"UK is a Christian country"-David Cameron

Damian

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,183
I apologize if you find this offensive, but would you not hate the Germans if they start taking pride in the Reich and believing that their invasion civilized Poland?. Again, I did point out that "Hate" is a strong word.
I would not feel hate towards them... only pity.

Perhaps you can't empathize with people who had family members who suffered during the Raj.
Oh I can... this is why I see hate as nothing good, hate brings only more suffering, if not in form of war, then inside persons soul.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
Atlantic Charter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[h=3]British Empire[/h] Public opinion in Britain and the Commonwealth was delighted with the principles of the meetings but disappointed that the U.S. was not entering the war. Churchill admitted that he had hoped the U.S. would finally decide to commit itself.
The acknowledgment that all peoples had a right to self-determination gave hope to independence leaders in British colonies (e.g., India).[SUP][7][/SUP]
In a September 1941 speech, Churchill stated that the Charter was only meant to apply to states under German occupation, and certainly not to the peoples who formed part of the British Colonial Empire.[SUP][8][/SUP]
Churchill rejected its universal applicability when it came to the self-determination of subject nations such as British India. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in 1942 wrote to President Roosevelt: "I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for the freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and for that matter Africa are exploited by Great Britain..."[SUP][9][/SUP] Roosevelt repeatedly brought the need for Indian independence to Churchill's attention, but was repeatedly rebuffed.[SUP][9][/SUP] However Gandhi and his party refused to help either the British or the American war effort against Germany and Japan in any way, leaving Roosevelt no choice but to back Churchill.[SUP][10][/SUP] India eventually ended up contributing significantly to the war effort, sending over 2.5 million men (the largest volunteer force in the world at the time) to fight for the Allies, mostly in West Asia and North Africa. [SUP][11][/SUP]
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
You can do whatever you want. Read below if it helps:
  • Roosevelt told Britain to give up her territories and US will help Britain financially for rebuilding. - fact.
  • US granted India independence. - drivel that you made up.

Sensationalism and rhetoric seldom moves me. Put forward facts. I have no time for emotional melodrama.

For your perusal:
Whatever man, this is the statement you made. [FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?[/FONT]

[FONT=helvetica, arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif]All my arguments are based on that statement. If you elicited incorrectly, then admit that. There are no two ways of interpreting that statement. If there is then tell me.

Whether Rosevelt's threat is what gave India her independence we can still debate about after you have corrected the flaw in the above statement.
[/FONT]
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
Roosevelt VS British Colonialism

[FONT=Times, Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times, Times New Roman][FONT=Courier New,Courier,monospace]An eyewitness account of the struggle between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, over the fate of the post-war world is contained in the book by the President's son, Elliott Roosevelt, 'As He
Saw It,' (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946). Elliott Roosevelt was an aide to his father at all but one of the Big Three conferences during World War II. Elliott Roosevelt recounts how his father, the American President laid out his determination to shape a post-war world free of colonialism, and his perspective for the economic development of the former colonies to eradicate poverty and illiteracy.

The following are two excerpts from Elliott Roosevelt's book. The first is from a meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill at the Bay of Argentia, of the coast of Newfoundland. It was at this meeting where Roosevelt forced Churchill to sign the Atlantic Charter on August 14, 1941. This charter contained key aspects of Roosevelt's vision of the post-war world.

The first section is Elliott Roosevelt's account of the conference between Roosevelt and Churchill at Argentia Bay off Newfoundland. The Atlantic Charter was signed at this meeting on Aug 14, 1941.

(It should be emphasized that Roosevelt is not promoting the British doctrine of free trade. Indeed the British only followed the free trade approach when it was to their benefit. The British Empire was based on monopolistic trading arrangements that enriched Great Britain and impoverished the colonies. Trade between British colonies and other countries was severely limited.)[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Super Mod
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
6,204
Likes
8,183
Country flag
I would not feel hate towards them... only pity.



Oh I can... this is why I see hate as nothing good, hate brings only more suffering, if not in form of war, then inside persons soul.
To each his own.. You're a good man if you're above hate. Many of us find hard to let go of it when the past is shoved into our face ever so often.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
Bathed in Hatred
Churchill had longer-term worries than the future of Germany. He had at last woken up to the long term cost of the war to the Empire. Britain's indebtedness would soon be $3,000m; her exports were less than one-third of their 1938 level; to maintain full employment she must increase exports fivefold. So she must start rebuilding her export trade now which Americans might not understand. But Britain must release labor to rebuild her export industries. So Lend-Lease must continue even after Hitler's defeat, though a reduction of about twenty-seven percent would appear reasonable to the British. (, discussion FDR/WSC, September 14, in Morgenthau diary and copy in General Hap H. Arnold diary; and. W. D. Taylor, memo on meeting of Sir John Anderson and Sir David Waley with Morgenthau, Harry Dexter White, August 11.)
Over lunch on August 10, they sized each other up. Churchill knew that Morgenthau was no friend of Britain. Morgenthau flattered Roosevelt a few days later that it was interesting 'how popular he [Roosevelt] was with the soldiers and how unpopular Churchill was.' He described one instance to Roosevelt: 'I told him [Roosevelt],' he wrote in his diary, 'about the difficulty of finding someone to take me through the shelters [in the East End of London] because both Churchill and Sir Robert Morris [?Home Secretary Mr Herbert Morrison] had been jeered when they went through them recently, and that finally they decided on Mrs Churchill and Lady Mountbatten.' Morgenthau amused Roosevelt's Cabinet a week later with a description of how the prime minister 'kept referring to his age during conversations.'
At the meeting between Churchill and Morgenthau the small-talk was as frigid as only an interview between a penniless debtor and his banker can be. 'Churchill,' described Morgenthau to Roosevelt, '.. started the conversation by saying that England was broke.. Churchill's attitude was that he was broke but not depressed about England's future.. He is going to tell Parliament about their financial condition at the right time after the Armistice, and that when he does that he is through.'
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Thank you Mr. Ewald for posting those excerpts. They will be particularly helpful for people who argue out of ignorance.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Whatever man, this is the statement you made. I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?

