Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide

First topic message reminder :

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz grew up in rural Oklahoma, the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother. She has been active in the international Indigenous movement for more than four decades and is known for her lifelong commitment to national and international social justice issues. After receiving her PhD in history at the University of California at Los Angeles, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. Her latest book is An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

Mass Grave at Wounded Knee


This paper, written under the title, “U.S. Settler-Colonialism and Genocide Policies,” was delivered at the Organization of American Historians 2015 Annual Meeting in St. Louis, MO on April 18, 2015.

US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.

The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.

In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.

The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.

The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.

Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.

So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.

The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history.

In the convention, any one of five acts is considered genocide if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.iii


The followings acts are punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.


The term “genocide” is often incorrectly used, such as in Dr. Anderson’s assessment, to describe extreme examples of mass murder, the death of vast numbers of people, as, for instance in Cambodia. What took place in Cambodia was horrific, but it does not fall under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as the Convention specifically refers to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, with individuals within that group targeted by a government or its agents because they are members of the group or by attacking the underpinnings of the group’s existence as a group being met with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The Cambodian government committed crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide is not an act simply worse than anything else, rather a specific kind of act. The term, “ethnic cleansing,” is a descriptive term created by humanitarian interventionists to describe what was said to be happening in the 1990s wars among the republics of Yugoslavia. It is a descriptive term, not a term of international humanitarian law.

Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide. The title of the Genocide convention is the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” so the law is about preventing genocide by identifying the elements of government policy, rather than only punishment after the fact. Most importantly, genocide does not have to be complete to be considered genocide.

US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be understood without dealing with the genocide that the United States committed against Indigenous peoples. From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.

Within the logic of settler-colonialism, genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding, but there are also specific documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations that can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; during the Civil War and in the post Civil War era of the so-called Indian Wars in the Southwest and the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period; additionally, there is the overlapping period of compulsory boarding schools, 1870s to 1960s. The Carlisle boarding school, founded by US Army officer Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, became a model for others established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Pratt said in a speech in 1892, "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man."

Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children . . . during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”iv

The so-called “Indian Wars” technically ended around 1880, although the Wounded Knee massacre occurred a decade later. Clearly an act with genocidal intent, it is still officially considered a “battle” in the annals of US military genealogy. Congressional Medals of Honor were bestowed on twenty of the soldiers involved. A monument was built at Fort Riley, Kansas, to honor the soldiers killed by friendly fire. A battle streamer was created to honor the event and added to other streamers that are displayed at the Pentagon, West Point, and army bases throughout the world. L. Frank Baum, a Dakota Territory settler later famous for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time. Five days after the sickening event at Wounded Knee, on January 3, 1891, he wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

Whether 1880 or 1890, most of the collective land base that Native Nations secured through hard fought for treaties made with the United States was lost after that date.

After the end of the Indian Wars, came allotment, another policy of genocide of Native nations as nations, as peoples, the dissolution of the group. Taking the Sioux Nation as an example, even before the Dawes Allotment Act of 1884 was implemented, and with the Black Hills already illegally confiscated by the federal government, a government commission arrived in Sioux territory from Washington, DC, in 1888 with a proposal to reduce the Sioux Nation to six small reservations, a scheme that would leave nine million acres open for Euro-American settlement. The commission found it impossible to obtain signatures of the required three-fourths of the nation as required under the 1868 treaty, and so returned to Washington with a recommendation that the government ignore the treaty and take the land without Sioux consent. The only means to accomplish that goal was legislation, Congress having relieved the government of the obligation to negotiate a treaty. Congress commissioned General George Crook to head a delegation to try again, this time with an offer of $1.50 per acre. In a series of manipulations and dealings with leaders whose people were now starving, the commission garnered the needed signatures. The great Sioux Nation was broken into small islands soon surrounded on all sides by European immigrants, with much of the reservation land a checkerboard with settlers on allotments or leased land.v Creating these isolated reservations broke the historical relationships between clans and communities of the Sioux Nation and opened areas where Europeans settled. It also allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise tighter control, buttressed by the bureau’s boarding school system. The Sun Dance, the annual ceremony that had brought Sioux together and reinforced national unity, was outlawed, along with other religious ceremonies. Despite the Sioux people’s weak position under late-nineteenth-century colonial domination, they managed to begin building a modest cattle-ranching business to replace their former bison-hunting economy. In 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that a March 3, 1871, appropriations rider was constitutional and that Congress had “plenary” power to manage Indian property. The Office of Indian Affairs could thus dispose of Indian lands and resources regardless of the terms of previous treaty provisions. Legislation followed that opened the reservations to settlement through leasing and even sale of allotments taken out of trust. Nearly all prime grazing lands came to be occupied by non-Indian ranchers by the 1920s.

By the time of the New Deal–Collier era and nullification of Indian land allotment under the Indian Reorganization Act, non-Indians outnumbered Indians on the Sioux reservations three to one. However, “tribal governments” imposed in the wake of the Indian Reorganization Act proved particularly harmful and divisive for the Sioux.”vi Concerning this measure, the late Mathew King, elder traditional historian of the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge), observed: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs drew up the constitution and by-laws of this organization with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This was the introduction of home rule. . . . The traditional people still hang on to their Treaty, for we are a sovereign nation. We have our own government.”vii “Home rule,” or neocolonialism, proved a short-lived policy, however, for in the early 1950s the United States developed its termination policy, with legislation ordering gradual eradication of every reservation and even the tribal governments.viii At the time of termination and relocation, per capita annual income on the Sioux reservations stood at $355, while that in nearby South Dakota towns was $2,500. Despite these circumstances, in pursuing its termination policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.ix

The situations of other Indigenous Nations were similar.

