugs. Hang a handful of drug barons, and then see if you can buy a wrap of heroin on the street for a couple of pounds sterling...

25 June 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

An understanding of historical time-lines is essential to appreciating where we as a nation stand and come from and what defines us culturally. That Christianity has existed in these periods is an historic fact - what it did or did not contribute to what we are today is less definable or in every way defensible.

What should be being taught and included if not already, is the meaning of History and how it is produced. It is certainly more important and more so by O Level time, that students appreciate how history is continually added to/air brushed and revised and should never be taken on face value. History is more than the acceptance of a series of fixed yellow poster notes of events, existing without connection or contextual disambiguation.

There is nothing constructive in carping on about such nonsense as secularists are akin to Hitler, Stalin et al and therefore all secularist are Fascist/Communist apologists and responsible for the lack of bums on church seats. That is a slur on anyone involved in the two world wars who wasn't a confirmed Christian: if the only combatants allowed to fight had been so, none of us would be here blathering on the internet today.

If Christianity can't be bothered to defend it's own foundations and followers whether they be in the Middle East, Africa or right here in jolly old England, it need look no further than the mirror for the cause of its own demise. It is not the secularists who have welcomed Islam into our midst. Blair is a christian, Brown is a son of the manse, not to mention the Vicar of Rome. They by their indolence did more to wreck our Western society and culture than the likes of Nye Bevin (a true socialist) did when under Atlee's Labour government he established the NHS.

The collective principle asserts that... no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.
—Aneurin Bevan, In Place of Fear, p100


This was British secular socialism in full stride.

We still have a free country; we nearly have have freedom of speech; the CoE and RCC are minted beyond avarice, so why don't they use it to re-endorse their core beliefs? Why?

Albert and co, need to scapegoat secularism rather than examine their own complicity in allowing their own church leaders' default. Secularism is not an attack on the Christian religion, yet it would appear he and they simply don't comprehend the meaning or import of the word; which is a belief that religion, all religion should be kept out of politics and State education.

If in doubt - observe any Muslim dominated country.

25 June 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger len said...

The Battle of Britain is a part of Britain`s recent history which should never be forgotten.
A few airmen with a few aircraft was all that stood between Britain and being overrun by the unstoppable(at the time)Nazi war machine.
These men in their spitfires and hurricanes put their lives on the line several times a day defending us against a constant onslaught determined to crush us and all resistance.

Bomber Command and the aircrews are getting a memorial (at last)
These brave crews spent hours over enemy territory opposed by all the enemy could throw at them .Bomber Commands contribution to the war effort was just as important as the fighter pilots.

No one can appreciate what' being British' is without knowledge of our History.

25 June 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught
Who can reasonably disagree with Bevan? However, why does the "collective principle" to care for the needy and sick require a State funded machine?

Some Christians would argue it is our duty to care for those in need and for the State to do so and absolve individuals of it, actually harms the "collective principle" and undermines self responsibility.

Plus the State doesn't 'do' health care too well.

25 June 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl
Apologies - I just lost/deleted a full response to your last post.

Suffice to say and for brevity, I made an omission in not using the word 'some' in reference to BC Ops in my original entry.

I will do a re-write of the former but it may take a little more time than I have tonight.

25 June 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Tony B said...

Dodo. With respect that is cobblers. We do not care for the sick, we ask medical professionals to do it, the question is whether private or NHS, and they are usually the same people.

25 June 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, it’s all a question of finance. Who pays, don’t you agree...

25 June 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

"England was fortunate in the Battle of Britain. Fortunate because Hitler blinked. If he had continued the campaign against the RAF instead of switching to terror-bombing the cities, he would have collapsed the RAF"

No evidence for the last part of your sentence. Rotation of squadrons made this possibility less likely.

The fact remained he still had to get across the channel with no suitable navy.

He could have dug a tunnel I suppose..........

Anyway we are very pleased that you guys came over to help. Mind, you were late for the last two world wars. However, you have certainly tried since to make sure you will be right on time for the next one!

Phil

25 June 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Tony B

Do keep a civil tongue in your head, Sir.

And with respect, caring for the sick is a wider responsibility than receiving medical treatment. Aftercare and the day to day care of those with long term conditions and infirmities, is not a 'professional' task. Do you know how much money the State spends on this? 'Carer's allowances, DLA, Attendance Allowance, Motobility Allowance .... the list goes on.

The current batch of doctors and nurses, as a group, are feathering their own nests. So too the allied 'social care' professionals. And family members, neighbours and communities ordinary people stand by and let them.

25 June 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

IncidentalIy if anyone gets the chance I would recommend the WW2 museum in Caan. It caught my kids interest far more than the Imperial War Museum and the Russian equivalent and certainly gave the most balanced account of all the different parties.

25 June 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Caen rather than Caan of course - and you can also look at William the Conqueror's castle as well.

25 June 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Since I was no more then 5 years old, history in general, and the history of warfare in particular has been my lifelong study and fascination.

Ever since this time I have been trying to answer just two basic questions.

1. Why did predominately young men take such silly risks with their own lives and limbs?

2. What actually made wars happen in the first place, most especially modern ones, when they all seem to be so incredibly costly, NEVER benefitted the combatants whether they won or lost, always ultimately futile, and could have been so easily avoided?

The answer to the first came long before the answer to the second.

As nearly all combatants in warfare will tell you if asked. "We did it for our mates, but hardly ever, if ever for the glory or the medals."

However the answer to the second came much later, but can be summed up thus.

The preservation or acquisition of treasure, power, empire, and above all control of the common people.

Therefore my advice would be.

Wars seem to be ultimately futile, because they are ultimately futile. Wars seem to never be in the interests of the common people, because they are never in the interests of the common people.

Therefore DO NOT fight them, or cause them to be fort by others.

One cannot fight on the road to peace, because the ONLY way to gain peace is to be peaceful.

25 June 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas

I'll give you until noon tomorrow to move out. I'll then take over your property and all your possessions. If your wife and children suit my purposes, I'll keep them too.

Move along now - unless you want a fight, that is.

All weare saying, is give peace a ...... BANG!

26 June 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

carl

There were at least three deliberate major fire storms in WW2 resulting from Allied conventional bombing raids during World War II namely Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, all of which were designed to kill the maximum number of civilians within the range of the fire. The tactic was discovered as an accidental phenomena of targetted bombing raids earlier on Hamburg docks and later refined and deployed as a deliberate terror weapon against civilians. This in my view was immoral, even in a time of war.

Take 9/11 - to those involved and their sponsors they were in a declared Holy War and carried out the attack on the Twin Towers also to instill terror - are you saying that that too, was a moral action?

