Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
....is more responsible for WW2 and the holocaust than Hitler et al? Many thanks.
Show More
There's been a whole load of WW2 revisionism in the last month or so. Think the right wingers are getting a bit nervous that there long term drip drip project is being foiled and are just going for it.
What do you mean by right wingers? You throw the term around plenty, do you mean everyone to the right of, say, the lib dems, or just some of them?
Its interesting to note how some ultra right influencers over there have been found to be on the Kremlin payroll and I am wondering when the same thing happens here in dear old Blighty.
We are forced to fund the left wing BBC. Using the logic of those above the BBC must be left wing
because they devote much time to denigrating the 'right wingers'in UK, Europe and USA.
because they devote much time to denigrating the 'right wingers'in UK, Europe and USA.
Can't believe Cider has not reappeared since Politics on here reappeared
I think anyone who thinks the bbc is left wing (arf!) is pretty right wing.
But in general, I've seen quite a lot of things online recently about how Poland provoked Germany, how Germany came to England to end the war early but Churchill demurred, the good things that Hitler did, were the holocaust numbers greatly exaggerated, what about Dresden etc etc etc. You do see these things occasionally, and you often don't have to dig very far but Musk's For You algorithm seems to be promoting them an awful lot lately while the usual right wing commentators promoting the usual right wing ideas seem to be talking about them. I get the feeling that Labour's win, the left's big win in France and now Trump possibly not winning in a couple of months has left Putin and his shills a bit worried.
I personally have a big problem with Winston Churchill being blamed entirely for Bengal Famine with no room for nuance and because India is a growing power with 1.4 Billion population it'll become louder and louder over time.
There's a whole load of stuff in Churchill's history to mark him down as a nasty character but he was the right man at the right time for Britain and we should be forever grateful for that (even if his biggest achievement was to simply convince the Yanks to get involved).
I've seen quite a lot of things online
On your tweeter? Or articles written by journalists?
On your tweeter? Or articles written by journalists?
PorcupineorPineapple 07 Sep 24 11:36
I think anyone who thinks the bbc is left wing (arf!) is pretty right wing.
................
They can't use the term 'far right' often enough, and include swathes of our population who would quite likely regard themselves as ordinary. Why would some people not think them left wing, or even far left,
given their fondness for polarising.
I think anyone who thinks the bbc is left wing (arf!) is pretty right wing.
................
They can't use the term 'far right' often enough, and include swathes of our population who would quite likely regard themselves as ordinary. Why would some people not think them left wing, or even far left,
given their fondness for polarising.
Why would some people not think them left wing, or even far left
Because of the way they treat Jezza
Because of the way they treat Jezza
If you think attacking a mosque in response to an attack by a non-muslim marks people down as ordinary and is pretty normal behaviour, then you're right wing
The average right winger does in no way consider that normal behaviour.
most right wingers produce out swingers not in swingers
The 'Britain should have made peace in 1940' is an interesting subject for debate. I made a thread on it here before I think.
It's hard to have a sensible discussion about it because people start in with stuff like 'You would trust Hitler!' when trust is not a real factor in international affairs; you just act in your own interest and assume other nations will act in theirs.
Also Churchill was very succesful in framing Britain's options as surrendering or fighting on to victory, when neither was realistic as neither Britain or Germany had a way of defeating the other that wasn't far fetched.
And so people think the option of a peace deal never existed and is a crazy thing to even imagine, when it was actually a very viable option, and, moral questions aside, the most logical thing to do.
I must say I don't care much for these 'far right' 'historians' though. I don't follow any but have seen some of their stuff or heard second hand about them. They often appear to genuinely know less about the subject than I do.
The guy who Tucker interviewed has apparently never written a book. Of course Britain making peace would not have 'ended the war', it just would have moved East on terms much more favourable to the Germans.
It's hard to have a sensible discussion about it because people start in with stuff like 'You would trust Hitler!' when trust is not a real factor in international affairs; you just act in your own interest and assume other nations will act in theirs.
Also Churchill was very succesful in framing Britain's options as surrendering or fighting on to victory, when neither was realistic as neither Britain or Germany had a way of defeating the other that wasn't far fetched.
And so people think the option of a peace deal never existed and is a crazy thing to even imagine, when it was actually a very viable option, and, moral questions aside, the most logical thing to do.
I must say I don't care much for these 'far right' 'historians' though. I don't follow any but have seen some of their stuff or heard second hand about them. They often appear to genuinely know less about the subject than I do.
The guy who Tucker interviewed has apparently never written a book. Of course Britain making peace would not have 'ended the war', it just would have moved East on terms much more favourable to the Germans.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539