Why I hate ANZAC day
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
He did say that Churchill was a great real leader.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
It’s funny; I wrote three inches long post to defend Churchill and you one voted me because you like him? Let me tell you something: blind emotions and military history – not good friends! Save this kind of things for the pub.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
It’s funny; I wrote three inches long post to defend Churchill and you one voted me because you like him? Let me tell you something: blind emotions and military history – not good friends! Save this kind of things for the pub.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
But you still committed the crime of saying you didn't like him (How very dare you!) and I did apologise for one voting you. If I could invite any single character from history to dinner it would be him.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
So, it's come to that time of year again - it's now Anzac day here (Aus), so there is the inevitable carry-on in the media. We have wall-to-wall coverage of young Aussies travelling to Gallipoli, ANZAC day marches and dawn services both here and in Turkey. What happened to the poor troops in those trenches was absolutely miserable - they paid an extraordinarily heavy toll for the decisions made by their governments. The troops (in my opinion) did not get what they deserved. Australia and New Zealand as countries on the other hand got exactly what they deserved. The thing that saddens and angers me most is that the events leading up to the refusal of Turkey to allow allies troops safe passage through the Dardanelles is very rarely mentioned during the festival that has become ANZAC day. 1. The Turkish people collected money before the war to build two ships - women even cut-off and sold their hair to help pay for these ships. 2. Britain built these 2 ships 3. War broke out the day that the final payment was for these ships was made 4. Britain commandeered these ships and refused to hand them over to the Turkish people 5. Britain then took it upon itself to sail straight up the Dardanelles past Turkey with (amongst others) these two ships 6. Turkey repelled the effort 7. They were invaded and the story that is Gallipoli began at this point. Maybe i'm just a miserable sonofabitch that thinks one is entitled to get what one pays for. If I was turkey at that point, I'd have told Britain to F right off too. ANZAC day - you suck. ANZAC soldiers that lost their lives, mates and health - you poor bastards... You can read more about it here
Yup the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has sent many millions of men to the slaughter for their profits as they continue to do today. War is the worst kind of racket. Casuality level estimates for Gallipoli where so high that britian sent in foriegn commanwealth troops (us ANZACs) to fight in the worst spot we where totally abused and used. That is what we should really remember... the needless violence and loss of good men to others greed.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
What about it?The French government surrendered, as is their wont, the moment that happened the French Navy became an enemy navy. The French were givin an ultimatum: 1. Continue as a free French navy and fight alongside the Royal Navy or hand the ships over to the Royal Navy (on Britiain winning the war the ships would be handed back). 2. Move your ships somewhere where they will not be used in military actions against the British until the war is ended. 3 Scuttle the ships. When the fleet failed to accept/do any of these it was destroyed, no-one in charge was happy about it. This action also demonstrated that the UK wasn't going to just roll over and accept defeat, even at the cose of an ex-ally.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
What about it?The French government surrendered, as is their wont, the moment that happened the French Navy became an enemy navy. The French were givin an ultimatum: 1. Continue as a free French navy and fight alongside the Royal Navy or hand the ships over to the Royal Navy (on Britiain winning the war the ships would be handed back). 2. Move your ships somewhere where they will not be used in military actions against the British until the war is ended. 3 Scuttle the ships. When the fleet failed to accept/do any of these it was destroyed, no-one in charge was happy about it. This action also demonstrated that the UK wasn't going to just roll over and accept defeat, even at the cose of an ex-ally.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands. I suppose also, that the fact the French Navy's ships were indeed scuttled before the Germans could make use of them (true to the word of the agreement) is unimportant to you. The French fought hard for the British just two weeks before this travesty, yet still the British forces acted with disregard to (a) the existing agreement and (b) this support. Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt. (in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent. If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white. My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
-
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands. I suppose also, that the fact the French Navy's ships were indeed scuttled before the Germans could make use of them (true to the word of the agreement) is unimportant to you. The French fought hard for the British just two weeks before this travesty, yet still the British forces acted with disregard to (a) the existing agreement and (b) this support. Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt. (in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent. If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white. My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
enhzflep wrote:
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands.
