BNP London Organiser says...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#451 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Was there a lot of ethnic nationalism in the UK - yes. European imperialism was based on the "fact" that Europeans were superior to the rest of the world. But to compare it with that of the Nazis is absurd. And when you read Winston Churchill's pamphlets warning about the danger that Nazi Germany poses to the UK (and the rest of the world for that matter), he never said that the German race has to be defeated in order to preserve the English, Irish, and Scottish races. He based his arguments on civic nationalism, and that the British people reject everything that Nazi Germany stood for ideologically. -Sun_Tzu-

Yet Winston Churchill allied with Josef Stalin.

Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils.

Stalin was by far more evil than Hitler was.

Hell, the Soviet Union invaded Poland just right after Germany did, yet Britain did not declare war on them.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#452 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils.

He also famously regretted what happened with Stalin. 'We defeated one tyrant and replaced him with another.'
Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#453 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Yet Winston Churchill allied with Josef Stalin.

Bourbons3

Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils.

Exactly. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It has its drawbacks, but it was necessary. It doesn't take away the deep distrust Churchill had for Stalin.

Such distrust that he completely sold out the Poles (which is why Britain declared war on Germany) at the Yalta conference to live under communism.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#454 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Forgive me, i forgot zeros in the original post. The rate would have to be eight MILLION non-whites entering the country a year to make whites the minority by 2020. :roll:

Ninja-Hippo

Oh, well that's hard to tell because you put 800 comma 000.

Anyways, maybe 2020 is an exaggeration, but 2030 or 2040 even sounds reasonable due to the low fertitliy rates.

No it doesn't 50 million white people aren't going to die and none of which be replaced by white kids by 2030 or 40. Let's take 2040. For that to happen, non white immigrants would have to come in at a rate of TWO MILLION a year. That is just an absurdly high number. Either you propose that the population will again DOUBLE in just thirty years, or you propose that sixty million white people will die between now and thirty years from now (despite the average life expectancy being in the 70s-80s) oh and the real doozy being that NONE of those white people can leave behind kids. Absurd. Even going by 2040, it's utterly absurd.

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#455 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Oh, well that's hard to tell because you put 800 comma 000.

Anyways, maybe 2020 is an exaggeration, but 2030 or 2040 even sounds reasonable due to the low fertitliy rates.

AHUGECAT

No it doesn't 50 million white people aren't going to die and none of which be replaced by white kids by 2030 or 40. Let's take 2040. For that to happen, non white immigrants would have to come in at a rate of TWO MILLION a year. That is just an absurdly high number. Either you propose that the population will again DOUBLE in just thirty years, or you propose that sixty million white people will die between now and thirty years from now (despite the average life expectancy being in the 70s-80s) oh and the real doozy being that NONE of those white people can leave behind kids. Absurd. Even going by 2040, it's utterly absurd.

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

I find that statement highly dubious.
Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#456 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Oh, well that's hard to tell because you put 800 comma 000.

Anyways, maybe 2020 is an exaggeration, but 2030 or 2040 even sounds reasonable due to the low fertitliy rates.

AHUGECAT

No it doesn't 50 million white people aren't going to die and none of which be replaced by white kids by 2030 or 40. Let's take 2040. For that to happen, non white immigrants would have to come in at a rate of TWO MILLION a year. That is just an absurdly high number. Either you propose that the population will again DOUBLE in just thirty years, or you propose that sixty million white people will die between now and thirty years from now (despite the average life expectancy being in the 70s-80s) oh and the real doozy being that NONE of those white people can leave behind kids. Absurd. Even going by 2040, it's utterly absurd.

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

so its not immigrants then? its the fact that brits arent having enough children?, doesnt make much sense, how do immigrants affect a "native" brit's ability to have kids?
Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#457 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils. AHUGECAT

Exactly. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". It has its drawbacks, but it was necessary. It doesn't take away the deep distrust Churchill had for Stalin.

Such distrust that he completely sold out the Poles (which is why Britain declared war on Germany) at the Yalta conference to live under communism.

Yes. What else was he going to do? Stalin would have taken it anyway.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#458 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Yet Winston Churchill allied with Josef Stalin.

AHUGECAT

Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils.

Stalin was by far more evil than Hitler was.

Hell, the Soviet Union invaded Poland just right after Germany did, yet Britain did not declare war on them.

