How Great Britain Wrecked the Development of Greece and Bulgaria

[poiuytrewq0987]

The arrogant country called Great Britain managed to wreck the development of many countries but nothing worse than wrecking the development of European countries out of an attempt to retain a so-called power balance. Thanks to the frail Britons' concern of retaining power balance, they helped the Turks stay in Europe and Anatolia, plague European countries such as Bulgaria (with a Turkish minority of 12% or 700,000) and Germany (with a Turkish minority of 2 million). If Great Britain had not interfered by arrogantly made herself involved in affairs that did not concern her other than retain her empire status (which it lost post-WW2 thanks to her overreaching policies, take that, Britons).

When Russia decided to liberate the Balkans after the Batak massacre where thousands of Bulgarians dead. Russians managed to really kick the Ottomans' rears to the point of destroying its hegemony over the Balkans and Eastern Thrace (Konstantinopol and Odrin)... until the British intervened because they were afraid of powerful Russian allied states being established in the Balkans and of a large Slavic state after Russia (which would've been the result if the British didn't interfere and send a fleet of warships to the Sea of Marmara which stopped the Russians from taking Konstantinopol). So to this day, since the British prevented the formation of a Bulgaria that stretched from Ohrid, FYROM to Constanta which is in today's Romania and to Konstantinopol. If that had been realized, Bulgaria would not be a poor country today but a powerful country in economic and military terms next to France, the Netherlands and Belgium combined, etc. After the first Balkan War, Bulgaria fought three major wars and lost all of them. The first, the Second Balkan War had to do with all bordering countries ganging up on Bulgaria (thanks to Bulgaria's status of being the most powerful Balkan country militarily). The First World War, the Britons just had to interfere again and get involved with Balkan affairs and sent reinforcements to Greece and Serbia who were on the losing side against Bulgaria. The Second World War, the Britons and Americans bombed Sofia a couple days after Bulgaria joined the war on Germany's side (and attained greater territorial control thereafter which we lost two of three gains after the war). So for the howling that Bulgaria has no one to blame but herself, you should reexamine that statement because a lot of times, great powers like Britain have interfered in the development of a stronger Bulgaria.

And Greece? Greece in 1920s' during the Turkish War of Independence it was approaching Ankara with multiple military successes. Greece's plan depended on the supply lines the British helped flow. When Britain became terrified at Greece's military victories, it cut the supply lines that supplied Greek soldiers in Anatolia and helped the war to turn in Turkey's favor. Greece lost the war as a result. And the result of that war? The Turks continue to be among us, immigrate to Germany in large numbers and continue to be a threat to Greece and Bulgaria today. Interestingly enough, if the Britons hadn't backstabbed Greece, Greece would've recreated the Byzantine Empire and there would be a powerful Hellenic state today that isn't deep in debt (which now you can see the why behind the Britons backstabbing the Greeks as a way to retain her empire status).

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this post considering how most of the posters here are Anglos but hey, I'm not afraid of sharing my opinion on this matter.

[SwordoftheVistula]

All this is true, but not really relevant to the problems of modern times. Greece is in the mess it's in because it has an extreme version of system that the whole 'west' has followed since mid 20th century: low birth rate, extended life spans, low retirement age at which people qualify for government pensions, increasingly high public sector (government) spending leading to increasingly high budget deficits and growing national debt, especially in regards to the public sector employees and their unions blocking any attempted reforms. If Greece had won all those wars and was geographically larger than today, they'd still be in the exact same mess.

In regards to Bulgaria, the Soviet system is responsible to a large extent. British interference (and the ensuing American interference) is indeed once again responsible for the victory of the USSR over Bulgaria and its allies in that war, but even back then Bulgaria didn't have much industry and there's no indication it would be much different today than the Mediterranean countries who ended WWII outside the Soviet system (Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal)

[Fortis in Arduis]

I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this post considering how most of the posters here are Anglos but hey, I'm not afraid of sharing my opinion on this matter.

Look what Britain has done to the British.

If 'they' did that to us, then what would they do to you?

What about Henry Kissinger and his meddling?

[Wulfhere]

Yawn - who gives a shit about Bulgaria?

[Murphy]

Yawn - who gives a shit about Bulgaria?

Don't you have some thirteen-year-old girls to watch bend over or something?

Regards,
The Papist.

[Peachy Carnahan]

gEaT BRitAin Been Bad.....beAn Baaad.......:mad:

[Treffie]

Posted by Vojn

If that had been realized, Bulgaria would not be a poor country today but a powerful country in economic and military terms next to France, the Netherlands and Belgium combined, etc.

Really? Who says? Sounds like you're bitter and have just plucked this out of your arse.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Yawn - who gives a shit about Bulgaria?

People who care about the integrity of their own nations.

[Wulfhere]

People who care about the integrity of their own nations.

Hmmm... I really don't see the logic in that statement. For example - and I'm not talking about Bulgaria here, just in general - it might often be the case that it's necessary to undermine another nation in order to protect one's own.

[Beorn]

If that had been realized, Bulgaria would not be a poor country today but a powerful country in economic and military terms next to France, the Netherlands and Belgium combined, etc.

Are you black? Indeed, are Bulgarians who think like you black also?

What would you like? Reparations? An active system by which we Britons of today have to paw at your feet for the failures of your ancestors?

If you and your ancestors couldn't fight, don't enter the ring.


I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for this post considering how most of the posters here are Anglos but hey, I'm not afraid of sharing my opinion on this matter.

...and Scots, and Welsh, and Irish, and every other European mercenary and their dog.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Hmmm... I really don't see the logic in that statement. For example - and I'm not talking about Bulgaria here, just in general - it might often be the case that it's necessary to undermine another nation in order to protect one's own.

Far better to arm oneself and achieve parity.

That was Mosley's approach to Germany, and it would have worked for our mutual benefit.

[Wulfhere]

Far better to arm oneself and achieve parity.

That was Mosley's approach to Germany, and it would have worked for our mutual benefit.

It depends what you mean by parity. We had a massively larger navy than Germany's, for example, and this is one of the factors that eventually saved us. But Germany had far greater resources than us, so true parity could never have been achieved. For this reason it was necessary to destroy Germany - divide it in two, for example, and permanently deprive it of its vast Silesian coalfields in the east.

[The Khagan]

If that had been realized, Bulgaria would not be a poor country today but a powerful country in economic and military terms next to France, the Netherlands and Belgium combined, etc.

You really think that the British did that to keep Bulgaria down? That seems baseless.

Also, care to back up your claim with at least some logic? Given the history of the area the last stable states to actually control it were the Ottomans and the Byzantines. It seems that the only way to keep that area stable and economical is to have it incorporated into a far flung empire. You want the British to step in to give you Greece and Anatolia too? I don't see what you're getting at with this post.

[Poltergeist]

Vojn seems to be obsessed with tales about some countries that could have/should have been powerful, strong, economically developed, if some interference [insert] from the outside had not impeded that. :D

First it was about Yugoslavia which could have been world's superpower (lol), if the outside forces had not plotted to ruin it by fostering division etc ect. Now it's Romania, Bulgaria and Greece.

I guess everything will be fine the day these countries join the Global Federation of Europeans. :P

[poiuytrewq0987]

Hmmm... I really don't see the logic in that statement. For example - and I'm not talking about Bulgaria here, just in general - it might often be the case that it's necessary to undermine another nation in order to protect one's own.

