Union with David Olusoga

Only war England/UK was the good guy was ww2 statement has got me thinking.

I admit reasons for some conflicts/wars are nothing to be proud of if you are British.

However there has been more than one good guy war

Falklands - now many island inhabitants were happy about Argentinian occupation or ruled by a military dictatorship.

Korea - South Korea almost completely invaded by Chinese Army.

WW1 - didn't we defend France and Belgium from invading German forces and lost 1m men doing it.

War with Napoleon - Many European countries did not want to be ruled by Napoleon or one of his brothers. When a country like Spain was cleared of the French Army/Navy, the UK did not try and rule Spain (except Gib).
 
Redwurzel said:
Falklands - now many island inhabitants were happy about Argentinian occupation or ruled by a military dictatorship.
Click to expand...
You need to also look at the situation in Argentina at the time and how the junta was killing its own people to continue their fascist oppressive regimes reign infact there’s evidence now defeat in las Malvinas that led to their downfall.

Although they have never given up that claim for them.
 
Redwurzel said:
Only war England/UK was the good guy was ww2 statement has got me thinking.

I admit reasons for some conflicts/wars are nothing to be proud of if you are British.

However there has been more than one good guy war

Falklands - now many island inhabitants were happy about Argentinian occupation or ruled by a military dictatorship.

Korea - South Korea almost completely invaded by Chinese Army.

WW1 - didn't we defend France and Belgium from invading German forces and lost 1m men doing it.

War with Napoleon - Many European countries did not want to be ruled by Napoleon or one of his brothers. When a country like Spain was cleared of the French Army/Navy, the UK did not try and rule Spain (except Gib).
Click to expand...
Other than Falklands I’m not sure about those.

WW1 was a tinder box of political alliances that could kick off at any time. No country can claim to be right or wrong with that.

Korea is another political ideology. Britain followed the Americans against the perceived communist threat. Good or bad depends on your thinking.

Napoleon is an interesting one, if England / Britain was good against him, was the county bad towards Joan of Arc in the Hundred Years’ War?
 
Nero said:
Napoleon is an interesting one, if England / Britain was good against him, was the county bad towards Joan of Arc in the Hundred Years’ War?
Click to expand...
Bad of course. England was trying to conquer France.

It ended very badly for England though - using bows and arrows to fight against cannons is never going to end well.
 
Nero said:
Other than Falklands I’m not sure about those.

WW1 was a tinder box of political alliances that could kick off at any time. No country can claim to be right or wrong with that.

Korea is another political ideology. Britain followed the Americans against the perceived communist threat. Good or bad depends on your thinking.

Napoleon is an interesting one, if England / Britain was good against him, was the county bad towards Joan of Arc in the Hundred Years’ War?
Click to expand...
WW1 Germany invaded Belgium and France - not the other way round - we joined to help little Belgium and France- we certainly were not the bad guys in 1914. I doubt we would have joined in if Belgium and France were not invaded. We were not willing to join in when Serbia was invaded or even Russia who I think we were allied to, so it was more than just about treaties.

1950/51 - Korea was invaded by a much bigger neighbour - the United Nations (not USA/UK) called for International response to stop China.

I don't anything about the Hundred Year War. but I do know the Norman Kings of England considered themselves more French than English, many of them couldn't even speak English and didn't live here for most of their lives i.e I think we were taken over by them.

I guess you accept Napoleon was a bit of tyrant to people outside France. We did build defence forts against possible invasion. He was quite an aggressive character ask the Spanish.
 
Redwurzel said:
WW1 Germany invaded Belgium and France - not the other way round - we joined to help little Belgium and France- we certainly were not the bad guys in 1914. I doubt we would have joined in if Belgium and France were not invaded. We were not willing to join in when Serbia was invaded or even Russia who I think we were allied to, so it was more than just about treaties.

1950/51 - Korea was invaded by a much bigger neighbour - the United Nations (not USA/UK) called for International response to stop China.

I don't anything about the Hundred Year War. but I do know the Norman Kings of England considered themselves more French than English, many of them couldn't even speak English and didn't live here for most of their lives i.e I think we were taken over by them.

