Who is the most Evil individual from the 20th century ?

[LalTopi]

It's not balanced. As I said, do the same poll in the UK and you'll get a different answer. Of course it's biased on here.

Biased? I would not say that. 40% of DFI respondents voted for Churchill as the most evil, 60% did not. Various arguments have been presented both ways and DFI members have made their choice based on the arguments. Yes, there are a few heated debates/jokes off topic but that does not mean that members did not listen to the real arguments before they voted.

The reason that Chruchill has been voted the most evil, is simply that he got away with his crimes. He is still treated as a hero in the UK where the educational system avoids any analysis of British colonialism and its consequences. At least in Germany and Japan, people are taught the whole story.

 

[Scalieback]

Biased? I would not say that. 40% of DFI respondents voted for Churchill as the most evil, 60% did not. Various arguments have been presented both ways and DFI members have made their choice based on the arguments. Yes, there are a few heated debates/jokes off topic but that does not mean that members did not listen to the real arguments before they voted.

Of course a poll on an Indian forum about evil people will be biased. Same as a poll in England about evil people will be biased. The bias is to do with your upbringing, taught history and learned history. I would originally have said Hirler was the most evil. I may have learnt something more and decided Pol Pot was.

How many of the voters are Indian? How many of the voters are other nationals? Come on

The reason that Chruchill has been voted the most evil, is simply that he got away with his crimes. He is still treated as a hero in the UK where the educational system avoids any analysis of British colonialism and its consequences. At least in Germany and Japan, people are taught the whole story.

Rubbish. Germany hides behind their version of the truth that it was the nazi's. Of course the people in the village up the road had no idea that Auschwitz was being used

As for Japan, do they even mention it in school history books? Don't they say the Americans liberated them from the madness the generals inflicted?

Get some perspective LalTopi

 

[LETHALFORCE]

There is still a point before ww2 that helped Germans to rebuild that involved UK.
Why did Britain agree that Nazi Germany could break the terms of Versailles?
It seemed that Britain was even supporting Germany's breaking of the
Treaty of Versailles stated what Germany's navy should be - no submarines
and only six warships over 10,000 tons.


In June 1935 the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. This allowed Germany
to have one third of the tonnage of the British navy's surface fleet (probably the largest in the world at this time)
and an equal tonnage of submarines. Two months earlier, Britain had signed the Stresa Front
which had condemned Germany's military build up

 

[civfanatic]

What do British school textbooks exactly teach about the Empire and the Colonies? I am talking about the period roughly between 1750 and 1950. I would appreciate it if Scalie or anyone else who has been through the British education system can answer.

 

[Scalieback]

There is still a point before ww2 that helped Germans to rebuild that involved UK. Yep
Why did Britain agree that Nazi Germany could break the terms of Versailles?As I said, guilt
It seemed that Britain was even supporting Germany's breaking of the
Treaty of Versailles stated what Germany's navy should be - no submarines
and only six warships over 10,000 tons.Yep. I think we were more worried about war with America hence the Washington Treaty

In June 1935 the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed. This allowed Germany
to have one third of the tonnage of the British navy's surface fleet (probably the largest in the world at this time)
and an equal tonnage of submarines. Two months earlier, Britain had signed the Stresa Front
which had condemned Germany's military build up

As I said, a lot of guilt and possible war with America such as 1812. Look at the world picture and Britains reliance on trade rather than a europe picture with the French bullying Germany.

 

[Scalieback]

What do British school textbooks exactly teach about the Empire and the Colonies? I am talking about the period roughly between 1750 and 1950. I would appreciate it if Scalie or anyone else who has been through the British education system can answer.

As I said about three pages back, very little. That time is taken up with tea clippers, kids as chimney sweeps, war (yet again) with the French etc.

Nothing about gun boat diplomacy at school or at least very little tmk.

 

[civfanatic]

As I said about three pages back, very little. That time is taken up with tea clippers, kids as chimney sweeps, war (yet again) with the French etc.

Nothing about gun boat diplomacy at school or at least very little tmk.

Then, if I may ask, what period(s) do British history textbooks focus on? Or is history as a subject largely ignored in favour of more "important" subjects (math, science, etc.)?

 

[Scalieback]

Then, if I may ask, what period(s) do British history textbooks focus on? Or is history as a subject largely ignored in favour of more "important" subjects (math, science, etc.)?

When I went to school (yes, Jesus was still in Bethlehem), it had about equal footing with geography and each of the three sciences (biology, physics and chemistry). More than French and German. Maths and English were the two strongest. when it came time for O' Levels you had a choice, but it was limited eg if you took geography you may not get history etc.

Now, I'm not so sure. They're talking about going back to O' levels. At the moment you take about eight or nine subjects which all seem to be variations on the old theme but more opportunity to take what you want and at that level the three sciences remain one.