I'm not really interested in defending Stalin, but which country was it that was bombing the **** out of the UK on a daily basis? Which country was it that openly declared that they were bent on world domination? That wasn't Stalinist Russia. Yes, Stalin was interested in taking back parts of Eastern Europe that Russia lost at the end of WWI, but Stalin wasn't interested in global conquest. He's famous for the concept of "socialism in one country". Hitler was a much bigger threat to the UK than Stalin ever was.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#459 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] No it doesn't 50 million white people aren't going to die and none of which be replaced by white kids by 2030 or 40. Let's take 2040. For that to happen, non white immigrants would have to come in at a rate of TWO MILLION a year. That is just an absurdly high number. Either you propose that the population will again DOUBLE in just thirty years, or you propose that sixty million white people will die between now and thirty years from now (despite the average life expectancy being in the 70s-80s) oh and the real doozy being that NONE of those white people can leave behind kids. Absurd. Even going by 2040, it's utterly absurd. PannicAtack

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

I find that statement highly dubious.

You need a 2.1 fertility rate to "replenish" a society and Britain only has a 1.7 rate, but this includes many non-British whites. I'd say their fertility rate is around 1.3-1.5.

Avatar image for SgtKevali
SgtKevali

5763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#460 SgtKevali
Member since 2009 • 5763 Posts

We have free movement of Labor in Europe, don't we?

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#461 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Yes, he famously said that if Hitler were to invade hell he'd consider saying something favorably of the devil in the house of commons. He was still vehemently opposed to Bolshevism, he and the rest of the allies saw Stalin as the lesser of the two evils. -Sun_Tzu-

Stalin was by far more evil than Hitler was.

Hell, the Soviet Union invaded Poland just right after Germany did, yet Britain did not declare war on them.

I'm not really interested in defending Stalin, but which country was it that was bombing the **** out of the UK on a daily basis? Which country was it that openly declared that they were bent on world domination? That wasn't Stalinist Russia. Yes, Stalin was interested in taking back parts of Eastern Europe that Russia lost at the end of WWI (and a little extra in exchange for the infamous non-aggression pact), but Stalin wasn't interested in global conquest. He's famous for the concept of "socialism in one country". Hitler was a much bigger threat to the UK than Stalin ever was.

1. Germany only bombed Britain because Britain declared war on Germany.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#462 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

AHUGECAT

I find that statement highly dubious.

You need a 2.1 fertility rate to "replenish" a society and Britain only has a 1.7 rate, but this includes many non-British whites. I'd say their fertility rate is around 1.3-1.5.

that doesnt answer the question, how does an immigrant prevent a "white british" from having enough children to "replenish" a society?
Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#463 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] I find that statement highly dubious.Darkman2007

You need a 2.1 fertility rate to "replenish" a society and Britain only has a 1.7 rate, but this includes many non-British whites. I'd say their fertility rate is around 1.3-1.5.

that doesnt answer the question, how does an immigrant prevent a "white british" from having enough children to "replenish" a society?

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#464 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Stalin was by far more evil than Hitler was.

Hell, the Soviet Union invaded Poland just right after Germany did, yet Britain did not declare war on them.

AHUGECAT

I'm not really interested in defending Stalin, but which country was it that was bombing the **** out of the UK on a daily basis? Which country was it that openly declared that they were bent on world domination? That wasn't Stalinist Russia. Yes, Stalin was interested in taking back parts of Eastern Europe that Russia lost at the end of WWI (and a little extra in exchange for the infamous non-aggression pact), but Stalin wasn't interested in global conquest. He's famous for the concept of "socialism in one country". Hitler was a much bigger threat to the UK than Stalin ever was.

1. Germany only bombed Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

We weren't occupying Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We were one united country, and all the better for it.
Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#465 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

You need a 2.1 fertility rate to "replenish" a society and Britain only has a 1.7 rate, but this includes many non-British whites. I'd say their fertility rate is around 1.3-1.5.

AHUGECAT

that doesnt answer the question, how does an immigrant prevent a "white british" from having enough children to "replenish" a society?

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

so then , are immigrants the cause of Britain's changing white to non white ratio? if it is indeed changing at all? an immigrant doesnt stop a white british from having more kids. human migration is nothing new, the "white british" themselves are a merge of many different peoples from the romans to the saxons and vikings.
Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#466 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] that doesnt answer the question, how does an immigrant prevent a "white british" from having enough children to "replenish" a society?Darkman2007

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

so then , are immigrants the cause of Britain's changing white to non white ratio?

Half of it.