Pawnee Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:

In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plummeted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million acres remained (an area the size of Idaho and Washington) as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During World War II, the government took 500,000 more acres for military use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias relinquished their lands under various acts of Congress during the termination era of the 1950s. By 1955, the indigenous land base had shrunk to just 2.3 percent of its [size at the end of the Indian wars].x


According to the current consensus among historians, the wholesale transfer of land from Indigenous to Euro-American hands that occurred in the Americas after 1492 is due less to British and US American invasion, warfare, refugee conditions, and genocidal policies in North America than to the bacteria that the invaders unwittingly brought with them. Historian Colin Calloway is among the proponents of this theory writing, “Epidemic diseases would have caused massive depopulation in the Americas whether brought by European invaders or brought home by Native American traders.”xi Such an absolutist assertion renders any other fate for the Indigenous peoples improbable. This is what anthropologist Michael Wilcox has dubbed “the terminal narrative.” Professor Calloway is a careful and widely respected historian of Indigenous North America, but his conclusion articulates a default assumption. The thinking behind the assumption is both ahistorical and illogical in that Europe itself lost a third to one-half of its population to infectious disease during medieval pandemics. The principle reason the consensus view is wrong and ahistorical is that it erases the effects of settler colonialism with its antecedents in the Spanish “Reconquest” and the English conquest of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. By the time Spain, Portugal, and Britain arrived to colonize the Americas, their methods of eradicating peoples or forcing them into dependency and servitude were ingrained, streamlined, and effective.

Whatever disagreement may exist about the size of precolonial Indigenous populations, no one doubts that a rapid demographic decline occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its timing from region to region depending on when conquest and colonization began. Nearly all the population areas of the Americas were reduced by 90 percent following the onset of colonizing projects, decreasing the targeted Indigenous populations of the Americas from a one hundred million to ten million. Commonly referred to as the most extreme demographic disaster—framed as natural—in human history, it was rarely called genocide until the rise of Indigenous movements in the mid-twentieth century forged new questions.

US scholar Benjamin Keen acknowledges that historians “accept uncritically a fatalistic ‘epidemic plus lack of acquired immunity’ explanation for the shrinkage of Indian populations, without sufficient attention to the socioeconomic factors . . . which predisposed the natives to succumb to even slight infections.”xii Other scholars agree. Geographer William M. Denevan, while not ignoring the existence of widespread epidemic diseases, has emphasized the role of warfare, which reinforced the lethal impact of disease. There were military engagements directly between European and Indigenous nations, but many more saw European powers pitting one Indigenous nation against another or factions within nations, with European allies aiding one or both sides, as was the case in the colonization of the peoples of Ireland, Africa and Asia, and was also a factor in the Holocaust. Other killers cited by Denevan are overwork in mines, frequent outright butchery, malnutrition and starvation resulting from the breakdown of Indigenous trade networks, subsistence food production and loss of land, loss of will to live or reproduce (and thus suicide, abortion, and infanticide), and deportation and enslavement.xiii Anthropologist Henry Dobyns has pointed to the interruption of Indigenous peoples’ trade networks. When colonizing powers seized Indigenous trade routes, the ensuing acute shortages, including food products, weakened populations and forced them into dependency on the colonizers, with European manufactured goods replacing Indigenous ones. Dobyns has estimated that all Indigenous groups suffered serious food shortages one year in four. In these circumstances, the introduction and promotion of alcohol proved addictive and deadly, adding to the breakdown of social order and responsibility.xiv These realities render the myth of “lack of immunity,” including to alcohol, pernicious.

Historian Woodrow Wilson Borah focused on the broader arena of European colonization, which also brought severely reduced populations in the Pacific Islands, Australia, Western Central America, and West Africa.xv Sherburne Cook—associated with Borah in the revisionist Berkeley School, as it was called—studied the attempted destruction of the California Indians. Cook estimated 2,245 deaths among peoples in Northern California—the Wintu, Maidu, Miwak, Omo, Wappo, and Yokuts nations—in late eighteenth-century armed conflicts with the Spanish while some 5,000 died from disease and another 4,000 were relocated to missions. Among the same people in the second half of the nineteenth century, US armed forces killed 4,000, and disease killed another 6,000. Between 1852 and 1867, US citizens kidnapped 4,000 Indian children from these groups in California. Disruption of Indigenous social structures under these conditions and dire economic necessity forced many of the women into prostitution in goldfield camps, further wrecking what vestiges of family life remained in these matriarchal societies.

Historians and others who deny genocide emphasize population attrition by disease, weakening Indigenous peoples ability to resist. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. If disease could have done the job, it is not clear why the United States found it necessary to carry out unrelenting wars against Indigenous communities in order to gain every inch of land they took from them—along with the prior period of British colonization, nearly three hundred years of eliminationist warfare.

In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens or murdered by other means, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide. And no one recites the terminal narrative associated with Native Americans, or Armenians, or Bosnian.

Not all of the acts iterated in the genocide convention are required to exist to constitute genocide; any one of them suffices. In cases of United States genocidal policies and actions, each of the five requirements can be seen.

First, Killing members of the group: The genocide convention does not specify that large numbers of people must be killed in order to constitute genocide, rather that members of the group are killed because they are members of the group. Assessing a situation in terms of preventing genocide, this kind of killing is a marker for intervention.