But getting back to the core subject matter it is wholly reasonable to criticise the morality of an airborne action, even in a war of survival, without criticising or condemning the air crews.

The Americans insisted on daylight bombing because it allowed bombardiers to see the target.
As I said, it still only yielded a 33% success rate because of US High Command decisions that cost them or more particularly their men dearly, because the enemy could bring them down more easily - that's why Harris and the British preferred night raids; blanket bombing, aimed in the general direction of the factories indicated by pathfinder incendiaries, but also at the potential expense of the homes and lives of the workers and in favour of air crew survival - moral? - definitely, and possibly more effective.

Now as for the rest. The problems of Europe in 1940 had nothing to do with US non-involvement. Really?

Of course British foreign policy in hindsight was lacking in fairness or realism, especially with the intelligence available regarding re-arming; the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, but there was also mass popular support for Hitler's actions from within those lands. Czechoslovakia(as was) should have been the green light for military action in the 1930s for sure, and that was an immoral act of deliberate omission.

Britain had suffered and was still suffering from the aftermath, slaughter and almost bankrupcy from the events of WW1; The Great War - The war to end all wars; plus the fall out from the Wall St crash of 1929.

I object strongly to you dismissing my country as having no stomach for war - we hardly had the man-power, arms, equipment or the finance for a quick local caper as it was for the US in 1917-18. The British front line was anywere from home shores to, Palestine, India, Burma Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australasia. We were an Empire in decline - sneer as much as you will, but the US record on imperial expansion does not make itself look any better in modern day comparison but that is not the issue of this debate.

You watched him re-militarize the Rheinland. You did nothing. You watched him build divisions and tanks and aircraft. You did nothing. You watched him absorb Austria. You did nothing. You hid behind the Royal Navy and the French Army.

LoL - 'hid behind our own navy' - hid? HID behind the French Army - hahahahaha - we couldn't bloody-well find them, they were all in San Tropez. We asked them for their navy and the Vichy French refused so we had to destroy it.

26 June 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Cont:-

Do you not think those countries bordering Germany should have nipped it in the bud at their own expense, instead of waiting to be invaded then leaving it at the last minute to the British to step up to the mark? And if the US wanted to be in the vanguard of the fight against Fascism or a moral crusade if you will, why not go to as a nation to the aid of Abysinia or the civil war in Spain? The US had no intention of taking on Fascism as a cause anywhere - that argument was the politically convenient 'moral' afterthought, to inspire the troops in Europe, many of whom were fighting their own former, closely ethnic countrymen.

In the broader term, and for the bigger picture, I suggest that American involvement in Europe was as much as anything a stage for establishing America's credentials and future status as a global player. The prosperity enjoyed in the 1940s through to the 60s, owed more to the rewards of supplying finance and war materials to Europe than to much else it was commercially engaged in elsewhere.

We only finished paying it back in the 90s and in the meantime had to rebuild ourselves from the bottom up.
The problems of Europe in 1940 had nothing to do with US non-involvement.

American involvement was the last thing Hitler wanted. Chamberlain had conceded to engage in war with Germany if it attacked Poland. It did and we did. The extra weight that would have been added to the threat if the prospect had included the direct involvement of the US may have had a dramatic influence on the way things worked out Japan's war may have been deterred or confined within China if they thought it would have involved the US. The US was well aware of it's potential influence but it seriously went against the grain with the American people and Roosevelts chances of a second term to get involved in Europe.
Its all ifs buts and maybes and rather pointless to argue the toss now, so lets stick to specifics
Between the time of the first and second A-Bombs, Japan was engaged in a dialogue of surrender talks with Russia. I maintain that the second bomb was to force Japan to surrender to the US and also serve as a reminder to the Soviets that more were available.

I wouldn't be too critical of American involvement in that war. You are a free nation because of it

Convenient, bordering on arogant, but not unwholly false - yet Far too simplistic. No where have I denied or criticised the benefit of US's positive involvement with British war efforts, but it was initially a ' European' not a British war. We were just the last in the west and fortunate by our own efforts, not to have surrendered. I also note that you make no reference anywhere to the Russian contribution to the final outcome. They also did not give in, and they bore the brunt and absorbed more of the German war effort in Europe than any country did. Let me assure you that I will be as critical of American policy as you have been of the British, where I think it is deserved; and as I have said, your country got far more financially, prestigeously and economically out of it by its involvement - however late it came in.

26 June 2012 at 01:26  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

cont:-
England was fortunate in the Battle of Britain.
They made the sacrifice - and bought time. For you to denegrate the actions of 'The Few' while your Country stood off, and put their achievements down to simply a matter of good luck through Hitler's blinking - now that really does insult the memory of those involved and makes you look rather peevish and petulant.

You talk about me questioning the morality of fire-storming? - no surprise to me that you endorse the morality of napalming straw-hut
villages who posed no threat to your own Country.

However I should add that I would probably not be here today if not for the positive outcome of the war in what we call The Far East.

I'm getting the impression you are thinking I am a die-hard anti-American or being unduly or ungratefully critical of the US, you would be quite wrong - If I am critical, it is of some of its foreign policies and some of it's military methods; but not of it's ordinary people.

I am as much, if not more so, more interested and critical of my own Country and the action of it's establishment elites, past and present and no doubt future.

26 June 2012 at 01:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Atlas shrugged @ 23:38 : it's even more simple than you state; ''why did predominantly young men take such silly risks with their lives and limbs?'' : because it is exciting, adventurous, seemingly manly and usually a damned sight more interesting than what (if anything)they were doing beforehand.

There a few other possible considerations too, both psychological and otherwise; but basically it is more or less as Doctor Johnson said : ''Every man thinks meanly of himself for not being a soldier...'' The time for being a soldier is when one is young, is all.

One supposes that it is to some extent different for conscripted troops, but volunteers aim to get something out of it; it is true to say that some of what they hope for, and experience, is actually plain, old fashioned fun.

26 June 2012 at 03:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

I am tired tonight, and so I won't be able to respond. I will try to get to it before I go to work tomorrow. A few things however.

Six men in the the Japanese Government had put out preliminary feelers to the Russians exploring terms for surrender. These men had not even agreed amongst themselves on acceptable terms. But none of this matters. The Japanese Government had no control over the Japanese Army. According to the Meiji Constitution, the Japanese military reported directly to the Emperor. Even if the Government had decided to surrender, it would have made no difference. The Japanese Gov't didn't have the authority much less the power to order the Army to surrender. Only the Emperor possessed such power. That's why these six men were working secretly. If the Army had discovered what they were doing, they would have been assassinated. In fact, the Allies were worried that the Japanese Army would refuse to obey the Emperor's decision. That's how tenuous the situation was.