You did that twice to us and look at where your empire went.

[Wulfhere]

You did that twice to us and look at where your empire went.

Lol - what you and people like you don't seem to realise is that we were glad to be shot of the empire. It had long since become a burden. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was useful to us economically, but even before the 20th century began it had ceased to be so. We used it, bled it dry, then dumped it.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Are you black? Indeed, are Bulgarians who think like you black also?

What would you like? Reparations? An active system by which we Britons of today have to paw at your feet for the failures of your ancestors?

Oh please where did I ask for reparations? I merely pointed out the facts.



If you and your ancestors couldn't fight, don't enter the ring.My ancestors had every ability to fight wars on her own but for too many times foreigners foreign to the Balkans jumped in just to ensure that there is no single Balkan superpower. And Britain is the main culprit.

Bulgaria was actually titled Prussia of the Balkans because of her rapid military buildup post-Ottoman occupation. Bulgaria had easily an army of over half a million for a country of 4 million. But during the Second Balkan War we ended up ganged up by every country bordering Bulgaria and the war as lost for Bulgaria. The First World War was supposed to be when the cards were supposed to be in our favor but prissy Britons became involved once again (as if their involvement of preventing the creation of San Stefano Bulgaria wasn't enough).

[poiuytrewq0987]

Lol - what you and people like you don't seem to realise is that we were glad to be shot of the empire. It had long since become a burden. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was useful to us economically, but even before the 20th century began it had ceased to be so. We used it, bled it dry, then dumped it.

No, that's just untrue, you're only saying that to remove embarrassment that stems from the loss of the empire.

[Imperivm]

"Cough" Anglophobe.

[Wulfhere]

Oh please where did I ask for reparations? I merely pointed out the facts.

My ancestors had every ability to fight wars on her own but for too many times foreigners foreign to the Balkans jumped in just to ensure that there is no single Balkan superpower. And Britain is the main culprit.

Bulgaria was actually titled Prussia of the Balkans because of her rapid military buildup post-Ottoman occupation. Bulgaria had easily an army of over half a million for a country of 4 million. But during the Second Balkan War we ended up ganged up by every country bordering Bulgaria and the war as lost for Bulgaria. The First World War was supposed to be when the cards were supposed to be in our favor but prissy Britons became involved once again (as if their involvement of preventing the creation of San Stefano Bulgaria wasn't enough).

Sniff sniff boo hoo. In 1940 Britain stood alone against some very, very powerful enemies. Did we cry and say Not Fair? No, we fought on, with every fibre of our being, and won. Shut up, cry baby.

[Wulfhere]

No, that's just untrue, you're only saying that to remove embarrassment that stems from the loss of the empire.

Lol.

[poiuytrewq0987]

"Cough" Anglophobe.

Hardly but if pointing out facts makes me an anglophobe then yes, I am.

[Wulfhere]

Hardly but if pointing out facts makes me an anglophobe then yes, I am.

Another thing you people don't seem to realise is that the English thrive on foreigners hating us.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Another thing you people don't seem to realise is that the English thrive on foreigners hating us.

Good for you? :coffee:

[Fortis in Arduis]

Lol - what you and people like you don't seem to realise is that we were glad to be shot of the empire. It had long since become a burden. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was useful to us economically, but even before the 20th century began it had ceased to be so. We used it, bled it dry, then dumped it.

Yes, indeed, so why the imperialism? It was never really for the British people anyway.

[Beorn]

Oh please where did I ask for reparations? I merely pointed out the facts.

You didn't point out facts, you pointed out an opinion tinted with historical emotions.


My ancestors had every ability to fight wars on her own but for too many times foreigners foreign to the Balkans jumped in just to ensure that there is no single Balkan superpower. And Britain is the main culprit.And as I said, you are butthurt because a superior grouping of nations came in and stole the cloud from underneath your feet.


The First World War was supposed to be when the cards were supposed to be in our favor but prissy Britons became involved once again (as if their involvement of preventing the creation of San Stefano Bulgaria wasn't enough).Great Britain had their own very distinct reasons for entering both wars, each one wasn't to create a butthurt individual in the twentieth century, but to expand/consolidate upon a hard fought empire. An empire greater than most give it credit for.

[poiuytrewq0987]

You didn't point out facts, you pointed out an opinion tinted with historical emotions.

Quite incorrect, I expanded on historical facts as per the view here.


And as I said, you are butthurt because a superior grouping of nations came in and stole the cloud from underneath your feet.

Oh yeah, picking on smaller nations, how manly of you.


Great Britain had their own very distinct reasons for entering both wars, each one wasn't to create a butthurt individual in the twentieth century, but to expand/consolidate upon a hard fought empire. An empire greater than most give it credit for.

And a meaningless empire, that it was.

[The Khagan]

lol.

So butthurt.

Also, last time I checked, the British aided Greece in their war of independence.

[poiuytrewq0987]

lol.

So butthurt.


The topic of discussion does not concern Americans, you can take your faggotry along with your country to the shitter.



Also, last time I checked, the British aided Greece in their war of independence.Obviously you didn't read the whole thing.

GTFO.

Hint: It was Turks' war of independence, not Greeks. Stupid. And so many other things you have obviously espoused ignorance, you're only 19 years old so of course I am not surprised.

[Freomæg]

Many moderate people would be surprised to learn that most British patriots/nationalists are not proud of the British Empire. Ironic eh? Modern Nationalism follows the thinking that what lies beyond our borders is not our concern. So in reality, the Imperialists of yesteryear are the Globalists of today.

The Empire is regularly thrown in our faces... usually as a justification for why we 'deserve' what we're currently getting. But ordinary Britons would not have chosen those actions made by the elite of our country. Yes, we benefitted from the Empire, but the Empire is not responsible for all that is/was best about this nation.

[Osweo]

Also, last time I checked, the British aided Greece in their war of independence.

Well, we let Byron go and get shot at Missolonghi...

You'll find, however, that we went to war with the young country VERY soon after, in 'Don Pacifico's War'. :( In brief, the interests of a Sephardic Jew of British citizenship were at stake. :ohwell:

I am a proud Englishman, but defending the actions of Disraeli in handing Christian Europeans over to the Ottomans is not something you'll find me engaged in. :(

But Войн, you have adopted entirely the wrong attitude here. I know about the Treaty of San Stefano, but many of my countrymen don't. Educate them, please, but don't be all stupidly emotional and 'victim' about it. :rolleyes:

[poiuytrewq0987]

Well, we let Byron go and get shot at Missolonghi...

You'll find, however, that we went to war with the young country VERY soon after, in 'Don Pacifico's War'. :( In brief, the interests of a Sephardic Jew of British citizenship were at stake. :ohwell:

I am a proud Englishman, but defending the actions of Disraeli in handing Christian Europeans over to the Ottomans is not something you'll find me engaged in. :(

But Войн, you have adopted entirely the wrong attitude here. I know about the Treaty of San Stefano, but many of my countrymen don't. Educate them, please, but don't be all stupidly emotional and 'victim' about it. :rolleyes:

Oh but I thought the Anglos were all educated and superior? :p

[Imperivm]

It's because we are.