Second, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: such as starvation, the control of food supply and withholding food as punishment or as reward for compliance, for instance, in signing confiscatory treaties. As military historian John Grenier points out in his First Way of War:

For the first 200 years of our military heritage, then, Americans depended on arts of war that contemporary professional soldiers supposedly abhorred: razing and destroying enemy villages and fields; killing enemy women and children; raiding settlements for captives; intimidating and brutalizing enemy noncombatants; and assassinating enemy leaders. . . . In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements—unlimited war and irregular war—into their first way of war.xvii


Grenier argues that not only did this way of war continue throughout the 19th century in wars against the Indigenous nations, but continued in the 20th century and currently in counterinsurgent wars against peoples in Latin America, the Caribbean and Pacific, Southeast Asia, Middle and Western Asia and Africa.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Forced removal of all the Indigenous nations east of the Mississippi to Indian Territory during the Jackson administration was a calculated policy intent on destroying those peoples ties to their original lands, as well as declaring Native people who did not remove to no longer be Muskogee, Sauk, Kickapoo, Choctaw, destroying the existence of up to half of each nation removed. Mandatory boarding schools, Allotment and Termination—all official government policies--also fall under this category of the crime of genocide. The forced removal and four year incarceration of the Navajo people resulted in the death of half their population.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: Famously, during the Termination Era, the US government administrated Indian Health Service made the top medical priority the sterilization of Indigenous women. In 1974, an independent study by one the few Native American physicians, Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four Native women had been sterilized without her consent. Pnkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.” At first denied by the Indian Health Service, two years later, a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 Native women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO found that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Various governmental entities, mostly municipalities, counties, and states, routinely removed Native children from their families and put them up for adoption. In the Native resistance movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the demand to put a stop to the practice was codified in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. However, the burden of enforcing the legislation lay with Tribal Government, but the legislation provided no financial resources for Native governments to establish infrastructure to retrieve children from the adoption industry, in which Indian babies were high in demand. Despite these barriers to enforcement, the worst abuses had been curbed over the following three decades. But, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling drafted by Justice Samuel Alito, used provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to say that a child, widely known as Baby Veronica, did not have to live with her biological Cherokee father. The high court’s decision paved the way for Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the adoptive parents, to ask the South Carolina Courts to have the child returned to them. The court gutted the purpose and intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, missing the concept behind the ICWA, the protection of cultural resource and treasure that are Native children; it’s not about protecting so-called traditional or nuclear families. It’s about recognizing the prevalence of extended families and culture.xviii

So, why does the Genocide Convention matter? Native nations are still here and still vulnerable to genocidal policy. This isn’t just history that predates the 1948 Genocide Convention. But, the history is important and needs to be widely aired, included in public school texts and public service announcements. The Doctrine of Discovery is still law of the land. From the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, most of the non-European world was colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery, one of the first principles of international law Christian European monarchies promulgated to legitimize investigating, mapping, and claiming lands belonging to peoples outside Europe. It originated in a papal bull issued in 1455 that permitted the Portuguese monarchy to seize West Africa. Following Columbus’s infamous exploratory voyage in 1492, sponsored by the king and queen of the infant Spanish state, another papal bull extended similar permission to Spain. Disputes between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies led to the papal-initiated Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which, besides dividing the globe equally between the two Iberian empires, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine.xix This doctrine on which all European states relied thus originated with the arbitrary and unilateral establishment of the Iberian monarchies’ exclusive rights under Christian canon law to colonize foreign peoples, and this right was later seized by other European monarchical colonizing projects. The French Republic used this legalistic instrument for its nineteenth- and twentieth-century settler colonialist projects, as did the newly independent United States when it continued the colonization of North America begun by the British.

In 1792, not long after the US founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new US government as well. In 1823 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. McIntosh. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States. The Court defined the exclusive property rights that a European country acquired by dint of discovery: “Discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” Therefore, European and Euro-American “discoverers” had gained real-property rights in the lands of Indigenous peoples by merely planting a flag. Indigenous rights were, in the Court’s words, “in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired.” The court further held that Indigenous “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.” Indigenous people could continue to live on the land, but title resided with the discovering power, the United States. The decision concluded that Native nations were “domestic, dependent nations.”

The Doctrine of Discovery is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in historical or legal texts published in the Americas. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, which meets annually for two weeks, devoted its entire 2012 session to the doctrine.xx But few US citizens are aware of the precarity of the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States.

_______________


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804


- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804#sthash.uRC5InPe.dpuf

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
I don't doubt your credentials, like I said they're not worth the paper they're written on and can be purchased with a packet of cornflakes.

You might of got away with your (I'll be kind),,,,inadequacies,,,when dealing with fellow septics because and let's be honest here they're as thick as pig shit, you won't however get away with it with me because I'm classically educated, now I can teach you but like all good things in life, I'll have to charge.

So then you are folding and admitting I'm right about the less than a thousand year history of the British monarchy.  Pleasant discussion...I'm off.

Ta...

Ciao

Oh, you're back?  What's the topic this time?  

nicko wrote:Veya,   you only came into the war because of Pearl Harbour.   if not for that you would have not have joined in,    and by fuck the help you gave us had to be paid for,  and we have not long finished paying you back!

umm no we were already fighting Nazi and the Japanese before that
the USA Joined because of Peral Harbour

Australia entered World War II shortly after the invasion of Poland, declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939.

