Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
Hardly.. And it's the union flag.. Not the union jack.. That's flown on ships.. And the idiot was also flying it upside down.. The problem is that the politicians are wanking themselves silly to see who has the biggest flag in the background in their house.. It's nothing more than chest thumping nationalism... The BBC is crap but don't for a minute think it's about 'disrepecting' the flag..IndraD wrote:https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/wat ... union-jack
outrage in UK after BBC disrespects Union Jack. Guests after guests on other channels seething regarding how BBC has become adda of wokes, #DefundtheBBC is trending.
Churchill is one of the most overrated people of modern times. Even the decision of Britain to join the war was not his. It was the much maligned Neville Chamberlain. Of course like other Indians and most Asians and Africans under European regimes, I am thrilled that the Second World War happened and how long it lasted. It was not Gandhi but WW2 that brought India its independence. However, from a British POV, World War 2 was going to be a disaster and it is a pyrrhic victory and Chamberlain had correctly guessed that. That is why he tried to avoid the war by making a deal with Hitler on Suedentanland. Churchill was a disaster during WW1 in the Battle of Galipoli and it was only his aristocratic lineage that saved his rear. Nothing spectacular happened when he was the Prime Minister from May 1940 to June 1941 and there was no Russia or the US.nachiket wrote:Western commentators and historians have always given too much credit to the British for defeating the Germans anyway. The Russians deserve far more credit for that than the British. Germany's first and biggest defeats were on the Eastern Front. The Russians were fighting them continuously from 41 to 45 while the British were mostly twiddling their thumbs after the defeat in the Battle of France and the failed German aerial offensive over Britain. The only fighting they did was in North Africa and plenty of Indian soldiers fought in those battles. Meanwhile, German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk (largest tank battle of all time) happened in 1943. The Russians literally chased them all the way from Moscow to Berlin fighting continuously over the entire front. Stalin did not leave Moscow even when the Germans were nearly within sight of the city and the Red Army had lost every battle till then.
Even when the Western front finally became hot, it was the industrial and military might of the US that saved the day (and indeed made the Normandy landings possible in the first place). Churchill had a great talent of making speeches and improving morale (and carrying out genocides of brown people) but all that would have been useless if the Americans hadn't come in and if the Russians hadn't broken the back of the Wehrmacht in the east. The Americans saved their bacon in the Pacific too by beating the Japanese.
Actually, that is another bit of hyperbole that the British themselves have propagated over the years to make their "achievement" of doing nothing till the Americans came in look like a victory. Even a cursory analysis of rather modest German naval capabilities of that time make it clear that they never had the wherewithal to launch a D-Day style invasion of Britain. Even if the Luftwaffe had "won" the Battle Of Britain, Operation Sea Lion the German plan for invasion was never really feasible. Germany did not have the capacity to hold off the Royal navy in the English Channel while filling enough ships with to cross the channel with the entire invasion force. And most importantly, Hitler was far more interested in the vast lands and resources available to the east (populated by Slavs whom he considered inferior) than one cold, rainy island to the north populated by his "aryan" cousins. But the British narrative after the war would have you believe it was Churchill's resolute stand and "We shall fight them on the beaches..yada yada" oratory that convinced Hitler not to invade.sanjaykumar wrote: Churchill rode the American coat tails to victory, his English 'aristocratic', as you put it,curishness would not let him acknowledge the heroic Soviet war effort without which Germany would almost certainly have invaded Britain.
Tanaji Sir, please do not make that suggestion. Sirji, I go to the Daily Mail looking for articles on India, but stay on for the bikini clad pictures they put on their pages. Would you take away that little pleasure?Tanaji wrote:Just as posting links to Pakistani newspapers and blogs is banned outside of certain threads, the time has come to do the same regarding rags such as daily Mail and the Sun.
Pakis and the above magazines have the same standards...
Nachiketji, I would like to add that the D-day could have happened one year early. That was Stalin's demand. But it was delayed to bleed both the USSR and Germany. Both Churchill and Roosevelt postponed the landing to ensure the dominance of the Western Powers in a post WWII era that faced a war torn weak and non-nuclear USSR. If they had waited any longer the entire Germany would have been under USSR. More than 95% of German casualty happened at the Eastern front. More than estimated 20 million Russians perished in WWII, Gorbachev revised this figure to 26 million. This clearly shows the seriousness of the War in the Eastern front. In comparison the War in the West was tame. As you mention, the US government did play a decisive role in WWII European front. This was not due to fighting the Germans, but for supplying war materials to the Soviet Union.nachiket wrote:Western commentators and historians have always given too much credit to the British for defeating the Germans anyway. The Russians deserve far more credit for that than the British. Germany's first and biggest defeats were on the Eastern Front. The Russians were fighting them continuously from 41 to 45 while the British were mostly twiddling their thumbs after the defeat in the Battle of France and the failed German aerial offensive over Britain. The only fighting they did was in North Africa and plenty of Indian soldiers fought in those battles. Meanwhile, German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk (largest tank battle of all time) happened in 1943. The Russians literally chased them all the way from Moscow to Berlin fighting continuously over the entire front. Stalin did not leave Moscow even when the Germans were nearly within sight of the city and the Red Army had lost every battle till then.