I was taught about the Tudors, the Stuarts, Cromwell, Battle of Hastings. Early Britain, Roman Britain. At least, that's what I remember.

What are Indians taught about?

 

[afako]

i don't know about love, but I'd still like her. Would you like Ghandi in a suit?

Would have loved it if you had taken back him with you.

Not in the slightest. You didn't make sense. Stop trying to big yourself up. If you had half a wit less, you'd be witless!

You are quite Toned Down since the Day you entered the Forum.

A James or a Franklin? Is that supposed to mean something?

A James turning into Muhammad. A Franklin Converted to Abdul!

I'll be dead and buried long before Britain becomes an Islamic state and the same fate awaits India ie dead and buried or Islamic.

Iranian and Pakistanis are still alive not Dead. You are am Island. No Place to run away from the Swords of Islam!

 

[Scalieback]

Would have loved it if you had taken back him with you.

Back? Wasn't he born in India? Served on the front line as well as a water carrier.

You are quite Toned Down since the Day you entered the Forum.

Am I? I do apologise. What would you like me to rant about?

A James turning into Muhammad. A Franklin Converted to Abdul!

Okay, albeit I've lost track of what you're trying to prove. Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) did it years ago.

Iranian and Pakistanis are still alive not Dead. You are am Island. No Place to run away from the Swords of Islam!

Why would I run? I might embrace Islam for all you know

I'm not the running sort either. No french blood in me. Your most hated said it all really:

 

[LalTopi]

Of course a poll on an Indian forum about evil people will be biased. Same as a poll in England about evil people will be biased. The bias is to do with your upbringing, taught history and learned history. I would originally have said Hirler was the most evil. I may have learnt something more and decided Pol Pot was.

How many of the voters are Indian? How many of the voters are other nationals? Come on

Yes the voters are primarily Indian or Indian origin. But I do not agree we are biased. As I said 60% have chosen other than Churchill. DFI members have read the arguments for and against and voted accordingly. There is no inherent anti-British bias here - heck we arecommunicating in English for christ sake. Yes, some DFI members have tried to bait you - the Queen waring a burkha etc. - but you took the bait knowingly and gave as good as you got - that is healthy banter, not bias.

Rubbish. Germany hides behind their version of the truth that it was the nazi's. Of course the people in the village up the road had no idea that Auschwitz was being used

As for Japan, do they even mention it in school history books? Don't they say the Americans liberated them from the madness the generals inflicted?

Get some perspective LalTopi

Germany does not glorify Hitler - no where close. Japan does not glorify General Tojo - no where close. But Britain does glorify Churchill - without taking into account the full story.

What I am saying is that the country that has ruled the greatest empire that ever existed teaches its current children virtually nothing about the empire - (you yourself said you had no education on the empire). Therefore I keep asking myself why is this? and the only answer I can think of is that the authorities are afraid of opening the pandora's box of atrocities that were committed under the name of empire and shattering the sanctimonious image of the fair-minded, level-headed public schoolboy Englishman spreading civilization.

 

[LalTopi]

When I went to school (yes, Jesus was still in Bethlehem), it had about equal footing with geography and each of the three sciences (biology, physics and chemistry). More than French and German. Maths and English were the two strongest. when it came time for O' Levels you had a choice, but it was limited eg if you took geography you may not get history etc.

Now, I'm not so sure. They're talking about going back to O' levels. At the moment you take about eight or nine subjects which all seem to be variations on the old theme but more opportunity to take what you want and at that level the three sciences remain one.

I was taught about the Tudors, the Stuarts, Cromwell, Battle of Hastings. Early Britain, Roman Britain. At least, that's what I remember.

What are Indians taught about?

Listen, Jesus may have still been in Bethlehem when you went through the English educational system, but when I went through the same, dinosuars were still roaming the planet; and like yourself there was the usual Tudors, Cromwell etc. Also a lot on the 20th century (which was great) but nothing on empire.

But it gets worse - I still vividly recollect reading a secondary school text on 20th century history giving the then British version of the 1918 Amritsar masacre. The text referred to the British general having to fire on an unruly mob, killing '300 rioters', but in 'defence of British property and British lives'. It was only until I saw Richard Attenboroug's film Gandhi that I reallised what crap I had been fed as a school kid.
You think DFI members are biased, but you yourself are a product of the British educational system - which teaches either nothing, or a distorted view of history. You should really be questioning the education that you had - as I did when I saw Richard Attenboroug's film.

 

[Scalieback]

Yes the voters are primarily Indian or Indian origin. But I do not agree we are biased. As I said 60% have chosen other than Churchill. DFI members have read the arguments for and against and voted accordingly. There is no inherent anti-British bias here - heck we arecommunicating in English for christ sake. Yes, some DFI members have tried to bait you - the Queen waring a burkha etc. - but you took the bait knowingly and gave as good as you got - that is healthy banter, not bias.