Also, the fire raid on Tokyo was in no way comparable to Dresden. High-altitude precision bombing on Japan had spectacularly failed. High altitude winds were rendering normal tactics useless. Japanese industry was in any case piece-parted out and so was widely dispersed. Many Japanese homes were cottage factories making piece parts for the war industry. The fire raids were designed to burn out this industry and deprive major industrial firms of their labor by destroying the housing stock of its labor force. It worked spectacularly well. The fire raids collapsed Japanese War production over the first half of 1945. The Americans also took to warning Japanese civilians of impending raids to avoid repeats of the large loss of life experienced in Tokyo.

By the fall of 1945, however, the Americans were moving away from the fire raids. Lessons learned from Germany indicated the Americans should attack transportation infrastructure which in Japan was extremely fragile. Doing so would have paralyzed the ability of Japan to move goods and services in support of the war. It would have also paralyzed the movement of food and led to a much larger famine - a famine that could not have been quickly addressed even if Japan had immediately surrendered. One way or another, the Americans were going to force the Japanese economy to seize up. I am not sure that the use of fire or famine makes much moral difference. The outcome was necessary and many Japanese were going to suffer and die no matter what the US did.

Ironically enough, it was the atomic bombings which prevented this outcome. The bombings impelled the Emperor to surrender, and the Emperor was able to carry the Army. That is something that had otherwise never happened before. Prior to the Emperor's order, not one Japanese unit in the entire war ever surrendered as an organized unit.

That took 35 minutes, and I need to go to bed. More later.

carl

26 June 2012 at 05:07  
Blogger Tony B said...

Indeed.

26 June 2012 at 05:56  
Blogger Tony B said...

Utter Tosh.

26 June 2012 at 05:58  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Being 56 years old, I went through the school system some time ago. As I remember, I was never formally taught 2Oth century UK history: it was a subject for an 'O' Level that I never opted for. Therefore my knowledge of what happened in the 2nd world war is what I have absorbed over the years.

If 20th Century UK history is not currently a part of the National Curriculum, this is not the teachers' fault, it is the fault of the government (i.e. civil servants).

And I imagine that many of the teenagers interviewed would simply not have had the subject taught to them yet.

If the subject is viewed to be important (a view I would agree with) then let it be part of the National Curriculum. And if it is, then let's make sure that youngsters who are interviewed about WW2 are interviewed after they have taken the course.

26 June 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl
Agreed - let's let it rest.

26 June 2012 at 08:51  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Comment has been made that the "Frankfurt School Fabians in the last government" decided what was taught in schools and that teachers "were just following orders".

Whilst I agree that Labour was up to its neck in this political indoctrination it is a hard fat that the teaching unions subscribe to the same ideology and would have done the footwork on the curriculum.

Teachers are therefore right in the frame over this.

26 June 2012 at 09:24  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Phil Roberts - You plum! The Germans were bombing the airfields. As such even if the rotation of squadrons worked to some degree in keeping planes and pilots from being bombed there s still the infrastructure (materials to fix the planes, fuel etc) that were being lost. Fighter Command (I think that's the name) admitted that a few more months of the campaign would have stopped their ability to defend Britain from the Luftwaffe.
The ONLY reason we survived the Battle of Britain was that a German bomber accidentally dropped it's load on London after getting lost, leading to a retaliatory response on Berlin, leading to Hitler saying something along the lines of "They drop a thousand bombs on Berlin. We will drop 10,000 bombs on London".
In the end, bravado and ego, fired up by revenge, caused by an almighty cock up (Hitler had said NOT to target London at the start of the Battle of Britain) was what saved us from being conquered.

26 June 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger Tony B said...

So to sum up, it seems scandalous to some that children are apparently not experts in the details of the Second World War. But then, we admit we weren't taught those details at school either, and we've picked up most of what we know since school. It's also far from clear whether some of the respondents had actually reached the stage in their education where they would have learned about the subject, and it's a large and tricky subject anyway.

In short this survey is a storm in a teacup with "Daily Mail" written on the side, and its purpose is probably to cause unwarranted outrage and support for measures that will cause further deterioration in that education system that the blusterers are complaining about.

26 June 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

I will let it rest after I respond.

For you to denegrate the actions of 'The Few' while your Country stood off, and put their achievements down to simply a matter of good luck through Hitler's blinking - now that really does insult the memory of those involved and makes you look rather peevish and petulant.

I didn't denigrate anyone. I am well aware of the debt western civilization owes to the RAF. But I also know that the RAF was fighting a losing battle of attrition and was close to collapse. I know that Britain could not have survived the defeat of the RAF. I know that the Royal Navy could not have survived air superiority by the Luftwaffe. These are simply historical facts.

I object strongly to you dismissing my country as having no stomach for war

France wouldn't fight alone. Britain wouldn't fight. So when Hitler was weak and vulnerable, no one took action against him. And those politicians who sounded the alarm - who called for re-armament and preparations for war (i.e.Churchill) were not heeded. Why did Chamberlain sacrifice Czechoslovakia for 'peace in our time?' What should I say other than 'Britain had no stomach for war' to explain this?

I understand the connection between the impact of WWI on Britain and France, and these attitudes in the 30's. But we see where they led. If Hitler had destroyed the Dunkirk bridgehead, or won the Battle of Britain, there would be no Britain. Germany wasn't giving you any choice in the matter. But at the time, you were trusting to the League of Nations and discussing arms reduction treaties.

it seriously went against the grain with the American people and Roosevelts chances of a second term to get involved in Europe.

The United States is not a European nation. It had no reason to get involved in the First World War (and frankly shouldn't have involved itself in the First World War). The American people saw no reason and possessed no desire to involve themselves in a second European war. Roosevelt appreciated the threat. But the American public simply did not see the war in Europe as involving vital American interests. So many arguments assume the Americans should have viewed the conflict as if Americans were European - as if the US wasn't separated from the conflict by an ocean. It makes a huge difference that Hitler was just across the English Channel from you. He was an obvious and immediate threat to England. He was not an obvious and immediate threat to the US. It took considerable foresight to understand the threat posed by Germany to the US, and most people don't possess that kind of foresight.

Do you not think those countries bordering Germany should have nipped it in the bud at their own expense, instead of waiting to be invaded then leaving it at the last minute to the British to step up to the mark?

Which countries would those be? Besides France, I mean, which suffered far worse from WWI than Britain. And how is Britain not one of those countries? If you had acted with the French in '36 or '37 or '38, Hitler's Generals would have had him shot. They feared Hitler was leading Germany to ruin. They were looking for a reason to depose him, but he kept winning. You had it within your power to stop him. You being 'Britain and France.' And is was your vital interest to do so. You criticize the US for not involving itself before Pearl Harbor, and yet you could have stopped everything as late as 1938 by simply acting against Hitler. Who had less foresight?