Avatar image for Bourbons3
Bourbons3

24238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#467 Bourbons3
Member since 2003 • 24238 Posts
[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] that doesnt answer the question, how does an immigrant prevent a "white british" from having enough children to "replenish" a society?Darkman2007

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

so then , are immigrants the cause of Britain's changing white to non white ratio? if it is indeed changing at all? an immigrant doesnt stop a white british from having more kids. human migration is nothing new, the "white british" themselves are a merge of many different peoples from the romans to the saxons and vikings.

Not to mention the Normans. Plus everyone else in the past 950 years.
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#468 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

No, they wouldn't have to make two million a year because of low fertility rates. THat's even more key than immigrant numbers.

AHUGECAT

I find that statement highly dubious.

You need a 2.1 fertility rate to "replenish" a society and Britain only has a 1.7 rate, but this includes many non-British whites. I'd say their fertility rate is around 1.3-1.5.

For one, you're basically just making up numbers based on your ameteur appraisal of the situation. Two, why does it matter if white birth rates are falling? White people aren't procreating, oh well, that's their fault for not procreating, when does it become an issue of targeting non-white citizens because white citizens aren't procreating?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#469 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Stalin was by far more evil than Hitler was.

Hell, the Soviet Union invaded Poland just right after Germany did, yet Britain did not declare war on them.

AHUGECAT

I'm not really interested in defending Stalin, but which country was it that was bombing the **** out of the UK on a daily basis? Which country was it that openly declared that they were bent on world domination? That wasn't Stalinist Russia. Yes, Stalin was interested in taking back parts of Eastern Europe that Russia lost at the end of WWI (and a little extra in exchange for the infamous non-aggression pact), but Stalin wasn't interested in global conquest. He's famous for the concept of "socialism in one country". Hitler was a much bigger threat to the UK than Stalin ever was.

1. Germany only bombed Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat.
Avatar image for hesel
hesel

2738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#470 hesel
Member since 2006 • 2738 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

Bourbons3

so then , are immigrants the cause of Britain's changing white to non white ratio? if it is indeed changing at all? an immigrant doesnt stop a white british from having more kids. human migration is nothing new, the "white british" themselves are a merge of many different peoples from the romans to the saxons and vikings.

Not to mention the Normans. Plus everyone else in the past 950 years.



Probably nearly everyone in Britain isn't really truly British and derived from Germans or Scandinavians. Even the Queen has decedents that are German. Might as well deport everyone.

Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#471 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Immigration really has nothing to do with fertility rates of the indigeneous (sp) people.

AHUGECAT

so then , are immigrants the cause of Britain's changing white to non white ratio?

Half of it.

youre more then welcome to have more kids if you wish, nobody is stopping you, be part of the "solution". but lets pretend for a moment that no more immigrants were allowed to enter, the fertility rate would indeed fall, then what, I doubt most people are going to bother actually having more kids to make the fertility rate higher, given the financial costs to the parents, youve simply replaced one "problem" with another, instead of immigrants , youve now got a population with a falling birth rate, declining population and an increasing number of pensioners who need feeding (and who I have the utmost respect for btw), with less young people to feed them
Avatar image for T_P_O
T_P_O

5388

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#472 T_P_O
Member since 2008 • 5388 Posts

1. Germany only bombed Britain because Britain declared war on Germany.

And why did Britain do such a thing? To reassure Poland that it would not be a conquest of Nazi Germany. Besides, Hitler could've easily just concentrated on bombing the airfields, but insisted on bombing London, Coventry and other densely populated areas. Actually, if the Germans hadn't diverted bombing orders from the RAF airfields to cities, they might've won the battle of Britain.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

He was pretty bent on the idea of making the whole of Eastern Europe lebensraum for his Reich, including the slavery of other races. Plus he really, really longed for an Empire.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

Like how the Nazis tried to force every country in Europe to fall into satelite states or assumed sovereignty over other nations as they saw fit? Plus yeah, as -Sun_Tzu- said, Stalin got support because of his "socialism in one country" doctrine, at the time, Nazi Germany was a far more expansionist power.