[hereward]

I do not apologise for my country being successful historically, its what all nation states should aspire to do. Somehow, my weak, pathetic country stopped the mighty Bulgaria from taking its rightful place among the great pantheon of nations?
To many ANGLO's on the net, well we do have a high number of private PC ownership in GB, maybe, with some E.U funding, there could be more Bulgarians on here. They could furthur enlighten me on my Country's parasitic past and on how we stopped Bulgaria from achieving its greatness.

[Beorn]

The arrogant country called Great Britain managed to wreck the development of many countries but nothing worse than wrecking the development of European countries out of an attempt to retain a so-called power balance.

Emotionally overcharged opinion. Before you go onwards with your point of view, perhaps you could define the term arrogance as applied to a modern state and how it compares in comparison to other modern states.


Thanks to the frail Britons' concern of retaining power balance, they helped the Turks stay in Europe and Anatolia, plague European countries such as Bulgaria (with a Turkish minority of 12% or 700,000) and Germany (with a Turkish minority of 2 million).

What should Great Britain have done? The Turkish people were an ally, and have been an historical ally for many centuries. Are we to become like our "fellow Europeans" and hold our word cheap and decline the will of a friend?


If Great Britain had not interfered by arrogantly made herself involved in affairs that did not concern her other than retain her empire status (which it lost post-WW2 thanks to her overreaching policies, take that, Britons).

Again, please define this term arrogant and how it singly applies to Great Britain and Great Britain alone.


When Russia decided to liberate the Balkans after the Batak massacre where thousands of Bulgarians dead. Russians managed to really kick the Ottomans' rears to the point of destroying its hegemony over the Balkans and Eastern Thrace (Konstantinopol and Odrin)... until the British intervened because they were afraid of powerful Russian allied states being established in the Balkans and of a large Slavic state after Russia (which would've been the result if the British didn't interfere and send a fleet of warships to the Sea of Marmara which stopped the Russians from taking Konstantinopol). So to this day, since the British prevented the formation of a Bulgaria that stretched from Ohrid, FYROM to Constanta which is in today's Romania and to Konstantinopol.

Guilty as charged, and rightly and proudly so. Would you have liked to have had the clutches of the Russians upon your precious lands instead? I hear the Russians have a blinding reputation amongst continental Europeans.


The Second World War, the Britons and Americans bombed Sofia a couple days after Bulgaria joined the war on Germany's side (and attained greater territorial control thereafter which we lost two of three gains after the war). So for the howling that Bulgaria has no one to blame but herself, you should reexamine that statement because a lot of times, great powers like Britain have interfered in the development of a stronger Bulgaria.


LOL!!!111 You entered into the war on the side of the Nazis. Sorry, perhaps we should have left an ally of the Nazis alone and see how the war panned out. Perhaps we could have serenaded you with love songs and flowers and seen if that would have swayed the course of the war?


And Greece? Greece in 1920s' during the Turkish War of Independence it was approaching Ankara with multiple military successes. Greece's plan depended on the supply lines the British helped flow. When Britain became terrified at Greece's military victories, it cut the supply lines that supplied Greek soldiers in Anatolia and helped the war to turn in Turkey's favor. Greece lost the war as a result. And the result of that war? The Turks continue to be among us, immigrate to Germany in large numbers and continue to be a threat to Greece and Bulgaria today.

You live under the illusion that history and nations within history adhered to your belief of white European brotherhood.

It doesn't, and it never has. Thus why every wolf with a claw has stabbed their neighbour.


Interestingly enough, if the Britons hadn't backstabbed Greece, Greece would've recreated the Byzantine Empire and there would be a powerful Hellenic state today that isn't deep in debt (which now you can see the why behind the Britons backstabbing the Greeks as a way to retain her empire status).

Do you have a crystal ball?


Oh yeah, picking on smaller nations, how manly of you.

"You" does not apply here. It is not my decision nor am I culpable for the history of my ancestors. If you feel you have a genuine grievance I am afraid you are going to have to scream into the wind.


And a meaningless empire, that it was.

I'll forgive you for that slip of naivety, as you seem very butthurt at present and not using all your intelligence when posting.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Well, case in point. I'm going to expand on the San Stefano Treaty because obviously no to little posters here know what the treaty is about. The Russians were at the very gates of Konstantinopol but Britons as ordered by Disraeli stopped Russia's advance to retake the city from Muslims by sending a fleet of warships. So, the Russians had to sign a treaty with the Ottomans in the small town of San Stefano only a couple km away from Konstantinopol. The treaty called for a large Bulgaria which Disraeli feared because he didn't want a strong Slavic state who would be an obvious ally of Russia so he stopped the San Stefano Treaty from coming through. The result of that conflict was the Congress of Berlin which basically revoked all the Russian military victories over the Ottomans and forced Bulgaria to stay under the yoke of the Ottomans for several additional decades. As you can see the map below, the "Principality of Bulgaria" was the territory we received post Russo-Turkish war not the San Stefano borders because of Disraeli poking his nose where it didn't belong. The principality was even still under the Ottoman yoke until 1908 and a couple years later the First Balkan War happened and finally kicked out the Ottomans out of the Balkans except Eastern Thrace.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Bulgaria-SanStefano_-%281878%29-byTodorBozhinov.png/769px-Bulgaria-SanStefano_-%281878%29-byTodorBozhinov.png

[poiuytrewq0987]

Emotionally overcharged opinion. Before you go onwards with your point of view, perhaps you could define the term arrogance as applied to a modern state and how it compares in comparison to other modern states.



What should Great Britain have done? The Turkish people were an ally, and have been an historical ally for many centuries. Are we to become like our "fellow Europeans" and hold our word cheap and decline the will of a friend?



Again, please define this term arrogant and how it singly applies to Great Britain and Great Britain alone.



Guilty as charged, and rightly and proudly so. Would you have liked to have had the clutches of the Russians upon your precious lands instead? I hear the Russians have a blinding reputation amongst continental Europeans.




LOL!!!111 You entered into the war on the side of the Nazis. Sorry, perhaps we should have left an ally of the Nazis alone and see how the war panned out. Perhaps we could have serenaded you with love songs and flowers and seen if that would have swayed the course of the war?



You live under the illusion that history and nations within history adhered to your belief of white European brotherhood.

It doesn't, and it never has. Thus why every wolf with a claw has stabbed their neighbour.



Do you have a crystal ball?



"You" does not apply here. It is not my decision nor am I culpable for the history of my ancestors. If you feel you have a genuine grievance I am afraid you are going to have to scream into the wind.



I'll forgive you for that slip of naivety, as you seem very butthurt at present and not using all your intelligence when posting.

I'm not going to waste my time replying to your rhetoric as I only have to say one thing if you support the Turks over the Bulgarians then you have no place here you know, loving a non-European "ally".

[Osweo]

Oh but I thought the Anglos were all educated and superior? :p

Why? Because you watched dubbed versions of Vasiliy Livanov as Шерлок Холмс in your youth? :rolleyes::p

[Monolith]

Truth be told, the UK was quite a troublemaker here in the past. Even in the more recent past, they continued to pursue their old interests.

EDIT:
I find it really odd that some Englishmen here identify with their government. It is most disturbing.

[Beorn]

I'm not going to waste my time replying to your rhetoric as I only have to say one thing if you support the Turks over the Bulgarians then you have no place here you know, loving a non-European "ally".