I will say this however. The US was also lucky. It was fortunate that Japan attacked. It was fortunate that Hitler declared war. I do not think the US could have survived a two-front war against Germany and Japan without England. But that is knowledge from hindsight. To understand that reality in 1941 would have been a much different matter.

carl

26 June 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Tony B

You're a funny guy. If you think what I wrote was 'utter tosh' you only prove you don't know much about the Second World War. But you're a funny guy none the less.

carl

26 June 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Tony B said...

Carl - no it wasn't directed at you. It was posted from my phone. On the mobile version of the site you get threaded comments, and it was clear who it was directed at (Dodo). You don't get the threaded comments on the full site so it loses something in translation.

26 June 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Tony B

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

carl

26 June 2012 at 14:12  
Blogger Penn's Woods, USA said...

How many of the Battle of Britain experts and historians here know or care that of the 574 Non-British pilots recognized by the RAF Honor Roll for the Battle of Britain 233 (40%)were either Polish or Czech? Czechoslovak National Josef Frantisek flying with No 303 Polish Fighter Squadron claimed 17 confirmed kills which made him the highest scoring Allied pilot in the Battle of Britain. As far as the 2nd quessing by sime here about the morality of the area bombing and use of nukes during WW II against German and Japanese cities please remember the quote by Sir Arthur Harris head of Bomber Command during the War from the book of Hosea in the Hebrew Bible: "they that sow the wind reap the whirlwind".

26 June 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

There is nothing constructive in carping on about such nonsense as secularists are akin to Hitler, Stalin et al and therefore all secularist are Fascist/Communist apologists and responsible for the lack of bums on church seats.

I think you've rather missed the context of the discussion: Churchill's identification of Western civilization with Christian civilization - at precisely the time when it was threatened by such ideologies.

That is not to say that every secularist is a Fascist or a Communist. But it does mean that those who attack Christianity, are attacking Western civilization - as Churchill understood it. As for bums on seats - Catholic congregations where I am are vast.

I do not think Islam is so much a threat to Christian civilization as secularism. In defending Muslims in the West, Christians are simply defending a right we have inherited (but which I see you might like to challenge) that religion can be expressed in the public sphere.

Albert and co, need to scapegoat secularism rather than examine their own complicity in allowing their own church leaders' default. Secularism is not an attack on the Christian religion, yet it would appear he and they simply don't comprehend the meaning or import of the word; which is a belief that religion, all religion should be kept out of politics and State education.

This is why people like you are so much more a threat to Christianity and Western civilization than Muslims are. You are apparently assuming that religion is something that can be pressed into the private sphere. No religion believes that. It must influence every aspect of our lives. A secularism which requires "all religion should be kept out of politics and State education" undermines our democratic rights. It says "Religious people can only say and teach what we secularists allow". That just is on religion.

It also simply imposes your own world-view on the rest of us - on the rather amusing, but dangerous and unexamined assumption that non-religion is somehow neutral. How much metaphysics and epistemology have you studied?

A Muslim knows his dogmas. So does a Christian. You secularists really don't. That's why you are so intolerant of people who disagree with you. Which bring us back to the very nature of Western civilization.

26 June 2012 at 15:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Third to last paragraph should read "that just is an attack on religion".

26 June 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

But I also know that the RAF was fighting a losing battle of attrition and was close to collapse. I know that Britain could not have survived the defeat of the RAF. I know that the Royal Navy could not have survived air superiority by the Luftwaffe. These are simply historical facts.

Some problems here I think. Certainly, the RAF suffered terribly while the Germans attacked our airfields, but then they moved their attacks. The reason the invasion was called off was because it was clear that the RAF was not close to collapse. This became very clear from the sheer number of planes the RAF kept putting up into the sky at just the moments the Germans thought they had been finished off. This was also true when the Germans attacked other parts of the country.

As for whether the invasion would have been successful, I doubt it. Compare the preparations for D-Day. We had air and naval superiority, we had PLUTO we even towed our own harbours across the channel. If Hitler had invaded, it would have cost us greatly in terms of our navy, but there's no way the Germans could support a modern army across the channel without the preparations and superiority we had in 1944.

26 June 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Tony B said...

"This became very clear from the sheer number of planes the RAF kept putting up into the sky at just the moments the Germans thought they had been finished off. This was also true when the Germans attacked other parts of the country."

I have to say this is more in accord with what I have read than Carl's version.

26 June 2012 at 15:55  
Blogger Tony B said...

"It also simply imposes your own world-view on the rest of us"

And Christians never want to do that!

26 June 2012 at 15:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

A Muslim knows his dogmas. So does a Christian. You secularists really don't. That's why you are so intolerant of people who disagree with you.

'We' don't have dogmas. 'We' are not even a 'we'. I have no desire to interfere with your right to follow whatever belief system you like. I do however reject the notion that any geographical plot on the planet should be claimed/owned exclusively by any religious group.

We have a system that provides for one person one vote in deciding how our shared land is governed.
No ifs no buts no special or deferential privileges for private matters of what is only a personal belief gone large. It has no legitimacy other than within an accepted freedom.

It is the like of you who wish to impose upon others, supposed special rights of your construction over those of anyone who does not accept your view; that is real intolerance. Obviously, apart from yours, most churches are still open but largely empty - tough, couldn't care less.

Welcome your fellow Muslim religionists at your peril. If they adopt your line of 'tolerance' they will soon subsume your Church by claiming they too see this land as theirs on next time it will be on the basis that it is an Islamic land.

26 June 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

'We' don't have dogmas. 'We' are not even a 'we'.

"We" refers to those of you who subscribe to the following:

a belief that religion, all religion should be kept out of politics and State education.

A dogma which forecloses the discussion against religious people, in favour of those who believe nothing.

It is the like of you who wish to impose upon others, supposed special rights of your construction over those of anyone who does not accept your view; that is real intolerance.

Which rights? The only right I have defended is the right to express my beliefs in the political sphere and in education. I defend exactly the same right for you. You expect that right for you, but you attack it for me.

26 June 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Leave out your religion and you have the same rights as me.

26 June 2012 at 17:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Welcome your fellow Muslim religionists at your peril."

Well, quite. It'll be a battle of absolute moralities and between men who think they have special access to different universal truths. That is, a bunch of religious fascists trying to impose their religious constructions on each other, and on the rest of us who just want to get on with our own lives.

26 June 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

Albert has beat me to the comment.