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

That was kind of an excuse, if that was true then he would've stopped at Danzig, however he had no intention of stopping there. Also, that's superb logic, then the territory of Poland was legitimate conquest for the USSR because it was once a part of the Russian Empire? Shooting yourself in the foot isn't fun, don't do it.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Erm, despite the United Kingdom being a political union that was agreed by two Parliaments at the time? Scotland and England agreed to centralize Parliamentary and constitutional power in the Westminster Parliament. And then you have Nazi Germany, who absorbed several nations into their Reich by force? Sure as hell doesn't seem comparable to me. AHUGECAT

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#473 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I'm not really interested in defending Stalin, but which country was it that was bombing the **** out of the UK on a daily basis? Which country was it that openly declared that they were bent on world domination? That wasn't Stalinist Russia. Yes, Stalin was interested in taking back parts of Eastern Europe that Russia lost at the end of WWI (and a little extra in exchange for the infamous non-aggression pact), but Stalin wasn't interested in global conquest. He's famous for the concept of "socialism in one country". Hitler was a much bigger threat to the UK than Stalin ever was.-Sun_Tzu-

1. Germany only bombed Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat.

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#474 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

1. Germany only bombed Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

AHUGECAT

Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat.

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for no apparent reason, despite the fact that the German speaking part of the country was given to him, so no, his plans were to carve out an empire for himself. how do you know he wouldnt have eventually went for Britain once he toppled his primary enemies? Hiter knew quite well the UK and France would have declared war on him had he invaded Poland, and I never said Stalin taking over half of Europe was a good thing at all.
Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#475 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

AHUGECAT

You can't be serious. >_>

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#476 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

1. Germany only bombed Britain BECAUSE BRITAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

AHUGECAT

Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat.

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

I'm guessing you've read Pat Buchanan's book on this subject. Anyways, it's one thing to fight countries like France that have declared war on you - it's something entirely else to take these countries as prizes after you defeat them. A person who does that has other intentions besides just recovering "stolen land". If Britain enlarged anything, it was when it declared war on Germany in WWI, but Hitler was something entirely different. He was an aggressor who set out to expand the Third Reich to encompass all of Europe, and he was an irrational aggressor at that.
Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#477 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]1. Germany only bombed Britain because Britain declared war on Germany.

And why did Britain do such a thing? To reassure Poland that it would not be a conquest of Nazi Germany. Besides, Hitler could've easily just concentrated on bombing the airfields, but insisted on bombing London, Coventry and other densely populated areas. Actually, if the Germans hadn't diverted bombing orders from the RAF airfields to cities, they might've won the battle of Britain.

2. Hitler was never bent on world domination.

He was pretty bent on the idea of making the whole of Eastern Europe lebensraum for his Reich, including the slavery of other races. Plus he really, really longed for an Empire.

3. The Soviet Union was. Remember how much they tried to make every nation a marxist nation?

Like how the Nazis tried to force every country in Europe to fall into satelite states or assumed sovereignty over other nations as they saw fit? Plus yeah, as -Sun_Tzu- said, Stalin got support because of his "socialism in one country" doctrine, at the time, Nazi Germany was a far more expansionist power.

4. Hitler invaded Poland to retrieve stolen land after WWI (the Danzing corridor). Stalin on the other hand invaded mainland Poland.

That was kind of an excuse, if that was true then he would've stopped at Danzig, however he had no intention of stopping there. Also, that's superb logic, then the territory of Poland was legitimate conquest for the USSR because it was once a part of the Russian Empire? Shooting yourself in the foot isn't fun, don't do it.

England had NO right to judge Hitler for retrieving stolen land because England at the time was occupying Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland.

Erm, despite the United Kingdom being a political union that was agreed by two Parliaments at the time? Scotland and England agreed to centralize Parliamentary and constitutional power in the Westminster Parliament. And then you have Nazi Germany, who absorbed several nations into their Reich by force? Sure as hell doesn't seem comparable to me. T_P_O

Yes, Britain cared so much about Poland that Churchill (and FDR) completely sold out the Poles to live under Communist tyranny at the Yalta Conference.

But that is a good point, why did Hitler go farther than the Danzing corridor? He did go all the way to the bug river.

Throughout the 1930's both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were trying very hard to get the leaders of Poland to sign a mutual defense pact against each other. In other words Poland signing with Germany against the Soviet Union or Poland signing with the USSR against Germany.

Joseph Pilsudski, a military hero in Poland, who was dictator until his death in 1936 aways refused either and dreamed of the time when Poland was a large country extending from the Baltic to the Black Sea. He had no problem in wanting those days to return. In fact when Germany sliced up Chechoslovakia, Poland had no problem in getting it's own slice. Same with when Pilsudski sent in the army to take a slice of Lithunia.

When Pilsudski died the new Polish leaders were not up to his diplomatic and military experience. If Pilsudski were still alive in 1939 and looked at the military situation in Europe he no doubt would have singed on with Hitler Not liking it, but facing realities.