........

In effect, Australia fought two wars between 1939 and 1945[2] – one against Germany and Italy as part of the British Commonwealth's war effort and the other against Japan in alliance with the United States and Britain. While most Australian forces were withdrawn from the Mediterranean following the outbreak of war in the Pacific, they continued to take part in large numbers in the air offensive against Germany. From 1942 until early 1944, Australian forces played a key role in the Pacific War, making up the majority of Allied strength throughout much of the fighting in the South West Pacific.

And the UK still hasn't repaid our WW1 efforts let alone WW2

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

Perhaps you should just consider that the rent for the property we own!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

I was thinking much the same Moley... I didn't realise that fighting against evil was such a mercenary pursuit...

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

I tried using that line on my banker. Still had to make the mortgage payment.

You'd think the bankers would be more patriotic.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

TELL THAT to Scrat and company...

They're the ones up there falsely claiming that Britain stood alone during two World Wars -- and the trying to claim that Britain defeated Japan..

Tell them to get real, Fred.

scrat wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

Perhaps you should just consider that the rent for the property we own!

You as a nation, "own" no property in this part of the world, you duplicitous twat...

Typical old British Empire delusions --  believing you can claim whatever lands you fly the Union Jack over..

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

 I tried using that line on my banker.  Still had to make the mortgage payment.

I would venture to suggest that there are far deeper considerations to any nation's fight for national survival - and I include both Australia and the US - than the attitude of a bank manager towards a client who owes him money.

You'd think the bankers would be more patriotic.

Don't be upset Fred. It just tickled my funny bone when you raise such noble concerns around RW'rs . It's like: That and $5 will get you a cup of tea!

Does not Britain own small amounts of land in Australia?

Small parks ect, known as Crown lands.

Just interested because when I lived in Australia, 1952-1958,

I remember my dad saying "our Queen owns this"

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Don't be upset Fred.  It just tickled my funny bone when you raise such noble concerns around RW'rs .  It's like: That and $5 will get you a cup of tea!

I'm not "upset" - I was simply stating an honestly held opinion.

And what on earth have political allegiances to do with it?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


Don't be upset Fred.  It just tickled my funny bone when you raise such noble concerns around RW'rs .  It's like: That and $5 will get you a cup of tea!

I'm not "upset" - I was simply stating an honestly held opinion.

And what on earth have political allegiances to do with it?

Rightest tend to be capitalists, as well as having a passion for war.  It's amusing when their instincts contradict one another.

Did we find out which country had the biggest cock?

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I'm not "upset" - I was simply stating an honestly held opinion.

And what on earth have political allegiances to do with it?

Rightest tend to be capitalists, as well as having a passion for war.  It's amusing when their instincts contradict one another.

If you believe that having a passion for war is the prerogative of capitalism, perhaps you might like to consider the philosophy of the Russian government post 1940.

It's called "fighting for your life."

You are assuming that I am Right Wing, ergo I am in contradiction of my political instincts and beliefs. How little you know me.

eddie wrote:Did we find out which country had the biggest cock?

If long-standing myths have to be believed, that would be Jamaica..........

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

TELL THAT to Scrat and company...

They're the ones up there falsely claiming that Britain stood alone during two World Wars -- and the trying to claim that Britain defeated Japan..

Tell them to get real,  Fred.

I don't think Scrat would include me, of all people, as being one of his friends, but in fairness to him did he actually say that?

Much as we may have crossed swords elsewhere over many, many years, I do not presume to doubt his patriotism.

And while our Commonwealth partners were fighting steadfastly by our side in the Far East, I can't think of many sources of active military support for these islands between the evacuation from Dunkirk and the Japanese attack on US territory on December 7th, 1941...other than by a relatively few Commonwealth fighter pilots and those incredibly brave Polish guys. Oh, and believe it or not, a few Sikhs...one of whom was still in the Royal Air Force and a colleague in my RAF section in the late 1950s.

scrat wrote:Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

That's relatively recent history though that we should all be proud of but our distant past history was disgraceful really!

blackie333 wrote:

scrat wrote:Being British carries no crime, indeed it should be treated as a gift, if it was not for the brave exploits of our forefathers the world would be a much darker place today, one must never forget the gallantry of the men of our empire, from Gallipoli to El Alamein, Tobruk and of course the bravery of those who fought in the Far East to deny the Japanese empire a foot hold n that continent, perhaps these anti British racists would prefer a corner of their flag to be occupied by the rising sun, only it wouldn't be the corner if these evil exploits had been victorious.

Sadly today racism is just about the only thing Australia and some Australians are any good at, this minority hate the British and blame the British for all their woes, one can only conclude that they're sore losers, they also hate the multicultural world we live in, racism from some poorly informed Aussie subculture puts them at a distinct disadvantage and they know it, however that in itself is no excuse for such behaviour in a modern world and one must remember that "culture" is deemed an abusive term down under, and the only culture, flag and language they ever known, know, or are ever likely to know is ours,  they should be grateful for that fact, but no, they whines like a bitch about it.

We Brits might have been sea robbers and pirates, the fact is we were better at it than anyone else.

That's relatively recent history though that we should all be proud of but our distant past history was disgraceful really!

Perhaps you should have added "...by 21st century standards..."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

That's relatively recent history though that we should all be proud of but our distant past history was disgraceful really!

Perhaps you should have added "...by 21st century standards..."

Maybe I should have FM.

nicko wrote:Does not Britain own small amounts of land in Australia?