The fact is the Germans got to the channel and thought "now what?" they knew that they did not stand a chance of getting across due to logistics alone.

What I don't understand is how the Japs and Germans thought that they could sustain an invasion across 1000s of miles of ocean.

Pearl Harbour must be the most idiotic attack ever.

Phil

26 June 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You know very well that you and the rest of gaydom have done very well riding along on the back of a Christian society. Abandon us at YOUR peril...

26 June 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil Roberts. Pearl Harbour was only about taking out Aircraft Carriers and Battleships. ? The envisaged Japanese empire would have been totally waterborne. It was absolutely essential. But even then, it would have given the Japanese only a handful of years head start to form that empire, before the US had made good it’s losses...

26 June 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Tony B said...

This could get interesting now. Soon I think we will see those complaining about the ignorance of schoolchildren displaying their own ignorance. Maybe they should quit while they're ahead.

26 June 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil & Albert

The Germans couldn't cross the channel against the Royal Navy. They needed air supremacy to secure their 'fleet' so to speak. But Naval combat in WWII was defined by the emergence of the aircraft as a naval weapon of war. If Germany had achieved air supremacy, the Royal Navy would have been unable to prevent the invasion by itself. The battle of Britain was about that achieving air supremacy. Could the Germans have successfuly invaded? A good question. Without the RAF, the Luftwaffe would have roamed free doing to Britain what the allies did to Germany in '44 and '45. They might not have needed to invade. They might have simply starved you out.

It must be remembered that the RAF was also inflicting fearful losses on the Luftwaffe. The RAF had sustained is ability to resist, but the question in play is "How much longer could it have kept on resisting?" The Germans had much deeper pockets in a battle of attrition, but they didn't know how much pressure they had applied to the RAF. For the sake of their own losses, they admitted defeat, gave up the fight, and turned to the Blitz. It was a catastrophically bad strategic decision for which the world must be eternally grateful. And it was caused by RAF pilots who held out longer than the Germans. Britain won the Battle of Britain outright.

Japan never intended to invade the US. It simply wanted to drive the US out of South East Asia. From a military point of view, the attack on Pearl Harbor was brilliantly conceived and brilliantly executed except the Japanese did not exploit their victory. If they had sent one more wave to attack the dry docks and (especially) the Fleet Oil Reserve, the US Navy would have been driven back to San Diego, and the war in the Pacific would have been lengthened immeasurably. From a strategic sense, you are right however. Pearl Harbor was a great gift to the allies. It brought America into the war before it was too late.

Pearl Harbor in fact probably prevented a major military disaster for the US. The US Navy planned to steam west to the Marshall Islands for a Great decisive sea battle with Japan. In 1941, the Japanese had the best navy in the world, ship for ship. Japanese naval aviation would have likely annihilated the Americans in this battle. It would have been far worse than Pearl Harbor in terms of ships lost.

carl

26 June 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bit of information the Inspector learnt about Rudolf Hess. When he flew to Scotland, Hitler was mortified. Not that he’d blow the gaff on the invasion of Russia, which was purely a military planned operation of which he would have known nothing. Hitler was sweating over him letting loose about Pearl Harbour, which apparently, was known at the highest levels of the German chancellery...

26 June 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Roberts --- what about this for a thought:

1. a) Once jerry conquered Britain, he would control the eastern side of the Atlantic (and yes, don't forget he was at work in N. Africa/Mediterranean-that would prove pivotal to the outcome, as well).

Then:
b) With his allies and bases in South America (remember the Bismarck?), he would control the Atlantic. He also had submarines lurking around the US coast, and the islands, remember. From all those positions, he had potential routes for invasion by land.

2. Once he controlled Scandinavia and Russia, he had access to the North America over the polar routes.

3. With Hirohito as his ally throughout the Far East, ... as far as the West Coast of the US....

Get my drift?

The plan was to surround and isolate North America.

And I think that's what the US realised when they decided to come into the war.

Oh... and it was fortuitous for them that we had held out here, though not alone---but with our allies throughout the world. That way the US had a springboard to euroland. We supplied airbases for them, and we could host the launching of D-Day when the time came. All much easier from Britain than from States-side.

Then, course, small technical advances helped and also benefitted from our eventual alliance: like those in RADAR, and at Bletchley Park....

26 June 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

oh bother... "Then, of course,..."

26 June 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Tony B said...

Non mouse. Bismarck? Do you mean the Admiral Graf Spee by any chance? Looks like my prediction is coming true.

26 June 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Then, course, innit ..."

26 June 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Abandon us at YOUR peril..."

Stable door and bolted horse, I'd say. By a few decades. Heck, you can't even be bothered with it yourself much of the time. It's a little bit like red telephone boxes; one might feel some nostalgia for them at times but who wants to queue to make a call using coins in a public box with the smell of old urine and a cold draught when one has the convenience of an iPhone in one's pocket. Move on into modern times with the rest of us, and leave all the religious hocus pocus behind huh?

26 June 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mighty Mouse. The Graf Spee not the Bismarck

26 June 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Apologies, David B, didn’t see your correction in there first old fellow...

26 June 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bugger, that should have been Tony B, {INSPECTOR LOOKS DEEP INTO WHISKY TUMBLER AND WONDERS WHAT THE HELL IS IN THERE}

26 June 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Leave out your religion and you have the same rights as me.

Exactly. You want to be able to determine which "parts" of me I have to leave out.

26 June 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose cyanide is some wishful thinking too far.

26 June 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector - staggering the ignorance of that fellow, we should travel back in time and put the education system to rights!

26 June 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you are way off the scale. You really have no idea how conservative Mr and Mrs J Public is, do you. Again, wrapped up in what you types laughingly call ‘gay’, so you are. Thinks that aforementioned people are MUCH more likely to side with this man, than risk your brave new world. And that's EVERY phone survey, not just the one's you pick...

26 June 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

It's true that the Royal Navy could not have prevented the invasion (it was of course, several hundred miles away). It's also true that the navy would have suffered severe losses. But in 1939 we had a vastly larger navy than the Germans and we had already inflicted severe losses on the German navy in Norway. Germany simply could not have sustained an army in the UK with that kind of navy around - even if ships were being sunk by air power. And we would have brought more and more ships back from fleets in other parts of the world, unleashed our submarines etc. until such time as the German army was out of supplies.

Without the RAF, the Luftwaffe would have roamed free doing to Britain what the allies did to Germany in '44 and '45. They might not have needed to invade. They might have simply starved you out.

Considering our supplies were coming from across the Atlantic and were therefore, for most of the journey, out of the reach of Luftwaffe, I find it hard to see how they posed a greater threat than did the U-Boats.