You won't answer because you know I am right, and because you can't grasp that I am not a white nationalist with white nationalist ideals of white brotherhood as applied to European history.

You're butthurt that the British stopped the Russians from enslaving you?, then fine.

I am here because I love my nation and its people, and love showcasing everything about it to those who have the patience to read my threads. I am also here because I am truly in love with the myriad cultures and people of Europe. I have many loves of many nations within Europe (Spain being one), which is why I often get sorely disappointed when faced by miniscule internet jerks living in some bygone era with a hardon for vengeance. I am not here to get butthurt about the past and post my low opinions of other European nations with emotionally overcharged sentiment, and I don't particularly expect for others to do so either.

My departing words to you are forever pertinent.

VAE VICTIS.

[poiuytrewq0987]

You won't answer because you know I am right, and because you can't grasp that I am not a white nationalist with white nationalist ideals of white brotherhood as applied to European history.

You're butthurt that the British stopped the Russians from enslaving you?, then fine.

I am here because I love my nation and its people, and love showcasing everything about it to those who have the patience to read my threads. I am also here because I am truly in love with the myriad cultures and people of Europe. I have many loves of many nations within Europe (Spain being one), which is why I often get sorely disappointed when faced by miniscule internet jerks living in some bygone era with a hardon for vengeance. I am not here to get butthurt about the past and post my low opinions of other European nations with emotionally overcharged sentiment, and I don't particularly expect for others to do so either.

My departing words to you are forever pertinent.

VAE VICTIS.

No, it's just that I don't have the time to reply to a long post (which I intend to do later since you took the high and almighty road of "you know I'm right").

Чао...за сега.

[Osweo]

You won't answer because you know I am right, and because you can't grasp that I am not a white nationalist with white nationalist ideals of white brotherhood as applied to European history.
Who said anything about 'white'? There's EUROPE here, CHRISTENDOM, non-Islamic CIVILISATION at stake here in this example. :(

You're butthurt that the British stopped the Russians from enslaving you?, then fine.
Russians under the Tsar, and 'Russia' under Stalin are rather different things. Nobody would have been 'enslaved'. Hagia Sophia would have had those blasphemous minarets blown up. Rather less Armenians would have been slaughtered later on. August 1914 might have happened rather differently, or not at all...

VAE VICTIS.
:rolleyes:
Unnecessary here. Voin is being a bit of a dick, but this is an entire country we're talking about, not one individual with less tact than might be desired. :( Talking about the Sultan as a 'friend' is a bit sick, given what those bastards got up to, while we 'held the ring'. Gladstone was as disgusted at it all as I am now, by the way.

Why do so many of my countrymen revert to knee-jerk Jingoists in these sort of discussions? :( :tsk:

[Beorn]

Who said anything about 'white'? There's EUROPE here, CHRISTENDOM, non-Islamic CIVILISATION at stake here in this example. :(

I understand that viewpoint, and can agree with it. Yet the message I am receiving from Vojn is that we should not have been fraternising with the Turks because of some inflated belief in a European brotherhood.

Unfortunately in history each nation has made alliances, contracts and actions that by today's standards can make one only sigh and hang our heads in shame to what was being done in our names, but I am not going to sit here and have someone incorrectly believe that Britain was the reason for their nations poor standing in todays modern Europe.

It's an absurd opinion and should be lambasted for the worthless entity it is.


Russians under the Tsar, and 'Russia' under Stalin are rather different things. Nobody would have been 'enslaved'. Hagia Sophia would have had those blasphemous minarets blown up. Rather less Armenians would have been slaughtered later on. August 1914 might have happened rather differently, or not at all... It is amazing what can be gleaned from a crstal ball. Yet history shows us that it rarely goes to how it should or could've been.


:( Talking about the Sultan as a 'friend' is a bit sick, given what those bastards got up to, while we 'held the ring'. Gladstone was as disgusted at it all as I am now, by the way.All in the past now. What more should be said? History has made some awful decisions.


Why do so many of my countrymen revert to knee-jerk Jingoists in these sort of discussions? :( :tsk:

Because we are being faced by jingoistic knee jerkers first.

There is hope yet for the spirit of England and the British Isles. ;)

[Osweo]

Because we are being faced by jingoistic knee jerkers first.
The correct response is to rise above it, and prove this right:

There is hope yet for the spirit of England and the British Isles. ;)

[Beorn]

The correct response is to rise above it, and prove this right:

Tut, and take the moral highground? But it gets so airless up there and gives me headaches. :D

[RoyBatty]

Screw the moral highground. What we need is public spirited carnage in the streets with plod, feminazis and the rainbow coalition swinging from Tower Bridge! :D

[Wulfhere]

Why are we even entertaining this? The Bulgarians look, and act, like a bunch of gypos. And now, just like gypos, they are sucking the rich nations of the EU dry.

[Beorn]

All hail the Gypsies....

http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq172/jonnyherbert/trv1.jpg

[Svanhild]

But Germany had far greater resources than us, so true parity could never have been achieved. For this reason it was necessary to destroy Germany - divide it in two, for example, and permanently deprive it of its vast Silesian coalfields in the east.
It's one thing to win a war but it's an other thing to unnecessarily humiliate your former enemy. The early major reason for the Second World War was the slavery treaty of Versailles. Britannia was the critical factor behind it...in company with France. And it wasn't necessary to split Germany and take away the eastern territories in 1945. Britannia's problem was always that they wanted to be the only European superpower. Endless were the wars between Great Britain and Spain or Great Britain and France in former centuries, and with the rise of the united German nation during the 19th century the Britains got another threat to their pathological megalomaniac complex.

However that be, I notice with satisfaction that your country's attempts to pin us down failed and that Germany is the most influencal power of Europe nowadays. Followed by France and Great Britain...without its former empire. :wink If we can drop our internationally-controlled repressive elements of political correctness we can breath freely again.

[Wulfhere]

It's one thing to win a war but it's an other thing to unnecessarily humiliate your former enemy. The early major reason for the Second World War was the slavery treaty of Versailles. Britannia was the critical factor behind it...in company with France. And it wasn't necessary to split Germany and take away the eastern territories in 1945. Britannia's problem was always that they wanted to be the only European superpower. Endless were the wars between Great Britain and Spain or Great Britain and France in former centuries, and with the rise of the united German nation during the 19th century the Britains got another threat to their pathological megalomaniac complex.

However that be, I notice with satisfaction that your country's attempts to pin us down failed and that Germany is the most influencal power of Europe nowadays. Followed by France and Great Britain...without its former empire. :wink If we can drop our internationally-controlled repressive elements of political correctness we can breath freely again.

After two aggressive wars, especially the second one in which Germany tried to destroy Britain, it was necessary to clip its wings - and a bit of humiliation was nothing short of what it deserved. That Germany is the most influential power on the Continent is only to be expected, given its population and resources, so keeping it divided for 45 years was quite an achievement. I suppose we can rest content knowing that if it still had all those eastern territories with their vast natural resources it would be an even bigger power.

[Murphy]

Germany must be kept weak and divided. It is a threat to Europe as a whole when it is united.

Free Bavaria!

Regards,
The Papist.