Instead the new Polish leaders continued Pilsudski's policy of 1935 which was not going to work. Hitler saw Poland as a valuable buffer state between the USSR and Germany. He repeatedly told the Polish leaders that one Polish division on the Polish/USSR border meant one German division free to be somewhere else. Stalin saw Poland as a gateway to advance further into Europe.

Around 1939 something had to give.

For example, let's use gangs. You have Gang A trying to make a pact with Gang B against Gang C who is just around the block. Gang C also tries to make a pact with Gang B against Gang A. The three gangs are all the same neighborhood. The leaders of Gang B are in the center and cannot make a decision. Finally they make a pact with Gang D which is a few states away and is in no position whatsoever to come and help when help is needed.

Well the leaders of Gang A and C being well versed in gang warfare look at each other and say "Why are we even talking to these fools." So they decide between them that they will just divide up the area of Gang B between themselves and not bother with them any longer.

No getting back to the case of Poland in Sept 1939, Stalin pulled off a brilliant public relations ploy that lasts until this day. Both Hitler and Stalin agreed in writing that they would invade and divide Poland. Hitler invaded on Sept 1, 1939 and waited and waited for Stalin to do the same. Stalin was stalling, waiting almost two weeks when he finally sent in the Red Army announcing to the world that he was doing so to protect the Poles and his follow Slavs.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#478 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat. Darkman2007

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for no apparent reason, despite the fact that the German speaking part of the country was given to him, so no, his plans were to carve out an empire for himself. how do you know he wouldnt have eventually went for Britain once he toppled his primary enemies? Hiter knew quite well the UK and France would have declared war on him had he invaded Poland, and I never said Stalin taking over half of Europe was a good thing at all.

Hitler respected the Czech majority of Bohemia and Moravia and he only made it a Protectorate. Unfortunately the Czechs did not respect the German majority in Sudetenland.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#479 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

AHUGECAT

Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for no apparent reason, despite the fact that the German speaking part of the country was given to him, so no, his plans were to carve out an empire for himself. how do you know he wouldnt have eventually went for Britain once he toppled his primary enemies? Hiter knew quite well the UK and France would have declared war on him had he invaded Poland, and I never said Stalin taking over half of Europe was a good thing at all.

Hitler respected the Czech majority of Bohemia and Moravia and he only made it a Protectorate. Unfortunately the Czechs did not respect the German majority in Sudetenland.

You wouldn't happen to be from Illinois would you?

Because I HATE Illinois Nazis.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#480 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for no apparent reason, despite the fact that the German speaking part of the country was given to him, so no, his plans were to carve out an empire for himself. how do you know he wouldnt have eventually went for Britain once he toppled his primary enemies? Hiter knew quite well the UK and France would have declared war on him had he invaded Poland, and I never said Stalin taking over half of Europe was a good thing at all.theone86

Hitler respected the Czech majority of Bohemia and Moravia and he only made it a Protectorate. Unfortunately the Czechs did not respect the German majority in Sudetenland.

You wouldn't happen to be from Illinois would you?

Because I HATE Illinois Nazis.

I am from california and I am not a Nazi.

Avatar image for xTheExploited
xTheExploited

12094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#482 xTheExploited
Member since 2007 • 12094 Posts
I find it absolutely amazing that you could possibly defend Hitler Stalin it is understandable because after studying for 4 years Russian history I found out that there is two sides to nearly every story about Stalin, despite him being a monster a lot of his actions were understandable... but Hitler There was no two sides to Hitler he was just sick.
Avatar image for T_P_O
T_P_O

5388

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#483 T_P_O
Member since 2008 • 5388 Posts

Yes, Britain cared so much about Poland that Churchill (and FDR) completely sold out the Poles to live under Communist tyranny at the Yalta Conference.

That doesn't change the reason why Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany, does it? The point still stands that Britain declared war on Germany because it had guaranteed Poland its borders.

But that is a good point, why did Hitler go farther than the Danzing corridor? He did go all the way to the bug river.

I've already given you the reason, it was in Nazi ideology that lebensraum was required in Eastern Europe. That's why he went all the way, he wanted as much living space for his new Reich as he could gather.

Throughout the 1930's both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were trying very hard to get the leaders of Poland to sign a mutual defense pact against each other. In other words Poland signing with Germany against the Soviet Union or Poland signing with the USSR against Germany.