Besides, if Britain's position was as bad as you think, doesn't it cause you a sense of shame to think that you Yanks sat back and watched, while we alone stood for freedom against tyranny, and then, when you did begin to lift a finger, decided to be on the make out of it as well? Went down very badly here, you know. Unfortunately, Obama seems to have inherited that kind of Americanism.

26 June 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B, be careful when you refer to the Mouse. Many have crossed her and regretted it...

26 June 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Tony B said...

Tongue was firmly in cheek..

26 June 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You really have no idea how conservative Mr and Mrs J Public is, do you."

Yes I have: not at all conservative. Witness unmarried co-habitation, divorce, abortion, and casual sex amongst the general population. Look at the dire church attendance figures, too. Look at the sense of individualism and autonomy in social attitudes across the population. It's you who lives in a dream world, possibly fueled by whiskey and bitterness and lost opportunities.

26 June 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger non mouse said...

You're right OIG @ 19:49 -- I do know that ( remembering Churchill's pronunciation of "Montevideo," especially).

I blame my confusion on Johnny Horton and the Spanish headlines, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU


Point stands, nevertheless- re control of the Atlantic.

26 June 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

You sound positively joyful about
unmarried co-habitation, divorce, abortion, and casual sex amongst the general population. Look at the dire church attendance figures, too.

Do you hate social stability that much?

Inspector
Witness the chess move:
Your views are "... possibly fueled by whiskey and bitterness and lost opportunities". What next?

26 June 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, Witness unmarried co-habitation, divorce, abortion, and casual sex amongst the general population. Look at the dire church attendance figures, too. Look at the sense of individualism and autonomy in social attitudes across the population.

ALL the result of creeping secularism, and how you revel in it. You have to, because without it the gay lifestyle would be kicked all along the street...

26 June 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, you're conceding that the general public are not that conservative at all by the look of it. Good man. Never hurts to admit you're wrong, though you must get quite weary of doing so quite so much yourself.

26 June 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Do you hate social stability that much?"

I don't hate social stability at all. Quite the opposite. However, I embrace change where it is needed. Do you hate change that much that you insist on hoarding crap?

26 June 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. However, I embrace change where it is needed.

What an absolute fraud you are. You embrace change when it suits your gay agenda. The big problem you’ll never get over is that the people don’t want it, despite the faint heart politicians the gay crusade have succeeded in terrorising....

26 June 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

Do bear in mind that, at least some of the time, these children answering the questions know the answers perfectly well but are taking the mickey out of the people asking the questions.

I know there's at least a 50-50 chance that I'd have been making bizarre answers at those ages.

Do knock off about 10% from the numbers who got it wrong.

But yes, too much history is about what it was like to be there and not enough about the big features of what happened.

When I'm in a bad mood, I complain about teaching too much girls' history and not enough boys'.

26 June 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 asked ...
"Do you hate change that much that you insist on hoarding crap?"

We can always improve and I welcome change that facilitates this. Now, what "crap" and I "hoarding"?

An aversion to perversion?

26 June 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "What an absolute fraud you are. You embrace change when it suits your gay agenda."

Well, I'm happy with (say) the ethnic and cultural diversity in the UK and I wouldn't want to return to the monocultural, though class-ridden, environment of the 1950s. That's my embracing change and nothing really to do with my sexuality. Of course, a well established misogynist and racist like you probably hates all of that change.

"The big problem you’ll never get over is that the people don’t want it [...]"

I've posted survey after survey to demonstrate that it's you who is living in a disconnected bubble there. Like many religionists, or hangers-on, you prefer to construct a fake world rather than face reality. Hard luck there. If you got your beak out of a whiskey bottle and looked around then you'd realise that things have changed significantly in the last decade or two on this.

26 June 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "We can always improve and I welcome change that facilitates this. Now, what "crap" and I "hoarding"?"

All that immoral Catholic nonsense. Crikey, it's like the Middle Ages with you lot and your painted idols and mummery and spooky goings on. And let's face it, you don't even believe in it anyway deep down, I reckon you just like the sense of membership and the stern fatherly thing the priest does when you feck up.

26 June 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0.. If you got your beak out of a whiskey bottle

With people like YOU around ! {THE FOLLOWING TO BE PRONOUNCED WITH A CLIPPED WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN ACCENT}

“You’ve got to be joking, man !”

26 June 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're desperate for people like me to be around. Heck, you even went trolling Pink News to get your fix. Forums always have a couple of people like you, trying to cause trouble to make up for your own psychological inadequacies.

26 June 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

you'd realise that things have changed significantly in the last decade or two on this.

Heh. Sort of like when the Titanic ripped open its hull on an ice berg. Change isn't always a good thing - unless of course you prefer to freeze to death in water at 29 degrees Fahrenheit.

carl

26 June 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Ummm ... an interesting attack on religion that ays a lot about you.

Is that what your missing in your life? A sense of approval from the internal Mummy and Daddy? A metaphorical pat on the head and
reasurrance you are loved despite being 'different'? A need for acceptance?

Just can't be achieved, can it? Instead of changing yourself you insist on attempting to rewrite the moral code for everyone else. It wont work because deep downwe all know right from wrong.

And all these little snide remarks ... so terribly bitchy!

26 June 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And DanJ0, let's turn this around:

"And let's face it, you don't even believe in it anyway deep down, I reckon you just like the sense of membership and the stern fatherly thing the priest does when you feck up."

Face it, it's you who doesn't believe deep down what you say. Your atheism is equivocal as is your homosexuality. A sense of membership is craved by you. And the fatherly thing is not something I seek.

27 June 2012 at 01:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Heh. Sort of like when the Titanic ripped open its hull on an ice berg. Change isn't always a good thing - unless of course you prefer to freeze to death in water at 29 degrees Fahrenheit."

Well, luckily your doom and gloom and bleak outlook on life isn't infectious. Though it seems to be passed on from parents to children for the most part unfortunately.

27 June 2012 at 06:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Face it, it's you who doesn't believe deep down what you say."

Well, let's see. I'm an atheist and I have a homosexual orientation. If I honestly thought that a particular version of theism, like the one you claim, was really true then I'm clearly destined for eternal torment. It doesn't seem very likely that I actually believe it's true deep down in that case, does it? Not to an intelligent observer, anyway.

But what about you? Look at your behaviour here and your professed beliefs. Surely there can't be much doubt that you and your sidekick are just here to troll and cause trouble. Your demonstrable lack of personal ethics and integrity and even run-of-the-mill honesty shows you don't take your claimed religion very seriously at all. Otherwise you'd be at least trying to demonstrate 'fruits of the spirit'. There's an obligation is on you.