As I said, it's based on your upbringing, learnt history and found history. I wouldn't expect similar results in a Brit board because of the aforementioned bias that we would have. Jinnah wouldn't even be mentioned because of "upbringing, learnt history and found history"

Germany does not glorify Hitler - no where close. Japan does not glorify General Tojo - no where close. But Britain does glorify Churchill - without taking into account the full story.

I never said Germany or Japan glorified their leaders and frankly Brits don't know the bad about Churchill. Some don't even know he was a glory hunter in S Africa. Still, after losing the Dardenelles he went back in the trenches. More than any other leader

What I am saying is that the country that has ruled the greatest empire that ever existed teaches its current children virtually nothing about the empire - (you yourself said you had no education on the empire). Therefore I keep asking myself why is this? and the only answer I can think of is that the authorities are afraid of opening the pandora's box of atrocities that were committed under the name of empire and shattering the sanctimonious image of the fair-minded, level-headed public schoolboy Englishman spreading civilization.

Quite possibly. You are again judging the people of the time by today's standards and frankly you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. No empire ever got its terrotiry by just asking did it? The Romans? The Mongols? The Mughals? Other European nations? The conquest of the west in N America?

What's the answer? Forced history lessons? Time to move on methinks.

 

[Scalieback]

Listen, Jesus may have still been in Bethlehem when you went through the English educational system, but when I went through the same, dinosuars were still roaming the planet; and like yourself there was the usual Tudors, Cromwell etc. Also a lot on the 20th century (which was great) but nothing on empire.

But it gets worse - I still vividly recollect reading a secondary school text on 20th century history giving the then British version of the 1918 Amritsar masacre. The text referred to the British general having to fire on an unruly mob, killing '300 rioters', but in 'defence of British property and British lives'. It was only until I saw Richard Attenboroug's film Gandhi that I reallised what crap I had been fed as a school kid.
You think DFI members are biased, but you yourself are a product of the British educational system - which teaches either nothing, or a distorted view of history. You should really be questioning the education that you had - as I did when I saw Richard Attenboroug's film.

I have questionned it. At the time I'm sure that was the report sent back, shot rioters. Only in time did the truth come out. Much like the deaths in that film between the Indians and Pakinstani's.

Things happened that shouldn't have. However, as above you are judging yesterdays man with todays values. I know. Nothing I can do about it, so ............

 

[afako]

Back? Wasn't he born in India? Served on the front line as well as a water carrier.



Am I? I do apologise. What would you like me to rant about?



Okay, albeit I've lost track of what you're trying to prove. Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) did it years ago.



Why would I run? I might embrace Islam for all you know

I'm not the running sort either. No french blood in me. Your most hated said it all really:

How would the Most Hated here look if he was alive today?

Holding:

Every Male in UK will look like this in Near Future In the Name of Islam.

He would do something which Your Most Hated Hitler did to himself!

 

[BangersAndMash]

Every Male in UK will look like this in Near Future In the Name of Islam.

Hell will freeze over before my c0ck is circumcised and I sport a beard like that!

There is more chance of history repeating itself in India, then that ever happening to the UK. Muslim population of India is at least 14% (although there are Indians in the cyber world crying that it is actually 25%), the Muslim population of the UK is just 2.8%. Judging by these figures, you are more likely to look like your local mullah then me!

 

[afako]

Hell will freeze over before my c0ck is circumcised and I sport a beard like that!

There is more chance of history repeating itself in India, then that ever happening to the UK. Muslim population of India is at least 14% (although there are Indians in the cyber world crying that it is actually 25%), the Muslim population of the UK is just 2.8%. Judging by these figures, you are more likely to look like your local mullah then me!

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have Fertility Rate in 4-5. Whites are Declining at a Rapid Rate compared to the Growth of Islam in UK.

Look at the White Terrorist. Was it thought of 10 years back?

 

[BangersAndMash]

Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have Fertility Rate in 4-5. Whites are Declining at a Rapid Rate compared to the Growth of Islam in UK.

Look at the White Terrorist. Was it thought of 10 years back?

Indian Muslims have a high fertility rate, 4,5,6,10 kids. Bangladeshis in India also have high fertility rate. Hindus are declining compared to the growth of Islam in India.

Look at SIMI, Indian mujahideen. ISI flooding Punjab with drugs and India with fake money. Kashmir valley brainwashed by ISI. ISI sleeper cells all over India, etc, etc. Was it thought of at independence?

 

[BangersAndMash]

Indian Muslims != Pakis.

UK is done for. Just hope the beard would look good on your face.

what is the goal of SIMI, Indian mujahideen and ISI sleeper cells?

Like I said, there is more chance of you sporting a mullah beard then me!

 

[Dovah]

what is the goal of SIMI, Indian mujahideen and ISI sleeper cells?

I don't think it's surviving on welfare and passively overtaking the country.

Like I said, there is more chance of you sporting a mullah beard then me!

Call me when you're in Pakiland.