*Don't mistake this for being rude but I don't exactly know what point, if any, you were trying to make at all by writing up a large amount of Polish-German and Polish-Soviet relations at the time*

No getting back to the case of Poland in Sept 1939, Stalin pulled off a brilliant public relations ploy that lasts until this day. Both Hitler and Stalin agreed in writing that they would invade and divide Poland. Hitler invaded on Sept 1, 1939 and waited and waited for Stalin to do the same. Stalin was stalling, waiting almost two weeks when he finally sent in the Red Army announcing to the world that he was doing so to protect the Poles and his follow Slavs.

Yeah, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 is pretty well known, though what on earth does this huge block of text answer in response to my post? Besides, I thought your original argument is that Hitler was only interested in reclaiming "stolen land", why have you now fully exposed his intentions to dominate Poland far beyond Danzig and ultimately dismantle the State, evident this pact? It doesn't seem like re-gaining "stolen land" to me.AHUGECAT

Anyway, I'll have to stop this for tonight, I might respond later, so it may be worth checking tomorrow.

Avatar image for poptart
poptart

7298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#484 poptart
Member since 2003 • 7298 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

PannicAtack

You can't be serious. >_>

Poor misunderstood Hitler :( He liked cats as well you know.... Loved them little kitties he did... *sniff*

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#485 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]Yes, Britain cared so much about Poland that Churchill (and FDR) completely sold out the Poles to live under Communist tyranny at the Yalta Conference.

That doesn't change the reason why Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany, does it? The point still stands that Britain declared war on Germany because it had guaranteed Poland its borders.

But that is a good point, why did Hitler go farther than the Danzing corridor? He did go all the way to the bug river.

I've already given you the reason, it was in Nazi ideology that lebensraum was required in Eastern Europe. That's why he went all the way, he wanted as much living space for his new Reich as he could gather.

Throughout the 1930's both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were trying very hard to get the leaders of Poland to sign a mutual defense pact against each other. In other words Poland signing with Germany against the Soviet Union or Poland signing with the USSR against Germany.

*Don't mistake this for being rude but I don't exactly know what point, if any, you were trying to make at all by writing up a large amount of Polish-German and Polish-Soviet relations at the time*

No getting back to the case of Poland in Sept 1939, Stalin pulled off a brilliant public relations ploy that lasts until this day. Both Hitler and Stalin agreed in writing that they would invade and divide Poland. Hitler invaded on Sept 1, 1939 and waited and waited for Stalin to do the same. Stalin was stalling, waiting almost two weeks when he finally sent in the Red Army announcing to the world that he was doing so to protect the Poles and his follow Slavs.

Yeah, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 is pretty well known, though what on earth does this huge block of text answer in response to my post? Besides, I thought your original argument is that Hitler was only interested in reclaiming "stolen land", why have you now fully exposed his intentions to dominate Poland far beyond Danzig and ultimately dismantle the State, evident this pact? It doesn't seem like re-gaining "stolen land" to me.T_P_O

Anyway, I'll have to stop this for tonight, I might respond later, so it may be worth checking tomorrow.

I'll just PM you

Avatar image for thespacedfan
thespacedfan

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#486 thespacedfan
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
ive been studying voters as part of my uni work, bnp supporters arent "stupid" they (mostly) not racists. They are basically misinformed people by the majority, immagrition is a problem in this country there is no way people cant argue agaisnt this fact. Although majority of bnp supporters are basically duped into believing that this is the party that will tackle immagration in the best posible way, mainly cos they are the only party who say stuff about it! Many people call the bnp the nazi party because of there racist stance (agaisnt jews blacks basically anybody different) the real reason they are called the 'nazi' party is basically the fact that there are alot of similarities towards the founding of the nazi party in germany nd the bnp. Basicallly it starts off nice, there policies for the people the working class ordinary people. But later on it tends to become very different to what the majority of people who vote bnp actually voted for. My friend said he was a bnp supporter becasue they will make britain great again....i didnt no anything about politics at the time but decided to see why so i searched youtube and basically found the bnp leaders with the kkk in america, setting out a similar plan that the nazi party had towards germany... be all nice and good now but later in goverment be horrible. once i showed this to my friend he denied it "liberal" news agenda....basically cos every1 is crazy towards there party! later he did change his mind after realisig this fact about the bnp.... but please dont call bnp supporters stupid or racist becasue the majority basically arnt...
Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#487 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="xaos"]Edit: Though it is exciting that a whopping three months ago they decided to allow non-whites to join the party as long as they agree that whites should remain the majority in the UK...MushroomWig
They'd also allow the non-british people to remain in the country that have been here for 10+ years as long as they understand that British rights come before theirs.