Small parks ect,   known as Crown lands.

Just interested because when I lived in Australia, 1952-1958,

I remember my dad saying "our Queen owns this"

the Queen owns it Not Britian
And she is our Queen too
literally the same as the land they own in the Uk

which is also why colonialism is not as dead as you guys make out.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

THAT  US$$2 BILLION$$ that Britain still owes Australia from WW1  should be worth a pretty penny by now, if market rates of interest were added on, after 98 years !!!

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

Only cause the beneficiaries of their sacrifice take it for granted and fail to acknowledge the help they received in their hour of need.

Like I already pointed out the French readily celebrate the help they received .


http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/villers-bretonneux/on-this-spot-australian-national-memorial/panorama-australian-national-memorial.php

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:Does not Britain own small amounts of land in Australia?

Small parks ect,   known as Crown lands.

Just interested because when I lived in Australia, 1952-1958,

I remember my dad saying "our Queen owns this"

the Queen owns it Not Britian
And she is our Queen too
literally the same as the land they own in the Uk

which is also why colonialism is not as dead as you guys make out.  

When Sarah Ferguson married into the Royal family she said they got so many gifts of cooking utensils that a huge store room was opened
in the Palace to keep them in and they are still there.
You must be out of your tree if buying the Royals anything in my opinion

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Rightest tend to be capitalists, as well as having a passion for war.  It's amusing when their instincts contradict one another.

If you believe that having a passion for war is the prerogative of capitalism, perhaps you might like to consider the philosophy of the Russian government post 1940.

It's called "fighting for your life."

You are assuming that I am Right Wing, ergo I am in contradiction of my political instincts and beliefs. How little you know me.

I don't know what the connection between capitalism and war is; there are a lot of theories...including that of Alexander Hamilton. I haven't thought about it enough, yet. The RW ideology is born in selfishness, and the parsimonious economic theories of 18th-century shopkeepers, a la Adam Smith. At first blush that seems to contradict the waste that war brings, and so it's contradictory. The pride ensconced in war and patriotism is not something you'd expect in the quiet, diligent shopkeeper. It's more of an ancient Stuart, Tory thing.

But I think in your Russian example you just confirmed the null hypothesis. Or at least pointed up an alternative path. Russia was indeed fighting for it's life, and that may be out of the orbit of capitalism and passion for war.

I've made no assumption of your RW status. You just brought up an amusing example of something I have visited before.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

TELL THAT to Scrat and company...

They're the ones up there falsely claiming that Britain stood alone during two World Wars -- and the trying to claim that Britain defeated Japan..

Tell them to get real,  Fred.

I don't think Scrat would include me, of all people, as being one of his friends, but in fairness to him did he actually say that?

Much as we may have crossed swords elsewhere over many, many years, I do not presume to doubt his patriotism.

And while our Commonwealth partners were fighting steadfastly by our side in the Far East, I can't think of many sources of active military support for these islands between the evacuation from Dunkirk and the Japanese attack on US territory on December 7th, 1941...other than by a relatively few Commonwealth fighter pilots and those incredibly brave Polish guys. Oh, and believe it or not, a few Sikhs...one of whom was still in the Royal Air Force and a colleague  in my RAF section in the late 1950s.

Fred, I think what Wolf is referring to is the lack of support from Britain in the Pacific War.  While the Australians and Americans were at Normandy, and before really, we didn't see the British in the Pacific, save when they were fighting for themselves in the Philippians and Indochina.

As I said in an earlier post, the Pacific War was Australian and American, with the brunt of the fighting coming for the American Pacific Fleet, and the F6F's, P-38's and F8u corsairs that made it a turkey-shoot against the Japs.  For as much crying as Churchill did to involve us in Europe's war, the British weren't there for us in the Pacific.

That's the core of Wolf's remarks, I believe...and I have to agree.

HISTORY shows that Australia, NZ, Canada, India, South Africa, Malysia, and other parts of the British Commonwealth began sending some troops over to Britain within weeks of the outbreak of WWII -- despite the rubbishing remarks from Scrat, nicko and others, previously -- falsely claiming that Australia didn't enter until Pearl Harbour...

https://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/ww2/

THE Aussie Navy began fighting against Italy in 1940.
Aussie, Canadian and other "colonial" airmen served with the RAF throughout.
Three divisions of the Australian Army were sent to Africa and tne Meditteranean in 1940..

OVER a million Aussies served in the military in WWII;  half of them overseas.
Over 39, 000 died;   over 60,000 were wounded or injured..

Not too bad, for a country whose population only numbered 7 million in 1939/40.

http://www.rslnsw.org.au/commemoration/heritage/the-second-world-war

Most of the the Aussie, NZ and Indian contingents ended up in N. Africa, fighting on the Western Front --  where that meddling moron Churchill and the toffy-nosed twat Montgomery had every intention of using Commonwealth troops as "cannon fodder" against the enemy..

https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=174380

THE majority of Aussie (and NZ) troops were brought back, over late 1941through 1942, to fight in the Pacific and defend their homeland..

Montgomery wasn't too happy at the time, as he apparently had his own plans to sacrifice Commonwealth forces wherever possible in Northern Africa --  in direct opposition to Churchill's earlir promises to help defend Australia and South Pacific territories against the Japs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/australias-pivotal-role-in-the-end-of-the-beginning-remains-underrated-at-home/story-e6frg6z6-1226513865089          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

scrat wrote:
Perhaps you should just consider that the rent for the property we own!