I guess you accept Napoleon was a bit of tyrant to people outside France. We did build defence forts against possible invasion. He was quite an aggressive character ask the Spanish.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Regarding WW1, I don't think anyone was a good or bad guy in that war. The political situation at the time made it almost inevitable. It's certainly not a case of the Germans being bad like they were in WW2.
 
Redwurzel said:
I am sad and a bit obsessive (to the average person in the street) going on holiday to Ireland and visiting the Famine and Emigration Museums and looking for books on the Irish famine. Its not easy in England to find much and I was never taught anything about it. In school it was interesting when I was 13, but for the 1840s we did the Industrial Revolution and the Charter movement in England. My conclusion on the famine is it left an enormous mistrust and bitterness to the English in Ireland that carried on for several generations with some families. The English establishments came across as totally uncaring and as oppressors, treating the Irish Catholics in affected areas as you would do cattle/slaves. The mistrust and bitterrness carried on certainly until 1923 and I would say it was still there in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I remember reading Joe Kennedy father of the JFK still disliked the British when he was US ambassador in London in 1940 and did his best to keep USA out of the War, because he believed his grandparents had suffered in Ireland in the Famine and were forced to emigrate. The Great Brigade @ Celtic will display banners of skeleton children and Rangers fans will goad them with songs like the Famine is over, time to go home. All 170 years after the Famine.

Ref Scotland - most Scots did not support the Jacobites in 1745 - the Scottish Jacobite Army were mainly Highlanders and Islanders. There were no brigades of Glaswegians or folk from Edinburgh. People in Glasgow were more interested in setting up tobacco factories, shipyards and cotton mills, cotton and tobacco came from English/British Colonies in the Americas sometimes from Scottish run farms and plantations. Most of the customers were in England/Wales. Goods were moved in Scottish ships with Scottish crews. Economically is was a big disadvantage to be seperated from England. Many Scots grew wealthy on the back of the British Empire, but are shy to admit it.

I read a book called the real Oliver Twist and the mass shipping of young children (typically aged 6 or 7) from London Orphanages to water powered cotton mills in Derbyshire in 1800 was totally wrong and even at the time the majority of the UK population knew it was wrong. The children were subject to abuse of every description. Its amazing any survived, the vast majority did not. We can go back and say that was the times, but only to some degree.
Click to expand...
Read also about the thousands of children sent to Australia, New Zealand and Canada during the 1940's, 50's and 60's. We do seem to breed despicable politicians in this country. But back to the thread, I've only watched the first episode, but brilliantly put together. Horrific events in Northern Ireland.
 
Redwurzel said:
I am sad and a bit obsessive (to the average person in the street) going on holiday to Ireland and visiting the Famine and Emigration Museums and looking for books on the Irish famine. Its not easy in England to find much and I was never taught anything about it. In school it was interesting when I was 13, but for the 1840s we did the Industrial Revolution and the Charter movement in England. My conclusion on the famine is it left an enormous mistrust and bitterness to the English in Ireland that carried on for several generations with some families. The English establishments came across as totally uncaring and as oppressors, treating the Irish Catholics in affected areas as you would do cattle/slaves. The mistrust and bitterrness carried on certainly until 1923 and I would say it was still there in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I remember reading Joe Kennedy father of the JFK still disliked the British when he was US ambassador in London in 1940 and did his best to keep USA out of the War, because he believed his grandparents had suffered in Ireland in the Famine and were forced to emigrate. The Great Brigade @ Celtic will display banners of skeleton children and Rangers fans will goad them with songs like the Famine is over, time to go home. All 170 years after the Famine.

Ref Scotland - most Scots did not support the Jacobites in 1745 - the Scottish Jacobite Army were mainly Highlanders and Islanders. There were no brigades of Glaswegians or folk from Edinburgh. People in Glasgow were more interested in setting up tobacco factories, shipyards and cotton mills, cotton and tobacco came from English/British Colonies in the Americas sometimes from Scottish run farms and plantations. Most of the customers were in England/Wales. Goods were moved in Scottish ships with Scottish crews. Economically is was a big disadvantage to be seperated from England. Many Scots grew wealthy on the back of the British Empire, but are shy to admit it.