[Peachy Carnahan]

No, that's just untrue, you're only saying that to remove embarrassment that stems from the loss of the empire.

The bitterness oozes out of your posts.

I bet it destroys you inside to have to communicate in English as well.

[Monolith]

The bitterness oozes out of your posts.

I would guess the cause of this bitterness is not Bulgarian military/diplomatic defeat itself, but rather the fact that contemporary Bulgaria isn't some über power no one dares to fuck with. Even with all those territories that Vojn wants, it would be highly questionable whether his country would play a significant role in the international politics. There are much larger countries that have little or no power of their own, even in Europe.

[Svanhild]

After two aggressive wars, especially the second one in which Germany tried to destroy Britain, it was necessary to clip its wings - and a bit of humiliation was nothing short of what it deserved.
Can we all agree to the fact that the First World War was the consequence of an alliance policy gone mad? The war was no one's fault alone. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, all significant European nations were automatically involved. Russia, Germany, England, France. Everyone had to fulfill obligations of the pacts. And Germany never tried to destroy Britain in any war. It was England who declared war on NS Germany and it was Germany who let the Britains retreat at Dunkirk as a sign of good will.

Germany must be kept weak and divided. It is a threat to Europe as a whole when it is united.

Free Bavaria!

http://hornbillunleashed.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bullshit.jpg

Bullsh..:wink

[Jarl]

Germany must be kept weak and divided. It is a threat to Europe as a whole when it is united.

Free Bavaria!

Regards,
The Papist.

Most certainly! Free Vorpommern! Viva Germania Slavica! :P


Can we all agree to the fact that the First World War was the consequence of an alliance policy gone mad?

Not at all. It broke out because of deliberate agressive policy of Prussian junkers which alientated two of their former allies: Russia, and then Great Britian. A consequence of carte blanche for the Dual Monarchy and Aerenthal's government over the Balkans, which directly provoked conflict with Russia. A gamble that was from the beginning meant to find its realisation through von Schlieffen's Plan - a total war on two fronts, a war for European hegemony.

[Liffrea]

If you’re that concerned with your country (Britain, Bulgaria, Germany, where ever) what are you going to do about it now in 2010 or the years ahead?

Arguing over spilt milk doesn’t seem that productive to me.

[Wulfhere]

Can we all agree to the fact that the First World War was the consequence of an alliance policy gone mad? The war was no one's fault alone. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, all significant European nations were automatically involved. Russia, Germany, England, France. Everyone had to fulfill obligations of the pacts. And Germany never tried to destroy Britain in any war. It was England who declared war on NS Germany and it was Germany who let the Britains retreat at Dunkirk as a sign of good will.

I accept that German behaviour in WW1 was nowhere near as reprehensible as in WW2 - even so, it had no qualms about violating neutral territory such as Belgium, or blowing up passenger ships. As for the UK declaring war first in 1939, yes that's true - but it was in defence of our ally Poland. Would you have us dishonourably abandon our allies? As for Dunkirk, whilst I've heard it said that it was deliberate on Hitler's part to let the troops go, there's no actual evidence for this. Much more likely is Goering's incompetence as head of the air force.

I'm fully aware that Hitler was famously an Anglophile - even to his dying day he lamented being at war with us - but honestly, with friends like that, who would need enemies?

[SwordoftheVistula]

blowing up passenger ships.

Oh, you mean the ones the British war machine hid munitions on...like the Taliban and Al Quada who hide behind civilians in order to try to provoke us into shooting the civilians and thusly allow them to score a propaganda victory

Even British media admits this now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War.

But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915.

Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

The Cunard vessel, steaming from New York to Liverpool, was sunk eight miles off the Irish coast by a U-boat.

Maintaining that the Lusitania was solely a passenger vessel, the British quickly accused the 'Pirate Hun' of
slaughtering civilians.

The disaster was used to whip up anti-German anger, especially in the U.S., where 128 of the 1,198 victims came from.

A hundred of the dead were children, many of them under two.

Robert Lansing, the U.S. secretary of state, later wrote that the sinking gave him the 'conviction we would ultimately become the ally of Britain'.

Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.

The disaster inspired a multitude of recruitment posters demanding vengeance for the victims.

One, famously showing a young mother slipping below the waves with her baby, carried the simple slogan 'Enlist'.

Two years later, the Americans joined the Allies as an associated power - a decision that turned the war decisively against Germany.

The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft.

The Germans had insisted the Lusitania - the fastest liner in the North Atlantic - was being used as a weapons ship to break the blockade Berlin had been trying to impose around Britain since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914.

Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed.

He said: 'It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany.

'For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.'

Hampton Sides, a writer with Men's Vogue in the U.S., witnessed the divers' discovery.

He said: 'They are bullets that were expressly manufactured to kill Germans in World War I - bullets that British officials in Whitehall, and American officials in Washington, have long denied were aboard the Lusitania.'

The discovery may help explain why the 787ft Lusitania sank within 18 minutes of a single German torpedo slamming into its hull.

Some of the 764 survivors reported a second explosion which might have been munitions going off.

Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.

'Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.

'There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.

'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds - shells, powder, gun cotton - that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'

Mr Bemis is planning to commission further dives next year in a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck off County Cork.



As for the UK declaring war first in 1939, yes that's true - but it was in defence of our ally Poland. Would you have us dishonourably abandon our allies?

What about giving an unstable military junta a blank check for war in the first place? Not to mention, Poland was invaded by the USSR at the same time.

[Wulfhere]

Oh, you mean the ones the British war machine hid munitions on...like the Taliban and Al Quada who hide behind civilians in order to try to provoke us into shooting the civilians and thusly allow them to score a propaganda victory

Even British media admits this now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html

Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War.

But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915.

Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

The Cunard vessel, steaming from New York to Liverpool, was sunk eight miles off the Irish coast by a U-boat.

Maintaining that the Lusitania was solely a passenger vessel, the British quickly accused the 'Pirate Hun' of
slaughtering civilians.

The disaster was used to whip up anti-German anger, especially in the U.S., where 128 of the 1,198 victims came from.

A hundred of the dead were children, many of them under two.

Robert Lansing, the U.S. secretary of state, later wrote that the sinking gave him the 'conviction we would ultimately become the ally of Britain'.

Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.

The disaster inspired a multitude of recruitment posters demanding vengeance for the victims.

One, famously showing a young mother slipping below the waves with her baby, carried the simple slogan 'Enlist'.

Two years later, the Americans joined the Allies as an associated power - a decision that turned the war decisively against Germany.

The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft.

The Germans had insisted the Lusitania - the fastest liner in the North Atlantic - was being used as a weapons ship to break the blockade Berlin had been trying to impose around Britain since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914.

Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed.

He said: 'It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany.

'For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.'

Hampton Sides, a writer with Men's Vogue in the U.S., witnessed the divers' discovery.

He said: 'They are bullets that were expressly manufactured to kill Germans in World War I - bullets that British officials in Whitehall, and American officials in Washington, have long denied were aboard the Lusitania.'

The discovery may help explain why the 787ft Lusitania sank within 18 minutes of a single German torpedo slamming into its hull.

Some of the 764 survivors reported a second explosion which might have been munitions going off.

Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.

'Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.

'There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.

'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds - shells, powder, gun cotton - that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'

Mr Bemis is planning to commission further dives next year in a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck off County Cork.