None whatsoever: they also, under the terms of the surrender to the Germans, agreed to hand the ships over to the Germans. The French fleet was given an ultimatum and didn't [at least] scuttle, what would any sensible leader think?
enhzflep wrote:
Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt.
Yep, and it worked with Roosevelt.
enhzflep wrote:
(in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent.
Well that's your opinion and, in my opinion your opinion is wrong. Not friendly: they were enbelligerents at this point, proven by their inability to remove their fleet as a threat.
enhzflep wrote:
If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white.
Spurious at best!
enhzflep wrote:
My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
Actually you are so foolish: you parrot half-truths from people who have the luxury of not actually having to make these decisions and are nowhere near a war. I notice that your whinging started because it is ANZAC day, not promoted by patriotism at all. It wasn't like any British troops were killed in what was one of the worst-run wars in human history. I'm not all patriotic
-
enhzflep wrote:
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands.
None whatsoever: they also, under the terms of the surrender to the Germans, agreed to hand the ships over to the Germans. The French fleet was given an ultimatum and didn't [at least] scuttle, what would any sensible leader think?
enhzflep wrote:
Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt.
Yep, and it worked with Roosevelt.
enhzflep wrote:
(in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent.
Well that's your opinion and, in my opinion your opinion is wrong. Not friendly: they were enbelligerents at this point, proven by their inability to remove their fleet as a threat.
enhzflep wrote:
If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white.
Spurious at best!
enhzflep wrote:
My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
Actually you are so foolish: you parrot half-truths from people who have the luxury of not actually having to make these decisions and are nowhere near a war. I notice that your whinging started because it is ANZAC day, not promoted by patriotism at all. It wasn't like any British troops were killed in what was one of the worst-run wars in human history. I'm not all patriotic
:-O Actually, I thank-you for having been prepared to discuss the topic with someone who is admittedly agitated by today's festivities. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions. Without a preparedness to share them and suffer the consequences of our own short-sightedness, any and all furthering of one's knowledge is limited to that which may be gleaned in a solo effort. A result of this whole thread has been a substantial sharpening of my keenness to discover more of the circumstances that have led to the events that have helped shape the world in which we all live, breathe and (will one day) die. Thanks Keith. :thumbsup: Simon.
-
Deyan Georgiev wrote:
I don’t like Churchill much
I beg your fucking pardon??? Churchill was one of the greatest leaders that has ever lived, pretty much single handedly ensuring an allied victory over the axis powers among many other highly notable accomplishments. Granted he wasn't a popular peacetime leader but his attitude and leadership made sure that Hitler (Godwin's law doesn't count here) didn't win WWII. WinstonChurchill.org[^]. ps Sorry: had to one vote for you dissing Churchill.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
:-O Actually, I thank-you for having been prepared to discuss the topic with someone who is admittedly agitated by today's festivities. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions. Without a preparedness to share them and suffer the consequences of our own short-sightedness, any and all furthering of one's knowledge is limited to that which may be gleaned in a solo effort. A result of this whole thread has been a substantial sharpening of my keenness to discover more of the circumstances that have led to the events that have helped shape the world in which we all live, breathe and (will one day) die. Thanks Keith. :thumbsup: Simon.