You have gone completely ****ing mad. Do you hear what you are saying?

Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#488 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="Wolls"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Of course it's not racism, it's wanting to keep Great Britain British and not a multi-culterial society. the BNP are not racist, they just do not want British people to be the minortiy IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.MushroomWig

But Britain IS a multi-cultural society, always has been and always will be. Your ancestors were not all white british you know. No doubt you will have people from all over the world in your family history that you never knew about. THAT imo is what makes this country great, the fact that we can accept different cultures and different ideas into our society and grow because of it. I cant stand the idea of being isolated from the rest of the world and i accept that just because i was born in the UK doesn't give me the right to ban others from coming to the country.

Always has been? I don't think so, multi-cultural Britiain has been around for less than 50 years, before that it was extremely rare to see a non-British person living in the UK. My entire family were born in the UK, it's a shame that this country is being sold out to the rest of the world, we USED to be Great..but no longer.

The only reason your damn country was "great" was because of immagrants. You abused their power and their cheap labour to get your supplies and grow your economy.

You should be thanking their asses for where Britan is now.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#489 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Hitler was never bent on world domination? So he did he just take over all of Europe for the lolz? And the Soviet Union under Stalin was not bent on world domination. One of the main disagreements between Trotsky and Stalin had to do with exporting Marxism. As I already said, Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country, while Trotsky was a fierce advocate for world revolution. To repeat, Hitler was perceived as being the greater threat. -Sun_Tzu-

He took over Europe because Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler invaded Poland (which Poland was basically asking for it anyways) to recover stolen land.

Yeah, Stalin sure didn't want to take over the world. During WWII, he was just annexing countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Eastern Poland, etc.e tc. just for the lulz right?

Hitler wasn't even a threat, he just wanted stolen land back, and Britain enlarged what was a minor conflict.

I'm guessing you've read Pat Buchanan's book on this subject. Anyways, it's one thing to fight countries like France that have declared war on you - it's something entirely else to take these countries as prizes after you defeat them. A person who does that has other intentions besides just recovering "stolen land". If Britain enlarged anything, it was when it declared war on Germany in WWI, but Hitler was something entirely different. He was an aggressor who set out to expand the Third Reich to encompass all of Europe, and he was an irrational aggressor at that.

My God, don't get me started on Pat Buchanan. He draws the most ridiculous conclusions from history imaginable.

Avatar image for pete_merlin
pete_merlin

6098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#490 pete_merlin
Member since 2007 • 6098 Posts

If this makes 500 posts, then thats a personal best for me :)

Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#491 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Do I seriously need to answer why being a minority in my own country is bad? I would of thought that was extremely obvious. Nobody should be happy about becoming a minority in their own country because it will not longer be their country.MushroomWig
Again, circular argument is circular. Why is it YOUR country any more than someone born outside and living here for decades? Your not explaining why being a minority is bad.

It's my country because myself and my entire family were born here, my grandfather fought in World War 2 to keep this country free and British, he would be rolling in his grave if he saw how much this country has changed. I don't need to explain why being a minority is bad because it's insanely obviously why it's bad. Identity is extremely important and in a multicultural society a big part of that is lost. St Georges day was cancelled in parts of the country because it's apparently "racist" to other cultures, Christmas decorations were banned in one English town because they were afraid it would offend the Muslims there. This country has become a political correctness joke and I'm sick of it.

You know who else fought and died with British soldiers in WWII?

http://www.defencedynamics.mod.uk/wewerethere/ww2/images/flag_lg.jpg

http://www.defencedynamics.mod.uk/wewerethere/ww2/images/ind_inf_lg.jpg

http://www.defencedynamics.mod.uk/wewerethere/ww2/images/sher_crew_lg.jpg

"At the outbreak of World War II, the Indian army numbered 205,000 men. Later during World War II the Indian Army became the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men in size. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the Second World War."

I think your Grandfather must've forgot about that part?

Or you are assuming that your Grandfather is rolling in this grave? And that maybe, he has respect for Immigrants in his country? Don't assume anything ;)

Avatar image for pete_merlin
pete_merlin

6098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#492 pete_merlin
Member since 2007 • 6098 Posts

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#493 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

pete_merlin

Thats what has irritated me the most...It was different nations that helped Britan what it is today..

I don't think a thread has made me this irritated before, or most importantly, a single, mis-informed user..