Let's face it, you don't give a hoot. You absolutely love causing a ruckus, night after night and on almost every thread down here. It's all you really do, truth be told. The ID changes, the gross hypocrisy, the lies you tell, it's all very typical behaviour for forum trolls the Internet over. In reality you're no Christian, you just use it like gang membership.

27 June 2012 at 06:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo

As an atheist it always reassures me to come here and see the various examples of what unfettered religious consumption can do to the mind of a human being. They should be in a zoo for endangered species really, but largely for their own safety and the safety of others more fortunate.

So. Let's look at this veritable smorgasbord of self styled Christians - we have here - for your h-edification, h-entertainment and target for sporting jibes, japes and wizard wheezes of all kinds:-

In the first cage -
The inimitable and so desperate to be loved, that manly man for all men, the vile, the venal, the very vision of viper's fork tongued venom and victualler of all things homophobic and racist - I give you the one, the wonderful, unwashed, unvarnished, and feigntly urine scented Inspector (if wit was shit he'd be constipated) Clueless.

Cage number two -
The mean and sneaky self appointed shape-shifting sniper in chief, defender of privileged Popes and paedophile priests, the polypersoned is it bird/man/dog/hyena or who knows what next - Peeeeeterrrr the not so amazing, one-trick parrot.

In number three - and please stand well back folks we have -
The napalm loving 'God loves the smell of burning childrens' flesh in the mornin' and I'm gonna deliver it to him' Mr 'terror works for me' himself, the ever so slightly sociopathic Cuuuuuuurazeee Col carl Kuuuuurtz.

And not forgetting the little ones -
In the kiddies petting park - we have the wonderfully Whacky and always good for a laugh all times that childish children's favourite - Uncle Albert - who will provide them with hours of knock about fun by busily hitting himself on the head with a 9 pound hammer singing 'Knock, knock knocking on Heavens door' and not appreciating that it closed down years ago and is now a Poundland store.

Not to mention the intermittent appearances of frenzied masses of birdbrained fluttering quoters of obscure biblical texts selected to fit any occasion that and stops them from thinking rationally lest they unmask the smoke and mirrors of the Great OZ - who need the pigeons to come home to Trafalgar Square - they all here.

Yup, Step right this way - the Human Zoo is all here folks - but please - 'DON'T FEED THE TROLLS'

Enjoy your Day at Cranmer's Fun Park

health an safety warning(some people may find some of the exhibits objectionable and ill informed, the management bear no responsibility for their actions. They may throw shit at you if stuck for something intelligent to say, but its only their way of saying how much they love you and appreciate your patronage)

Y'all come back now

27 June 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Ivan said...

The relatively speedy fall of France came as surprise to the German High Command too. The truth is that the French were desperately unlucky and the Germans were able to capitalise on the slowness of the French command. The British had never planned on fighting a continental war on their own, hence their exceptional efforts in the area of aircraft production. Bomber Command was to stand in lieu of a continental army and was used accordingly. Incidentally the idea that Shitler spared the BEF out of some sentimental regard for the English is utter tosh; like everyone else he too was shocked by speed of the German advance and feared a trap. The Blitzkrieg legend came later and scored some spurious successes on the Russian Front in 1941 - spurious because the senior devil of WW11 Joseph Stalin had criminally ordered the Red Army to stand down in the face of German aggression in the initial stages. Devil because it was the Nazi-Soviet Pact that gave Shitler a freer hand in the first place. The real measure of the ability of the belligerents came in Stalingrad when it became very clear that that the last one standing will be the one who could throw the largest amount of material and men into the cauldron and it was not going to be the Germans. Of all the Allies the British are the most admirable since they could have easily worked out a Vichy-like deal through Hess and had a quite war, but instead chose to go out in glory. About the only things that can be held against them by the standards of the time are Dresden and the return of the Vlasov men to the NKVD.

27 June 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 June 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

sociopathic

No, I'm not sociopathic. I just refuse to live in a world of comfortable illusions. I know a war can't be fought yet some how bloodlessly. I am willing to name the hard choices that commanders have to make - choices that involve trading the lives of Group A against the lives of Group B. Don't mistake dispassion for callousness. They aren't the same thing. I wore the uniform. I understand the profession. I try to deal professionally and dispassionately with these subjects.

carl

27 June 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Albert said...

That was a long post, Dreadnaught. None of it, of course, engaged in the points that have been raised against you.

27 June 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nice alliteration up there!

27 June 2012 at 16:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DumbNumbNuts said

"health an safety warning(some people may find some of the exhibits objectionable and ill informed, the management bear no responsibility for their actions. They may throw shit at you if stuck for something intelligent to say, but its only their way of saying how much they love you and appreciate your patronage)

Y'all come back now"

The 18th century English poet William Cowper, stated: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence." It is a logical fallacy to say that because one cannot prove there is a God, it means or follows that there is no God or that people who do do so by mere pretense or delusion...or has Ernst merely throw some brown stuff at you, you poor dear?

Your accompanying motto should read - Always the twit, never the wit!

Ernst S Blofeld

"Y'all come back now" It appears we cannot keep you Atheists away. What boring lives the godless must lead if you must constantly frequent the blog of the flying spaghetti monster and adherents. Are there not enough BBC evolutionary/atheist programming or SS types in soaps nowadays to keep your likkle grey cells evolving honwards and hupwards!!*huge guffaws*

27 June 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

I take it you;ve been indullging in Jamaican Spliffs and Red Stripes. Was it that or the rain rocking your barge that disoriented you?

Very creative. I'll give you that. Perhaps you could put some music to it and play us a tune on one of your old guitars.

I am no "defender of privileged Popes and paedophile priests"! I defend the institution - not those individuals who have betrayed it.

I will leave it to the others on the end of your 'Magical Mystery Tour' tounge to defend themselves.

Who is covered by the label "the intermittent appearances of frenzied masses of birdbrained fluttering quoters of obscure biblical texts"? Those people (unlike you) who are so incapable of "thinking rationally lest they unmask the smoke and mirrors of the Great OZ", by whom I take it you mean God?

27 June 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dreadnaught @ 11.03 : hahaha :o)

Given the field you are ploughing, who could blame you?

As my old granny used to say: ''handsome is as handsome does'' - I frequently witness a more 'Christian' spirit here, amongst certain, so-called atheists, than from some of t'other lot.

May the Lord be with you Dreadnaught, and God-bless all who sail in/with you.

27 June 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 June 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

"Oswin I don't much care for your treatment of others with your vicious aside remarks either.Your own behaviour is indicative of your pettiness cruelty and spite..
and I think I have touched a chord that you are not comfortable with i.e. your propensity to fence sit just hurling insults without ever contributing anything of substance to a debate. To be quite honest I'm not interested in your assessment of anything or your opinion of me.