-
The article says nothing about the contract between Britain and Turkey. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it, but if the contract did say that, then ok. Were I in the place of Churchill, I'd probably have delivered the goods and then blown them up.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
:-\ One last thing before I retire for the day: I've just realized that my statement
Simon wrote:
My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
May been seen as a thinly veiled insinuation that I thought you were foolish and influenced by patriotism. :doh: This was not the case - it had been intended as something of a disclaimer - an indication of me having not having chosen sides, on the basis of heritage. With this possible interpretation of my poorly chosen words in mind, I think it is you Sir, that has likely exhibited the fairer play. :thumbsup: :slinks-away:
-
Finally someone who knows something about the History above “I heard it in the pub” level.:thumbsup:
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Thank you, but, really, my knowledge of History is somewhat sketchy.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
Same with me; there are relatively few subjects or history events which I know deep. And I’m a tragedy with the dates, I can’t remember an important date even if my live depends on this.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
I suppose that I am to take it that you place no value in the fact that the French had already signed an agreement with the British that these ships would not fall into enemy hands. I suppose also, that the fact the French Navy's ships were indeed scuttled before the Germans could make use of them (true to the word of the agreement) is unimportant to you. The French fought hard for the British just two weeks before this travesty, yet still the British forces acted with disregard to (a) the existing agreement and (b) this support. Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt. (in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent. If surrender in the interests of saving lives makes one an enemy of those that were allies, then it appears George W's craptacular statement "You're either with us or you're against us" is not a new-found statement of short-sightedness, but another indication of the inability of the nation to mature and understand the world to be a complex place full of grey, grey, more grey and a little bit of black and white. My heritage is both British and French, more so British than French, in fact - but I'm not so foolish that I would let patriotism get in the way of a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts.
enhzflep wrote:
Certainly, the British would have been in mortal danger should these ships come under the command of the Germans. But over 1200 men died as a result of (a) Churchill's paranoia and (b) his eagerness to regain the support of Roosevelt.
(in my opinion) Ultimately, 1200 innocent and friendly men were killed in preference to risking the chance that British lives would be put at risk if they kept watch on the ships, ready to pounce in the event that their seizure was imminent.War isn't fair. War isn't clean. War isn't nice. And yes in "war" is it quite reasonable (reasonable in terms of being in war) to kill a lot of people based on nothing more than a chance.
-
You forgot to mention he invented multi-car insurance which in my opinion is his greatest contribution to mankind,.
Oh yes.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier
-
So, it's come to that time of year again - it's now Anzac day here (Aus), so there is the inevitable carry-on in the media. We have wall-to-wall coverage of young Aussies travelling to Gallipoli, ANZAC day marches and dawn services both here and in Turkey. What happened to the poor troops in those trenches was absolutely miserable - they paid an extraordinarily heavy toll for the decisions made by their governments. The troops (in my opinion) did not get what they deserved. Australia and New Zealand as countries on the other hand got exactly what they deserved. The thing that saddens and angers me most is that the events leading up to the refusal of Turkey to allow allies troops safe passage through the Dardanelles is very rarely mentioned during the festival that has become ANZAC day. 1. The Turkish people collected money before the war to build two ships - women even cut-off and sold their hair to help pay for these ships. 2. Britain built these 2 ships 3. War broke out the day that the final payment was for these ships was made 4. Britain commandeered these ships and refused to hand them over to the Turkish people 5. Britain then took it upon itself to sail straight up the Dardanelles past Turkey with (amongst others) these two ships 6. Turkey repelled the effort 7. They were invaded and the story that is Gallipoli began at this point. Maybe i'm just a miserable sonofabitch that thinks one is entitled to get what one pays for. If I was turkey at that point, I'd have told Britain to F right off too. ANZAC day - you suck. ANZAC soldiers that lost their lives, mates and health - you poor bastards... You can read more about it here
enhzflep wrote:
ANZAC day - you suck.
ANZAC soldiers that lost their lives, mates and health - you poor bastards...ANZAC day does not suck. It's an opportunity for the country to express thanks to those who served in the armed forces. It's got nothing to do with the history of the conflicts in which they fought. They're not poor bastards, they're men and women who stood up and fought for their country and they should continue to be celebrated for it. That the media milk it for a profit is neither here nor there. I like this Ataturk quote Heroes who shed their blood and lost their lives! You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. [^]