Avatar image for Ravensmash
Ravensmash

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#494 Ravensmash
Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

taj7575

Thats what has irritated me the most...It was different nations that helped Britan what it is today..

I don't think a thread has made me this irritated before, or most importantly, a single, mis-informed user..

Also - Ghurkas. I despise the BNP. Fair enough, their supporters are typically generalised, but they attract a lot of thuggish ignorant scum. I've seen Facebook groups on them which consist of poor spelling, racist insults and threats of violence - "kik imigrents out and make britin great" (that was an actual quote pretty much btw :P) Just last night in my town we had some idiots vandalise a Polish car wash with "I love BNP" scrawled everywhere. It wouldn't surprise me if the idiots that did it failed to vote tomorrow because they were 'down the pub' or 'couldn't be arsed'. I've heard of incidences (not locally) where the BNP actually cause community tension to arise. T
Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#495 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

Ravensmash

Thats what has irritated me the most...It was different nations that helped Britan what it is today..

I don't think a thread has made me this irritated before, or most importantly, a single, mis-informed user..

Also - Ghurkas. I despise the BNP. Fair enough, their supporters are typically generalised, but they attract a lot of thuggish ignorant scum. I've seen Facebook groups on them which consist of poor spelling, racist insults and threats of violence - "kik imigrents out and make britin great" (that was an actual quote pretty much btw :P) Just last night in my town we had some idiots vandalise a Polish car wash with "I love BNP" scrawled everywhere. It wouldn't surprise me if the idiots that did it failed to vote tomorrow because they were 'down the pub' or 'couldn't be arsed'. I've heard of incidences (not locally) where the BNP actually cause community tension to arise. T

They want those tensions to arise..They want it to seem wore than it actually is, and you can easily see that with the majority of Mushroomwig's posts.

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#496 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

pete_merlin

Yeah, they fought along with the British Empire because they were FORCED to. Ever heard of the British Raj?!

The Indians loved the British so much they basically kicked them out 2 years after the war :roll:

Avatar image for bruinfan617
bruinfan617

3767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#497 bruinfan617
Member since 2010 • 3767 Posts
[QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] Nope, I'm voting for the British National Party.MushroomWig
That's what I said, racists.

They're not racists, all they want to do is make Britain British again by stopping mass immigration, nothing wrong with that.

No, if they could they would carry out ethnic cleansing.
Avatar image for taj7575
taj7575

12084

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#498 taj7575
Member since 2008 • 12084 Posts

[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

AHUGECAT

Yeah, they fought along with the British Empire because they were FORCED to. Ever heard of the British Raj?!

The Indians loved the British so much they basically kicked them out 2 years after the war :roll:

It was a VOLUNTEER army. A VOLUNTEER army that grew to over 2.5 million men serving by the end of WWII.

Of course we kicked them out..We wanted independence. We thought fighting alongside them and helping them would help our independence.

Besides, the Indian Independence movement started long before WWII..And whats wrong with us kicking them out anyways? Didn't we do enough for them? We were just the catalyst for the end of imperialism..

And again, I know you like to use incorrect phrases to confuse a people, but we didn't "Kick" them out. We gained our independence. You make it sound like we removed everyone non-Indian from India..

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#499 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]

Above poster, you just owned that guy. I do find it strange how people seem to forget just who we have fought alongside with.

taj7575

Yeah, they fought along with the British Empire because they were FORCED to. Ever heard of the British Raj?!

The Indians loved the British so much they basically kicked them out 2 years after the war :roll:

It was a VOLUNTEER army. A VOLUNTEER army that grew to over 2.5 million men serving by the end of WWII.

Of course we kicked them out..We wanted independence. We thought fighting alongside them and helping them would help our independence.

Besides, the Indian Independence movement started long before WWII..And whats wrong with us kicking them out anyways? Didn't we do enough for them? We were just the catalyst for the end of imperialism..

A volunteer army as in if you don't fight for us you die... so volunteer or suffer the consequences.

And I agree, imperialism is evil and Empires are an outdated concept anyways. Are you Indian?

Avatar image for AHUGECAT
AHUGECAT

8967

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#500 AHUGECAT
Member since 2006 • 8967 Posts

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="SteveTabernacle"] That's what I said, racists.bruinfan617
They're not racists, all they want to do is make Britain British again by stopping mass immigration, nothing wrong with that.

No, if they could they would carry out ethnic cleansing.

Kind of like what's happening in South Africa and Zimbabwe?