You as a nation,  "own" no property in this part of the world, you duplicitous twat...

Typical old British Empire delusions --  believing you can claim whatever lands you fly the Union Jack over..

So you think you can suckle on our greatness for free?

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

Only cause the beneficiaries of their sacrifice take it for granted and fail to acknowledge the help they received in their hour of need.

Like I already pointed out the French readily celebrate the help they received .


http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/villers-bretonneux/on-this-spot-australian-national-memorial/panorama-australian-national-memorial.php

Don't be ridiculous.

There are separate war memorials commemorating the sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand service personnel in the prestigious Hyde Park, London, both dedicated during the first decade of this century.

There is also a huge American war cemetery near Cambridge standing on land gifted by the University of Cambridge and visited by many thousands of individuals and groups of people from this country who wish to pay their respects to and make recognition of the ultimate sacrifice of US soldiers, marines, sailors and coastguards.

I led my local branch of the Royal British Legion there on just such a visit only a month ago.

Then, at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire, there are separate memorials to Allied Special Forces, South African Police, Royal Australian Air Force, Greek Veterans, the Maltese Islanders (who received a collective George Cross, our highest civilian decoration during the war), Hong Kong Voluntary Defence Corps, Kenyan Police, King's African Rifles, Malayan Volunteer Force, Northern Rhodesian Police, Rhodesia Native Regiment, Polish Armed Forces, Rhodesia African Rifles, Royal Norwegian Navy and even The Sultan of Oman's Forces.

As member of the Royal British Legion I have attended three branch visits there with colleagues in order to recognise the debt of honour that we owe to all these nations.

Some "taking it for granted" and "failing to acknowledge the help we received in our hour of need"!

It would appear that you will stoop to any base lie and smear to pursue your spiteful little vendetta against this country.

That's Vera for you...

scrat wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



You as a nation,  "own" no property in this part of the world, you duplicitous twat...

Typical old British Empire delusions --  believing you can claim whatever lands you fly the Union Jack over..

So you think you can suckle on our greatness for free?

It ain't your greatness, pal. You're just another assignee to the legacy. Get in line...at the back.

Quill stop watching all those American war films, you'll be thinking the yanks won all the wars by themselves next!

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
So you think you can suckle on our greatness for free?

It ain't your greatness, pal.  You're just another assignee to the legacy.  Get in line...at the back.

Funny how Quill et al are quick to tell us that the greatness isn't ours... but the responsibility for the shitty bits is all ours...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It ain't your greatness, pal.  You're just another assignee to the legacy.  Get in line...at the back.

Funny how Quill et al are quick to tell us that the greatness isn't ours... but the responsibility for the shitty bits is all ours...!?

You miss the point...but at least you got this far.

We all own British history.  But a part of that history has various infections in it.  Those infections started in the home base, and spread out from there.  That spreading out was what we might call a telescoping effect.  But that doesn't make British history yours to own; we all own British history.

In the US we inherited the British proclivity toward slavery.  In a reverse of the telescoping effect, we (US) have one of the worst degrees of racism in our south, while over in the British Isles you have been able to skip over that part of our collective history.  This is but an example. It's a part of British history, but laid predominately on our (US) doorstep rather than the British.

However, that is how and why the British own the causes.  But as I say, we all own British history, so recognizing that the infection came from Britain, or the British Isles, is no more than recognizing it came from all of us...because we all came from there.

No... you didn't inherit it... your people brought it with them and kept it going long after everyone said it was wrong...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... you didn't inherit it... your people brought it with them and kept it going long after everyone said it was wrong...

"Made in the UK"

No... was world wide before we inherited it...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... was world wide before we inherited it...

No doubt. It was....but Brits did their share, and that was enuff.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

There is something very sad, particularly to those of us with service backgrounds who remember the bravery and dedication of the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Australia and NZ with such genuine affection and gratitude, to see their descendants dismissing in such mercenary terms the sacrifices in the name of the common cause for which our nations all fought.

Only cause the beneficiaries of their sacrifice take it for granted and fail to acknowledge the help they received in their hour of need.

Like I already pointed out the French readily celebrate the help they received .


http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/villers-bretonneux/on-this-spot-australian-national-memorial/panorama-australian-national-memorial.php

Don't be ridiculous.

There are separate war memorials commemorating the sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand service personnel in the prestigious Hyde Park, London, both dedicated during the first decade of this century.

There is also a huge American war cemetery near Cambridge standing on land gifted by the University of Cambridge and visited by many thousands of individuals and groups of people from this country who wish to pay their respects to and make recognition of the ultimate sacrifice of US soldiers, marines, sailors and coastguards.

I led my local branch of the Royal British Legion there on just such a visit only a month ago.

Then, at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire, there are separate memorials to Allied Special Forces, South African Police, Royal Australian Air Force, Greek Veterans, the Maltese Islanders (who received a collective George Cross, our highest civilian decoration during the war), Hong Kong Voluntary Defence Corps, Kenyan Police, King's African Rifles, Malayan Volunteer Force, Northern Rhodesian Police,  Rhodesia Native Regiment, Polish Armed Forces, Rhodesia African Rifles, Royal Norwegian Navy and even The Sultan of Oman's Forces.

As member of the Royal British Legion I have attended three branch visits there with colleagues in order to recognise the debt of honour that we owe to all these nations.

Some "taking it for granted" and "failing to acknowledge the help we received in our hour of need"!

It would appear that you will stoop to any base lie and smear to pursue your spiteful little vendetta against this country.