(cressida de nova

My sentiments entirely.

27 June 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Why thank you most kindly Mr Oswin and Mr DanJo. If my flight of whimsy rattled a few cages - good. Sometimes, measured and thought out posts or points of view, seem like the last thing some here wish to consider or concede - this was more than likely my last visit. Thanks for your company gentlemen.

27 June 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Sometimes, measured and thought out posts or points of view, seem like the last thing some here wish to consider or concede

I could not agree more! Godspeed if you're not sailing down here again.

27 June 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught at 11:04

No doubt you banged your head in the boat this morning, to put in you in that disgusting mood.

Don’t make a habit of it now, as it’s sent you to new depths of dourness. Surprising isn’t it, finding committed Christians on a right wing Christian blog site of all places. Not to mention the odd nothing-left-to-live-for atheist with his infectious depression…

For your information. Appreciating the differences, weakness and strengths of the different races does not a man a racist make. Challenging homosexual outlooks on society, which are freely offered by said individuals, does not a man a homophobe make.

27 June 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Tony B said...

Handbags!

27 June 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dreadnaught: nope, you are needed here, so please stay.


Doddo: whilst you are bent on quoting, try quoting 'fore and aft' - you might discover (as if you hadn't already) that a certain person had merely regurgitated the substance of my own words. A tactic on a par with ''na narra nar naa'' or 'ya boo sucks' - both being a debating style familiar to yourself. So, in similar vein, I bid you a pleasant evening, you noxious wee oik. xx

27 June 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

Your original post to which cressida responded was particularly nasty and personal. So unlike you. So long as you've read it and reflect on it, I'll spare your blushes by posted it here.

And a good evening to you from a member of "t'other lot.".

Tony B said ...
"Handbags!

Are you asking DanJ0 to join in?

27 June 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: 'nasty' begets nasty. As a prime example of the art, I'd have thought you would have understand that above all others?

My advice is not to bother with your present tactic; it won't work, and you're not up to the job anyway.

You see, regardless of anything else, you are just too well known for what you are. Even at my worse, I don't come within ten miles of your particular bile.

However, feel-free to witter-on; everyone needs a hobby...

28 June 2012 at 01:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

Why so modest? I think you're an expert at the art of obscure nastiness. My approach is up front and open.

28 June 2012 at 01:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

tra-laaa sing us another one doooo!

28 June 2012 at 01:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Point proven.

28 June 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

What have you to do with me? Who made you judge of my Christian conduct that you should imply I am a troll? Convict me of sin with my own words. Don't use the assertions that Dreadnaught created out of thin air and stuck in my mouth. I can without any difficulty whatsoever defend the moral and historical basis of every post I have made on this thread. And I won't be merely preening for the camera when I do so.

carl

28 June 2012 at 03:20  
Blogger Oswin said...

What does Dodo and a 'big girls blouse' have in common?

Please restrict your answers to less than thirty words; thank you.

28 June 2012 at 03:25  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl: come again??? What are you talking about?

28 June 2012 at 03:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

I refer to this.

Dreadnaught @ 11.03 : hahaha :o)

Given the field you are ploughing, who could blame you?

As my old granny used to say: ''handsome is as handsome does'' - I frequently witness a more 'Christian' spirit here, amongst certain, so-called atheists, than from some of t'other lot.


You refer approvingly to the post in which Dreadnaught said this about me:

In number three - and please stand well back folks we have -
The napalm loving 'God loves the smell of burning childrens' flesh in the mornin' and I'm gonna deliver it to him' Mr 'terror works for me' himself, the ever so slightly sociopathic Cuuuuuuurazeee Col carl Kuuuuurtz.


And also this:

Yup, Step right this way - the Human Zoo is all here folks - but please - 'DON'T FEED THE TROLLS'

That is what I am talking about.

carl

28 June 2012 at 03:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl: nope, sorry, you've got it wrong entirely. My comments refered not at all to you; did you really think otherwise? To be honest, until just now, I hadn't read the second half, where you are mentioned. I hadn't even realised that you were in the debate. My sincere apologies, I am embarrassed; I was but poking a pointy stick at certain others.

28 June 2012 at 03:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

Thank you for that. I accept your apology.

No, I wouldn't have expected that from you. I expect such things from others and let them pass by, but it stung to think it came from you. That's why I commented about it. Comments only sting when you respect the commenter. I am exceedingly glad it was an oversight.

carl

28 June 2012 at 03:57  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl: thank you, you are most gracious; I am genuinely chastened. I'm afraid I was guilty of 'skimming-through' posts without paying just attention. A lesson now learned. Again, my apologies for upsetting you.

28 June 2012 at 04:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Fools rush in ....

28 June 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oh dear..Oswin Heep, the peasant pig farmer is playing at refinement crawling into Carl's breeches for upsetting him. Disgusting unctious display of sycophancy!

29 June 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

Welcome back.

Oswin Heep - love it! Perhaps our farmer (pigs or sheep,is it?) can't get to the end of posts without falling off his fence. Must be painful too climbing back on with a bruised bum. Wonder if its a picket fence. This would explain his bad temper.

29 June 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The Dream Of Oswin

Oswin I hear you call to me
At moonrise across a golden sea
We're having a Klan meeting tonight
And I think of you Honey when I unbutton my tights
Oswin come to me I implore
Tell me where shall I find you
Oh Honey not in the sheep pen again
Do the right thing and only hump men

29 June 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Hiiiii Dodo

I have been staying at my Uncle's house for the last couple of days. He has been giving me lots of glasses of wine and we are having pizza tonight. Tomorrow we are having chicken vindaloo takeaway. Uncle likes me to run my hands through his thinning hair and sing to him. His favourite is Mambo Italiano and mine too. I have noticed that he pants and perspires a lot when I sing this.
I think I am loosing my mind. Uncle thinks he is loosing his too. We are both loosing our minds. I am also loosing a lot of things lately. This could affect my employment as an astronaut.

29 June 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger anna anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 June 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

Behave yourself young woman!

29 June 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

Wrong thread .... the one discussing warfare is:

Queen visits Irish Roman Catholic church

29 June 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps
Welcome back, by the way.

29 June 2012 at 19:25  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Oops, I'll re-post it on the other one. Thanks for the welcome back!

29 June 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hello all don't think the subject is closed till you have read this

Excellent piece by peter Hichens on this

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

Phil

30-6-12

1 July 2012 at 00:52  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

sorry wrong link

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/06/the-heroes-of-bomber-command-deserve-their-memorial-unlike-the-butcher-who-led-them.html

Phil

1 July 2012 at 00:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older