What about giving an unstable military junta a blank check for war in the first place? Not to mention, Poland was invaded by the USSR at the same time.

Blah blah blah - we won. We won both the military war and the propaganda war. On both occasions we managed to persuade the Americans to come in on our side. How we did it doesn't matter. We did it.

[Guapo]

I think France has a good shot at winning the World Cup.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Blah blah blah - we won. We won both the military war and the propaganda war. On both occasions we managed to persuade the Americans to come in on our side. How we did it doesn't matter. We did it.

The propaganda war, but not the military war. In both cases Britain was losing the military war very badly before the US came in and bailed them out

[Phil75231]

Is it REALLY worth it to keep sowing more of the very seeds of bitterness that lead to so many destructive wars in Europe? Full bellies, healthy bodies, good quality housing and workplaces, and enough to save on rainy days or for a few entertainment and creature comforts must NOT be all that important if you're placing such high value on justice.

If another war breaks out because of past injustices again - wonder what your kids'll say about you all 50 or 100 years from now. Hmmm.

[Guapo]

Is it REALLY worth it to keep sowing more of the very seeds of bitterness that lead to so many destructive wars in Europe? Full bellies, healthy bodies, good quality housing and workplaces, and enough to save on rainy days or for a few entertainment and creature comforts must NOT be all that important if you're placing such high value on justice.

If another war breaks out because of past injustices again - wonder what your kids'll say about you all 50 or 100 years from now. Hmmm.

That's what most people want, a "normal" life as being without fear, and what that means for us in a world that's becoming increasingly xenophobic, tortured by fundamentalism and nationalism. To realize that new world we must prefer the values of freedom and equality above all other values.

[Wulfhere]

The propaganda war, but not the military war. In both cases Britain was losing the military war very badly before the US came in and bailed them out

And yet we fought on, despite being almost literally overwhelmed.

[Svanhild]

Blah blah blah - we won. We won both the military war and the propaganda war. On both occasions we managed to persuade the Americans to come in on our side. How we did it doesn't matter. We did it.
You won, you did it?

Situation 1939:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Ww2_allied_axis_1939_dec.png

Situation 1945:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Ww2_allied_axis_1945_may.png

The allied powers are shown in blue color. The Sovjets in red. Tiny Germany had to fight both the blue and red colors. That's almost the entire world. Pardon my french, but Britain alone won nothing. :wink

[Wulfhere]

You won, you did it?

Situation 1939:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Ww2_allied_axis_1939_dec.png

Situation 1945:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Ww2_allied_axis_1945_may.png

The allied powers are shown in blue color. The Sovjets in red. Tiny Germany had to fight both the blue and red colors. That's almost the entire world. Pardon my french, but Britain alone won nothing. :wink

We fought on alone, when all seemed hopeless, and so forced Germany to fight on two fronts. By our propaganda we brought the Americans in, and were on the winning side. Alone, no, of course we could not have won, against a fanatical power that controlled the resources of the entire Continent, but there's more to winning a war than fighting. Without us, the Germans would probably have won, and the Americans might only have fought the Japanese, for example.

[Daos]

Alone, no, of course we could not have won, against a fanatical power that controlled the resources of the entire Continent, but there's more to winning a war than fighting.

The UK had all those colonies, while Germany's ships couldn't even leave the port... Guess who had the upper hand.

[Peachy Carnahan]

but Britain alone won nothing

Oh yes we did......;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE-wKAooU20

[Wulfhere]

The UK had all those colonies, while Germany's ships couldn't even leave the port... Guess who had the upper hand.

And yet strangely they managed to get their submarines into the Atlantic.

[Zyklop]

Oh yes we did......;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE-wKAooU20Even then you only managed because of the Soviet assistant referee.;)

[Daos]

And yet strangely they managed to get their submarines into the Atlantic.

I wouldn't say strangely - that's what they're made for: going undetected...:rolleyes:

[Wulfhere]

I wouldn't say strangely - that's what they're made for: going undetected...:rolleyes:

Very strange though if Germany had no usable ports, as you claimed. Still, if you've got no ports, all you have to do is conquer a few neighbouring countries like France and Norway, and use theirs.

[Daos]

I never said they didn't have any usable ports. Any German ship bold or foolish enough to venture out at sea had great chances of getting sunk by the Royal Navy...

[Wulfhere]

I never said they didn't have any usable ports. Any German ship bold or foolish enough to venture out at see had great chances of getting sunk by the Royal Navy...

Yes, that's what we have the Royal Navy for - to defend ourselves and wage war.

[Beorn]

Even then you only managed because of the Soviet assistant referee.;)

Who had very good eyes and saw that the ball clearly crossed the line.

[Svanhild]

Alone, no, of course we could not have won, against a fanatical power that controlled the resources of the entire Continent, but there's more to winning a war than fighting. Without us, the Germans would probably have won, and the Americans might only have fought the Japanese, for example.
If I look at all the evident problems of today's Europe...mass immigration, EU elitism, lack of pride, alienation, islamisation, extreme capitalism...I tend to say a German victory could have been the better result at the end. Even for Great Britain. In 1945, Hitler was already very ill. He had parkinson and some other severe maladies. There were strong reform powers within the Nazi party, even in the general staff. The failed revolt of the 20th July 1944 exposed it. A pity that we'll never know what could have been.

[poiuytrewq0987]

If I look at all the evident problems of today's Europe...mass immigration, EU elitism, lack of pride, alienation, islamisation, extreme capitalism...I tend to say a German victory could have been the better result at the end. Even for Great Britain. In 1945, Hitler was already very ill. He had parkinson and some other severe maladies. There were strong reform powers within the Nazi party, even in the general staff. The failed revolt of the 20th July 1944 exposed it. A pity that we'll never know what could have been.

It's pretty comical that those who hate the UK would support every single decision ever made by the empire back in her prime. They continue to fail to realize that with supporting the Allied powers, they have only allowed the floodgates to open for the millions upon millions of non-European immigrants to migrate to the British Isles.

If that revolt was successful, I don't think the Allied pigs would've agreed to a ceasefire. They were out for blood, and they certainly weren't going to stop until they had their share of blood. Churchill placed a guarantee on Poland's sovereignty purposely because he knew Hitler would have no choice but to invade Poland if he wanted to restore control of Danzig to Germany. Therefore Churchill got his war but as a result he lost an empire but hey, he must have drown in his whiskey happy, right?

[Zyklop]

Who had very good eyes and saw that the ball clearly crossed the line.I think the general consensus is that it wasn't a goal.

Later video evidence indicates that the ball never crossed the line after hitting the crossbar.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley-Tor#cite_note-3) As the Swiss referee did not see the situation properly, the opinion of the Soviet linesman Tofik Bakhramov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofik_Bakhramov) who believed that the ball bounced back from the net rather than the crossbar led to one of the most contentious goals in the history of football. While the Germans pushed hard to tie the game, spectators entered the field in the final seconds, and Hurst scored another controversial goal giving England a 4-2 win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley-Tor#cite_note-3
I'm not interested in football but the story about the Wembley-Goal is known to most people in Germany. 1966 must be the year when the term "Island Apes" was coined.