LOL

YET
Tommy and NICKO both said we didn't do shit and joined late
and you got that Scrat saying you won the war yourself!!

SO i SUGGEST it is exactly as i said and You ARROGANT ASSHOLES NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR SELVES Cause You lot Won NOTHING and NEED YOUR ASSES SAVED!! End of, if others didn't travel across the globe to help You'd be gone, no chance. SO to even Suggest Britain is responsible for victory is an INSULT to all those whose help you.
You saved no one but yourself and relied on other to save you too.
So you lot can take You pride you derive from Propaganda and lies and Shove em.
Britain was NOT the hero it was the damsel in distress.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Don't be ridiculous.

There are separate war memorials commemorating the sacrifice of Australian and New Zealand service personnel in the prestigious Hyde Park, London, both dedicated during the first decade of this century.

There is also a huge American war cemetery near Cambridge standing on land gifted by the University of Cambridge and visited by many thousands of individuals and groups of people from this country who wish to pay their respects to and make recognition of the ultimate sacrifice of US soldiers, marines, sailors and coastguards.

I led my local branch of the Royal British Legion there on just such a visit only a month ago.

Then, at the National Arboretum in Staffordshire, there are separate memorials to Allied Special Forces, South African Police, Royal Australian Air Force, Greek Veterans, the Maltese Islanders (who received a collective George Cross, our highest civilian decoration during the war), Hong Kong Voluntary Defence Corps, Kenyan Police, King's African Rifles, Malayan Volunteer Force, Northern Rhodesian Police,  Rhodesia Native Regiment, Polish Armed Forces, Rhodesia African Rifles, Royal Norwegian Navy and even The Sultan of Oman's Forces.

As member of the Royal British Legion I have attended three branch visits there with colleagues in order to recognise the debt of honour that we owe to all these nations.

Some "taking it for granted" and "failing to acknowledge the help we received in our hour of need"!

It would appear that you will stoop to any base lie and smear to pursue your spiteful little vendetta against this country.

LOL

YET
Tommy and NICKO both said we didn't do shit and joined late
and you got that Scrat saying you won the war yourself!!

SO i SUGGEST it is exactly as i said and You ARROGANT ASSHOLES NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR SELVES Cause You lot Won NOTHING and NEED YOUR ASSES SAVED!! End of, if others didn't travel across the globe to help You'd be gone, no chance. SO to even Suggest Britain is responsible for victory is an INSULT to all those whose help you.
You saved no one but yourself and relied on other to save you too.
So you lot can take You pride you derive from Propaganda and lies and Shove em.
Britain was NOT the hero it was the damsel in distress.

You are so eaten up with your hatred of the British that you're prepared to lie for your cause, I never said we won the war alone, indeed I praised the gallantry and heroism of our commonwealth forces, what I did say was that in 1939 as the Nazis conquered mainland Europe Britain stood alone for over two years fighting and defending the freedoms we enjoy today, if Hitler had succeeded in invading mainland Britain the world would be a darker place, the defence of this island and world democracy took place over the skies of mostly southern England by predominately British and Polish and commonwealth pilots in the RAF, your denial of this is steeped simply in your jealousy of not being British, and you just cannot accept that it was Britain's fortitude that stood there firm and resolute when everyone else collapsed under the jackboot of fascism.

Man up, get your facts straight and desist with this anti British bile.

Veya said...


"...Tommy and NICKO both said we didn't do shit and joined late..."



I never said any of that... and I think you are grossly misquoting what nicko said too...!!!



Nicko served in both the Australian army and the British army... and is a living legend!!!



What have you ever done veya...?

The Battle of Britain was a gallant fight, and all credit goes those brave boys.  But I wouldn't say they did it alone.

There's a little thing called the Lend Lease program, by which America was outfitting the British with arms, airplanes and tanks, and probably financing the entire thing too.  And of course, that required the US Navy patrolling the Atlantic Ocean, because German U-boats were sinking American ships.  The US solved that problem by a concerted effort in May, 1943, when about one-third of the German submariners were sent to the bottom.

Churchill spent much of the latter part of 1941 living in the White House, trying to persuade Roosevelt and important politicians in Washington to get into Europe's War.  Unfortunately, Churchill and Roosevelt had to face down not one, but two Neutrality Acts prohibiting the US involvement in Europe's wars.

In fact, the US never declared war on Germany.  The US declared war on the Empire of Japan, and as a result of the Axis Pact (also known as the Tripartite Pact), on April 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US.  Neat little chess move on Roosevelt's part to get around the Neutrality Acts.  Hey, I was trying to be nice...

Original Quill wrote:The Battle of Britain was a gallant fight, and all credit goes those brave boys.  But I wouldn't say they did it alone.

There's a little think called the lend lease program, by which America was outfitting the British with arms, airplanes and tanks, and probably financing the entire thing too.

Churchill spent much of the latter part of 1941 living in the White House, trying to persuade Roosevelt and important politicians in Washington to get into Europe's War.  Unfortunately, Churchill and Roosevelt and to face down not one, but two Neutrality Acts prohibiting the US involvement in Europe's wars.

In fact, the US never declared war on Germany.  The US declared war on the Empire of Japan, and as a result of the Axis Pact (also known as the Tripartite Pact), on April 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US.  Neat little chess move on Roosevelt's part to get around the Neutrality Acts.  

How on earth can you comment on our history when you don't even begin to understand your own, the Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, lend lease didn't begin until March 1941.