All my arguments are based on that statement. If you elicited incorrectly, then admit that. There are no two ways of interpreting that statement. If there is then tell me.

Whether Rosevelt's threat is what gave India her independence we can still debate about after you have corrected the flaw in the above statement.
TrackWhack, you read posts #322, #324 and #326 instead of showing the world how enlightened you are. This is my advise to you. My second advise would be to grow up. My arguments with teenagers seldom go well and you are doing all you can to provoke me.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,568
Thank you Mr. Ewald for posting those excerpts. They will be particularly helpful for people who argue out of ignorance.
They are only excerpts. It seems the subject to which the thread has turned (Roosevelt, Churchill, and India independence) has a weighty amount of scholarship attached to it.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
Thank you Mr. Ewald for posting those excerpts. They will be particularly helpful for people who argue out of ignorance.
Stop leaning on vague excerpts that say nothing about what you claimed and please present valid facts to back your earlier arguments. I'm not buying into your taunts.

I am also awaiting an alternate interpretation to the statement I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Stop leaning on vague excerpts that say nothing about what you claimed and please present valid facts to back your earlier arguments. I'm not buying into your taunts.

I am also awaiting an alternate interpretation to the statement I am not crediting the US for India's independence, but that does not change the truth?
Your questions and those that you are likely to ask in the future are already answered. I am not going to repeat myself. I stand by what I have already said. If you want to debate, post something worthy of a response, not drivel.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,585
TrackWhack, you read posts #322, #324 and #326 instead of showing the world how enlightened you are. This is my advise to you. My second advise would be to grow up. My arguments with teenagers seldom go well and you are doing all you can to provoke me.
pmaitra - You are thinking wrong if you are thinking that you or your falsified version of history intimidates me. I read what you wrote. I disagree with your version of history and vehemently object to it. And I dont really give a damn if I am provoking you.

I still maintain that we, Indians, kicked the Brits out, though it took us a whole 200 years. Your version of history was that the Americans made them quit. As far as I am concerned, you are the one posting drivel.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
pmaitra - You are thinking wrong if you are thinking that you or your falsified version of history intimidates me. I read what you wrote. I disagree with your version of history and vehemently object to it. And I dont really give a damn if I am provoking you.

I still maintain that we, Indians, kicked the Brits out, though it took us a whole 200 years. Your version of history was that the Americans made them quit. As far as I am concerned, you are the one posting drivel.
It would be very kind of you if you stopped your nonsense, false accusations, attributing made up stories as being said by me and your damnation. If you are such a great patriot or are just experiencing a juvenile adrenaline rush, go and join the army. You are not contributing anything with your imbecilic comments.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,374
Country flag
[/COLOR][/FONT]

The British Indian empire?
100 years.

Death toll?

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: How Churchill 'starved' India
And this is just a footnote in their glorious Raj.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

Concentration camps, gas chambers, etc. (you get the idea)? I must say it's an inter-galactic comparison. The deaths during the British Empire mostly are not directly upon the order of the British colonial masters? You have your land lords, royalties, local masters to blame for that too...
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
Concentration camps, gas chambers, etc. (you get the idea)? I must say it's an inter-galactic comparison. The deaths during the British Empire mostly are not directly upon the order of the British colonial masters? You have your land lords, royalties, local masters to blame for that too...
It was not always direct. It was often hierarchical. Of course, those vassals were oftentimes hand in glove with British Imperialism. They, however, represent the minority elite, not the masses.

However, British Imperialism has had more casualties than Nazism. The latter stands out because too much happened in a short time while British engineered genocides happened over centuries.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,561
Likes
2,557
CivFanatic, I find that rather stereotypical and pretty offensive. Do you think those Irish who supported India's fight for Independence as scum of the Earth? Do you think those Germans who helped India wage a war against the British for freedom as scum of the Earth? Do you think the Russians and the Soviets, many of whom (not all) were Europeans, who stood by India at the time of India's need as scum of the Earth?

C'mon buddy, be reasonable.
In this context I am referring to those European powers which engaged in fanatical colonialism and imperialism starting in the 16th century. This excludes the Irish, because they did not engage in such activity and were actually the victims of British barbarism themselves. The Germans who helped India in WWII didn't help India out of some sort of love but because we had a common enemy; the Germans engaged in numerous barbaric activities and they are well-known. I don't consider Russians to be Europeans because of cultural, historical, and geographic reasons.

I am sure there are "good" Britishers, just as there are "good" Pakistanis. It doesn't change the fact that their respective nations are scum.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,374
Country flag
To each his own.. You're a good man if you're above hate. Many of us find hard to let go of it when the past is shoved into our face ever so often.

You better believe him. They (Europeans) have been in your path of hate against each other and everybody else for so long that they realised for some time now that that is the foolish path... Even the dear leader Gandhi will tell you the same thing...

To give you an idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top