[The Khagan]

If I look at all the evident problems of today's Europe...mass immigration, EU elitism, lack of pride, alienation, islamisation, extreme capitalism...I tend to say a German victory could have been the better result at the end. Even for Great Britain. In 1945, Hitler was already very ill. He had parkinson and some other severe maladies. There were strong reform powers within the Nazi party, even in the general staff. The failed revolt of the 20th July 1944 exposed it. A pity that we'll never know what could have been.

lol

[Brynhild]

What was this thread about again? :confused: Svanhild, you always seem to bring up German matters in threads that aren't even relevant to German matters.

Vojn had a beef about how Great Britain essentially interfered with the development of his nation. I can appreciate these sentiments as I have had issues with both Britain and Germany about how Malta was blown apart by them both during the blitzes, but we must take a realistic picture and see that there are more complex reasons as to why some countries develop better than others.

At the end of the day, each nation must be held accountable for their own actions, especially during times of war. Being bitter and resentful towards other nations - playing the blame game - just doesn't cut it. We must concern ourselves with the lessons we've learned from the past and build a better future for our folk, rather than repeat history.

[Wulfhere]

If I look at all the evident problems of today's Europe...mass immigration, EU elitism, lack of pride, alienation, islamisation, extreme capitalism...I tend to say a German victory could have been the better result at the end. Even for Great Britain. In 1945, Hitler was already very ill. He had parkinson and some other severe maladies. There were strong reform powers within the Nazi party, even in the general staff. The failed revolt of the 20th July 1944 exposed it. A pity that we'll never know what could have been.

I understand what you're saying Svanhild, but I don't believe it. For a start off, the Nazis were pro-Islam - they even had Muslim units of the SS. I also don't think the Nazis' extreme pro-German policies would have fostered anything but hatred among other European nations, especially when their citizens were used for slave labour. And that's not even mentioning the Nazis' abominable treatment of the Jews. Even if the Jews were a threat (which I don't accept) that's no reason to do to them what they did - such actions reflect very badly on the Germans themselves, who behaved like monsters, allowing all that is base in human nature free reign. That's not what civilised people do, let alone a self-appointed Herrenvolk.

Even though fighting WW2 bankrupted Britain, it was an honourable war, and at whatever cost to ourselves, it was the right thing to do.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Even though fighting WW2 bankrupted Britain, it was an honourable war, and at whatever cost to ourselves, it was the right thing to do.

Only people like you believe it was a honorable war. :icon_rolleyes:

[Wulfhere]

Only people like you believe it was a honorable war. :icon_rolleyes:

By "people like you", do you mean honourable people who value the freedom of their nation and are opposed to tyranny and rule by foreigners?

[Guapo]

By "people like you", do you mean honourable people who value the freedom of their nation and are opposed to tyranny and rule by foreigners?

You actually believe nations have freedom? Pass the blunt over here.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/blunt-54540.jpg

[Wulfhere]

You actually believe nations have freedom? Pass the blunt over here.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/blunt-54540.jpg

It's clear that philosophically, absolute freedom cannot exist. That's why we have human societies, to balance the natural desire for freedom with the equally natural desire for security. However, this doesn't mean that some nations haven't had more freedom than others, and a relatively free nation will fight to prevent a less free nation having power over it.

[Beorn]

Rabid Nazis with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

or...

Lib/Lab/Con with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

Which cock would I prefer to chew on? Hmm?

[Wulfhere]

Rabid Nazis with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

or...

Lib/Lab/Con with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

Which cock would I prefer to chew on? Hmm?

If it was a choice between one or the other, then Lib/Lab/Con is obviously the lesser of the two evils - by a very, very long way.

[Beorn]

If it was a choice between one or the other, then Lib/Lab/Con is obviously the lesser of the two evils - by a very, very long way.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif

[Peachy Carnahan]

If I look at all the evident problems of today's Europe...mass immigration, EU elitism, lack of pride, alienation, islamisation, extreme capitalism...I tend to say a German victory could have been the better result at the end. Even for Great Britain.

As an Englishman its hard to admit,but i think you are right.

[Osweo]

Rabid Nazis with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

or...

Lib/Lab/Con with their desire to wipe out the undesirable, certain ethnicities, freedom of the people, etc...

Which cock would I prefer to chew on? Hmm?


If it was a choice between one or the other, then Lib/Lab/Con is obviously the lesser of the two evils - by a very, very long way.

I beg to differ. I so wish that the Third Reich HAD shown more promise, but I feel it failed to provide a decent, morally attractive or durable nationalistic alternative future for Europe, or even for Germany.

Let's look at the checklist:
* wipe out the undesirable

To this I would counter that Lib-Lab-Con do their utmost to perform the opposite. Quite how this one crept into Beorn's list I do not know. These parties have enacted piece after piece of dysgenic legislation, all ensuring that the underclass has grown, become more insulated from the rest of society, more violent, more soulless and gobsmakingly hopeless than ever before in history. Or did Beorny think of 'undesirable' in their OWN terms? I suppose he's right there, in so far as people like me are fully in their sights for the giving of a hard time...

* wipe out certain ethnicities

The establishment is not wiping out ethnicities by seizing their land, shooting them, throwing them into camps to starve or die of disease, working them to death, or labelling them as lower forms of life. They do have some edge on the Nazis there. Racial bastardisation of a people, or large sections of it, cannot quite be compared with complete annihilation by mass transportation, sterilisation and absolute barring from the benefits of recourse to law, especially if it is only enforced by subtle persuasion.

* freedom of the people
Relatively few of us are being taken away by black cars in the middle of the night. Generally speaking, it could be argued that we are as lacking in basic rights in England as the Germans were under Hitler in some differing ways. But still, less of it involves the point of a gun.

I SO bloody wish that Hitler and co. hadn't been such twats.
'Oh but they didn't do this, they didn't do that!'
- Perhaps they can be argued out of a few of the nastier more bizarre charges that have been levelled at them down the years, but there's no way to overturn ALL of it.

I am not willing to build a European Utopia on the blood and bones, suffering and brutalising of the greater part of the Slavonic peoples. Such a 'Europe' would be a hideous sham, and I am glad it was prevented.

As men who uphold the ethnic principle in geopolitical and social matters, we are NOT obliged to support Nazism. The Third Reich was not the last hope for Europe, there is still time yet, so its memory should not be regarded as sacrosanct. By its association with the most shameless imperialism it forfeited its claims to allegiance by true nationalists, German or otherwise.

[Peachy Carnahan]

I am not willing to build a European Utopia on the blood and bones,

Well you cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs you know.

[Beorn]

Or did Beorny think of 'undesirable' in their OWN terms?

:thumb001: The post was about context. Our wipeout of certain ethnicities amounts to not being able to place a tick next to 'English' on a census form or England not beign uttered in the speeches of the politicians. It is a far, far cry from being rounded up and shot and buried in a shallow grave.

'Our boys' fought and died for our freedom. That freedom is slowly disappearing. I expect when my son is old and grey the British Isles will be an abomination, but at least his life at present isn't under the whim of a tyrant, prone to be thrust upon fruitless wars of attrition, under threat via health problems or physical deformities, etc...

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"

Irony is we are now the few.

[Osweo]

Well you cant make an omelette without breaking a few eggs you know.