You too are blinded by your hatred for the British, which displays itself in the obvious jealousy you share with other colonists.

Please try and research the facts before you make a complete fool of yourself!

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The Battle of Britain was a gallant fight, and all credit goes those brave boys.  But I wouldn't say they did it alone.

There's a little think called the lend lease program, by which America was outfitting the British with arms, airplanes and tanks, and probably financing the entire thing too.

Churchill spent much of the latter part of 1941 living in the White House, trying to persuade Roosevelt and important politicians in Washington to get into Europe's War.  Unfortunately, Churchill and Roosevelt and to face down not one, but two Neutrality Acts prohibiting the US involvement in Europe's wars.

In fact, the US never declared war on Germany.  The US declared war on the Empire of Japan, and as a result of the Axis Pact (also known as the Tripartite Pact), on April 11, 1941 Germany declared war on the US.  Neat little chess move on Roosevelt's part to get around the Neutrality Acts.  

How on earth can you comment on our history when you don't even begin to understand your own, the Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, lend lease didn't begin until March 1941.

You too are blinded by your hatred for the British, which displays itself in the obvious jealousy you share with other colonists.

Please try and research the facts before you make a complete fool of yourself!

You are so stupid, you don't even understand cause and effect.  The Battler of Britain ended in October 31,1940, four months before the Lend Lease Act (March 11, 1941).  The Lend Lease Act took a mere moment in legislative time.  Fur Krissake, can't you count?

Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

Original Quill wrote:

scrat wrote:
How on earth can you comment on our history when you don't even begin to understand your own, the Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, lend lease didn't begin until March 1941.

You too are blinded by your hatred for the British, which displays itself in the obvious jealousy you share with other colonists.

Please try and research the facts before you make a complete fool of yourself!

You are so stupid, you don't even understand cause and effect.  The Battler of Britain ended in October 31,1940, four months before the Lend Lease Act (March 11, 1941).  The Lend Lease Act took a mere moment in legislative time.  Fur Krissake, can't you count?

Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

You're just a fucking idiot, it might come as a complete surprise to you but 1940 did actually occur before 1941.

"In December 1940, President Roosevelt proclaimed the U.S. would be the "Arsenal of Democracy" and proposed selling munitions to Britain and Canada."

scrat wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are so stupid, you don't even understand cause and effect.  The Battler of Britain ended in October 31,1940, four months before the Lend Lease Act (March 11, 1941).  The Lend Lease Act took a mere moment in legislative time.  Fur Krissake, can't you count?

Sometimes I wonder about you guys.

You're just a fucking idiot, it might come as a complete surprise to you but 1940 did actually occur before 1941.

"In December 1940, President Roosevelt proclaimed the U.S. would be the "Arsenal of Democracy" and proposed selling munitions to Britain and Canada."

This is why I firmly believe that IQ's go up the instant you cross the Atlantic.  Europeans simply don't understand systems theory.  They can build a beautiful Rolls Royce automobile, or a German Tiger II tank, but the dumb fucks only build 492 of them.  WTF???!  Americans built 49,234 Sherman M4's, at a rate of a thousand a month. These Europeans are ignorant people, on the lower development scale.

The Americans understood how to save Britain, as Britain never did.  So, we saved your asses from not only the Germans, but from yourselves.  We stood back and figured out what you needed, not what you wanted.  In less than four months we came up with the Lend Lease Act, which fed you the resources that your little tiny islands didn't produce.  Then we gave you the manpower you needed.

Y'all go saluting and marching and flag-waving, shit like that, and the Americans get the fookin' job done.  We had to replace Montgomery, as he was a first class pompous asshole, idiot, and replace him with an American systems theory man.  So finally--fuck you idiots--the Americans, Canadians, Australians, and others, got the fookin' job done!

Frankly, it was your fucking war, and you couldn't handle it.  The Russians won that war, with American tanks and guns.

Look, there's a higher development of brain power over on the other side of the Atlantic.  That's what the New World means.

The Sherman tank, biggest load of crap to hit the battle field.

The Germans called them " Tommy Cookers" perhaps you can tell us why?

No Scat that's all Crap
not 2 years alone at all We were aready in Italy
SO Again GET your facts straight.

and to post the man that said 'sacrifice them they are only colonials' Shows HOW MUCH YOU TALK OUT YOUR ARSE. Churchill literally said to that Austrlai shoud be willing to lose Australia to save the UK
IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS geranium THEN YOU ARE A geranium TOO !!!
And to even suggest he is someone a aussie should thank,
the fuck wit responsible for more aussie digger deaths than any other man in history.

SO learn Some perepsective, you like Churchill cause he was so willing to sacrifice Colonial troops to save british ones. The same reason colonials think SO poorly of him and Brits that try and pretend he a hero for sacrificing the lives of others.

Learn some real history not British propoganda.

And the battle OF Britian was really Not much AGAIN something only British every suggest cause all it did was say the UK it in NO way help defeat the Nazis.
Not like tthe Aussie the first to beat them on the ground and stop them taking all the resources of north africa which would have made a much bigger difference had it gone the other way.

OH and if the UK had fallen back in the 40's aboriginals may have gottren swathes of their land back 30 years earlier... cause British Democracry is a lie too.

Cause if you have Nazi or Ukip
makes fuck all difference to us down here really

And it is You dedication to Spreading propoganda which means you cannot accept fact or reality that the British have almost zero claim to winning ww2. US and Russia, but the UK is like NZ saying they did it