I read a book called the real Oliver Twist and the mass shipping of young children (typically aged 6 or 7) from London Orphanages to water powered cotton mills in Derbyshire in 1800 was totally wrong and even at the time the majority of the UK population knew it was wrong. The children were subject to abuse of every description. Its amazing any survived, the vast majority did not. We can go back and say that was the times, but only to some degree.
Click to expand...
Interesting to note the role played by the Irish Catholic landowners in the famine.
 
Soutra said:
Bad of course. England was trying to conquer France.

It ended very badly for England though - using bows and arrows to fight against cannons is never going to end well.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but much more about Henry V using the internecine French to sit on the throne in Paris. Once the French were United, given their massive superior resources, there was only going to be one outcome. And that’s without olde Holy Henry VI completely undermining the English.
Of course, we conquered France in the same way that they defeated the English in 1066. But really, it was as it has always been, the rich using the poor to fight their battles.
 
40FootRoad said:
Read also about the thousands of children sent to Australia, New Zealand and Canada during the 1940's, 50's and 60's. We do seem to breed despicable politicians in this country. But back to the thread, I've only watched the first episode, but brilliantly put together. Horrific events in Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
Sunshine and Oranges film with Emily Lloyd covers this - horrendous what went on in the 1950s and 60s - many kids were sent by social services and orphanges to get the kids off their books. One woman from Nazereth House in Middlesbrough was told as a girl she was going to Scarborough for a day out and ended up in Australia. They sometimes had their names changed so family is England could not trace them. They were called slum kids by the authorities. It was all hidden at the time.
 
Jedi boro said:
Does that include Ireland fuelling u boats then and openly supporting hitler’s attack on Britain through delavera etc or is it just the English as the bad guys angle.

Like I say history goes both ways.
Click to expand...
Not an iota of evidence the Free State allowed refuelling of U Boats
 
Jedi boro said:
You need to also look at the situation in Argentina at the time and how the junta was killing its own people to continue their fascist oppressive regimes reign infact there’s evidence now defeat in las Malvinas that led to their downfall.

Although they have never given up that claim for them.
Click to expand...
You also need to also look at the situation in England at the time and how the conservative party were oppressing its own people to continue their fascist regime. In fact there’s evidence now that victory in las Malvinas, led to multiple terms in office.

Although there is no logical claim the UK has for them.
 
The Ruthsayer said:
Perhaps, but much more about Henry V using the internecine French to sit on the throne in Paris. Once the French were United, given their massive superior resources, there was only going to be one outcome. And that’s without olde Holy Henry VI completely undermining the English.
Of course, we conquered France in the same way that they defeated the English in 1066. But really, it was as it has always been, the rich using the poor to fight their battles.
Click to expand...
did the English conquer France?

I like your posts. You've sent me down 2 rabbit holes. Irish catholic landowners and Franglaise1066 kings v the French
 
Decent_Left said:
Not an iota of evidence the Free State allowed refuelling of U Boats
Click to expand...
my dad always comes out with the "Irish supported the Germans in WW2" line. Is there evidence for this even though there isn't an iota of evidence for having sold/donated uboat fuel pump attendants?
 
Last edited:
sweet_left_foot said:
my dad always comes out with the "Irish supported the Germans in WW2" line. Is there evidence for this even though there isn't an iota of evidence for having sold/donated uboat fuel pump attendants?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is.
The British government would have acted if there was any evidence of active support, and I doubt even the Americans would have complained.

There was definitely sympathy from at least some sections of Irish society, and the bizarre official message of condolence for Hitler's death but there were far more ordinary Irish citizens who volunteered to fight in the war despite the Irish government often treating them dreadfully for doing so.

www.bbc.com

WWII Irish 'deserters' finally get pardons

Soldiers who left the Irish army to fight in WWII are to finally receive pardons for being branded deserters.
www.bbc.com

60,000 Irish citizens fought on the side of the Allies in WW2, despite being a neutral nation, that's over 1% of their population at the time.
 
sweet_left_foot said:
You also need to also look at the situation in England at the time and how the conservative party were oppressing its own people to continue their fascist regime. In fact there’s evidence now that victory in las Malvinas, led to multiple terms in office.

Although there is no logical claim the UK has for them.
Click to expand...
Thatcher was bad but we didn’t execute thousands of our own people and drop them out of planes over the sea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top