What a disgusting attitude. You should be ashamed of yourself, for your own sake, and doubly so for bringing the flag you bear into disrepute, as well as any cause you may champion. You're in good company, using that phrase, however; it was Lenin's equally sickening response to criticism of the mass use of torture and murder in the Red Terror.

[Peachy Carnahan]

What a disgusting attitude. You should be ashamed of yourself, for your own sake, and doubly so for bringing the flag you bear into disrepute, as well as any cause you may champion. You're in good company, using that phrase, however; it was Lenin's equally sickening response to criticism of the mass use of torture and murder in the Red Terror.

Im a perfidious son of a perfidious albion....you sound like some withered old hen.

[RoyBatty]

While it is true that the Establishment of Britain, the US (and a number of other countries) blackmail, harrass, impede and in some cases wage war against weaker countries for profit, territory and control Bulgaria has only itself and its own corrupt political leadership to blame for signing up to the EU.

The EU institution will do more to enslave Bulgarians than Britain ever did.

[poiuytrewq0987]

The EU institution will do more to enslave Bulgarians than Britain ever did.

Most unlikely, right now we're benefiting from the EU a lot by the way of EU subsidization and free market. If the EU forces us to cede our sovereignty in similar fashion Rompuy threatened to take over Greek finance then we're more likely to leave the union than abandon our sovereignty to the unelected bureaucracy.

[Wulfhere]

Most unlikely, right now we're benefiting from the EU a lot by the way of EU subsidization and free market. If the EU forces us to cede our sovereignty in similar fashion Rompuy threatened to take over Greek finance then we're more likely to leave the union than abandon our sovereignty to the unelected bureaucracy.

I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Countries like Bulgaria will never be allowed to, or be able to, leave the EU.

[RoyBatty]

Most unlikely, right now we're benefiting from the EU a lot by the way of EU subsidization and free market. If the EU forces us to cede our sovereignty in similar fashion Rompuy threatened to take over Greek finance then we're more likely to leave the union than abandon our sovereignty to the unelected bureaucracy.

This paragraph reads like a column from the Soros brochure on Eastern European Open Society Fantasy Land.

Yes there will be subsidies and EU Common Market benefits but those are the carrots with which the donkey is bribed! Do you really think the EU is a charity which can't wait to hand over billions to enable Bulgarians to buy worthless consumer goods like PlayStations, Nike's and expensive cars without expecting an even higher payoff in return?

That payoff = your lands, your markets, banks, industries, your cultural institutions, your national identity etc. The EU will slowly creep into your life and eventually it will be dictating events all around you.

If you think that you can control your own corrupt politicians, never mind the EUrocrats in Brussels and that Bulgarians would "up and leave" the EU at the first hint of threats to its "National Sovereignty" you're sadly mistaken. Signing up to the EU = Signing Over National Sovereignty.

The National Sovereignty issue has already been decided and Bulgarian politicians and the Bulgarian population chose AGAINST IT in favour of a few Euro Reichsmarks and second hand BMW's.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Countries like Bulgaria will never be allowed to, or be able to, leave the EU.

Oh yeah? I'd love to see how they'd force us to stay in the EU. :thumb001:

[poiuytrewq0987]

This paragraph reads like a column from the Soros brochure on Eastern European Open Society Fantasy Land.

Yes there will be subsidies and EU Common Market benefits but those are the carrots with which the donkey is bribed! Do you really think the EU is a charity which can't wait to hand over billions to enable Bulgarians to buy worthless consumer goods like PlayStations, Nike's and expensive cars without expecting an even higher payoff in return?

That payoff = your lands, your markets, banks, industries, your cultural institutions, your national identity etc. The EU will slowly creep into your life and eventually it will be dictating events all around you.

If you think that you can control your own corrupt politicians, never mind the EUrocrats in Brussels and that Bulgarians would "up and leave" the EU at the first hint of threats to its "National Sovereignty" you're sadly mistaken. Signing up to the EU = Signing Over National Sovereignty.

The National Sovereignty issue has already been decided and Bulgarian politicians and the Bulgarian population chose AGAINST IT in favour of a few Euro Reichsmarks and second hand BMW's.

The EU doesn't have control over the primary functions of our government.

[Wulfhere]

Oh yeah? I'd love to see how they'd force us to stay in the EU. :thumb001:

With money. Peasants can always be bribed.

[poiuytrewq0987]

With money. Peasants can always be bribed.

Why not you fuck off, you don't have the slightest idea of how our country works. And you're the worst of the British people (even if you are one).

[Wulfhere]

Why not you fuck off, you don't have the slightest idea of how our country works. And you're the worst of the British people (even if you are one).

Your country "works", does it? Only with massive EU subsidy, paid for by us. Like all peasants you bite the hand that feeds you.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Your country "works", does it? Only with massive EU subsidy, paid for by us. Like all peasants you bite the hand that feeds you.

We've barely absorbed the subsidies, only 2% of the total subsidies have been absorbed ever since. We're doing fine, thank you.

[Wulfhere]

We've barely absorbed the subsidies, only 2% of the total subsidies have been absorbed ever since. We're doing fine, thank you.

Take your hand out of my pocket, you dirty stinking gypsy.

[Murphy]

Like all peasants you bite the hand that feeds you.

When the peasant is being force-fed poison, he has every right to bite.

[The Lawspeaker]

I think that what Brussels does when Bulgaria wants to leave is simply call back all the loans and subsidies. With interest. It will make Germany 1923 look like a picknick in the park.

You know how those big bankers are that are behind the EU. That's the problem with the EU. It's worse then the Mafia. Once you're in.. it will be very difficult to get out. :(

[RoyBatty]

The EU doesn't have control over the primary functions of our government.

All EU countries are subject to rule from Brussels. No exceptions. All EU countries' governments are effectively regional puppet regimes of the EU.

I realise that you don't understand what we're telling you now but in a couple of years you'll remember our words. By then (just like today) it will be too late to get out.

Bulgaria as a nation state will be dismantled in the same way that the EU is busy destroying all the other nation states which comprise it. Decades from now countries like Germany, the UK, Netherlands and others will (maybe) exist in name only. The populations will most likely be majority immigrants from the third world with a resultant shift in cultural and social values.

Bulgaria is unlikely to escape this same fate.

[Monolith]

Bulgaria is unlikely to escape this same fate.
Bulgaria is quite far from being a rich country, and as such, it is not interesting to economic migrants. Considering the level of corruption in that country, I doubt it will be considerably different in the future, which may prove to be beneficial for them, since the EU won't last forever.

[RoyBatty]

Bulgaria may not necessarily be on the top of the immigration tables but that isn't going to stop the migrants. In the end they will come. The question is to what extent Bulgaria and most of Eastern Europe will have been wrecked by the EU before (and if) it collapses.

The EU is like an addictive drug with countries behaving like crackwhores who line up for their "fix" and instructions by their EU pimps. Joining it (ie getting hooked) leads to a cycle of dependency in all matters ranging from politics, economics, defense, social attitudes and so on. The local political elites are paid off / bribed to adhere to the system so no matter who gets voted for nothing will change.

Since the system offers the carrots of jobs, money handouts and free movement within the EU people wouldn't want to give it up anyway.

The price they pay is loss of sovereignty, US / NATO military occupation, loss of their territory to the EU and loss of their economic centers to the usual suspects. The next step will be eventual EUSSR serfdom.