Even when the Western front finally became hot, it was the industrial and military might of the US that saved the day (and indeed made the Normandy landings possible in the first place). Churchill had a great talent of making speeches and improving morale (and carrying out genocides of brown people) but all that would have been useless if the Americans hadn't come in and if the Russians hadn't broken the back of the Wehrmacht in the east. The Americans saved their bacon in the Pacific too by beating the Japanese.
The times of London as per Lutyens and BBC trusting 1% Indian elites.Kashi wrote:Which UK paper has standards??Tanaji wrote:Just as posting links to Pakistani newspapers and blogs is banned outside of certain threads, the time has come to do the same regarding rags such as daily Mail and the Sun.
Pakis and the above magazines have the same standards...
they are being delusional in what could be one of worst political decisions they made., France and Netherlands and in some ways Germany have been more decisive and and active in denying the faithless political control. UK seems to be afflicted by the perils of centuries of misappropriating other countries resources. Karma is returning that favor. There is absolutely no escape for them. Expect them to join the ranks of Aussies in the lower rung of OECD.Ambar wrote:UK Judge restores British Citizenship to 3 adults convicted of joining and fighting for ISIS
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/21862771 ... -defectors
UK in particular and EU in general is on a rapid path towards total self destruction. In 30 to 40 yrs time we will likely see Syria, Libya kinda civil war play out in many European countries.
Haresh wrote:MARK ALMOND: What else can we expect from a leader so vain he named a vast stadium after himself?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... mself.html
Mark Almond is director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford
As usual check the comments out.
These countries were fighting for their freedom. India did not have that freedom.Kedar wrote:From here India had the sixth highest number of casualties. it was more than the US, UK, France, Italy, Australia and Korea combined.
Add another 3M dead in 1943 during the Bengal famine after Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from the starving Indian State of Bengal to top up European stockpiles where it was not needed. Churchill should have been tried as a war criminal.g.sarkar wrote:These countries were fighting for their freedom. India did not have that freedom.Kedar wrote:From here India had the sixth highest number of casualties. it was more than the US, UK, France, Italy, Australia and Korea combined.
Gautam
I dont think it was only a Bengal famine, but a Pan India famine except North West as they were Considred as "Martial Races" by the British and at the before WW 2 were the main recruitment ground for British Indian Army.anupmisra wrote:Add another 3M dead in 1943 during the Bengal famine after Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from the starving Indian State of Bengal to top up European stockpiles where it was not needed. Churchill should have been tried as a war criminal.g.sarkar wrote: These countries were fighting for their freedom. India did not have that freedom.
Gautam
Police chiefs will be able to put more conditions on static protests.
They will be able to:
Impose a start and finish time
Set noise limits
Apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person
--
It will also become a crime to fail to follow restrictions the protesters "ought" to have known about, even if they have not received a direct order from an officer.
At present, police need to prove protesters knew they had been told to move on, before they can be said to have broken the law.
The proposed law includes an offence of "intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance".
---
What else does the legislation propose?
Changing sentencing rules so that serious criminals spend more time in jail before they can be conditionally released
Judges will be allowed to consider jailing child murderers for their entire lives
Maximum sentences for low-level assaults against emergency service workers doubled to two years
On terrorism, the bill creates powers to more closely monitor offenders released from prison
Community sentences for less serious crime to address underlying problems in offenders' lives
Changes to sexual offences law to tackle abusive adults in positions of trust, such as sports coaches and religious figures
https://twitter.com/zarahsultana/status ... 7879089153Zarah Sultana, the leftist Labour party Member of Parliament for Coventry South, claimed that “racism is a feature of capitalism” on the United Nations’ so-called “Anti-Racism Day”.
what stops us from trying him as a war criminal now, along with the sovereign in whose name he wielded poweranupmisra wrote:Add another 3M dead in 1943 during the Bengal famine after Churchill deliberately ordered the diversion of food from the starving Indian State of Bengal to top up European stockpiles where it was not needed. Churchill should have been tried as a war criminal.g.sarkar wrote: These countries were fighting for their freedom. India did not have that freedom.
Gautam
So called atheist professor had made a post that said "Oxford cannot accept Sanatanis as president".Despite whitewashing the ill-treatment meted out to Rashmi Samant, the Oxford India Society attempted to come across as ‘neutral’. In a conciliatory tone, it urged Abhijit Sarkar to “take responsibility for his words and apologise to Ms Samant.” While carefully avoiding his anti-Hindu rhetorics, the statement focused only on his statement pertaining to her parents. “Ms Samant’s parents and their religious beliefs had no place in a conversation about Ms Samant’s reprehensible actions,” it added.
that is why donitz tried to build up his U boat fleet to target and sink allied shipping and thus cut off the supply chain and to starve the britshits into submission and get them to negotiate/sue for peace/submit.nachiket wrote:Actually, that is another bit of hyperbole that the British themselves have propagated over the years to make their "achievement" of doing nothing till the Americans came in look like a victory. Even a cursory analysis of rather modest German naval capabilities of that time make it clear that they never had the wherewithal to launch a D-Day style invasion of Britain. Even if the Luftwaffe had "won" the Battle Of Britain, Operation Sea Lion the German plan for invasion was never really feasible. Germany did not have the capacity to hold off the Royal navy in the English Channel while filling enough ships with to cross the channel with the entire invasion force. And most importantly, Hitler was far more interested in the vast lands and resources available to the east (populated by Slavs whom he considered inferior) than one cold, rainy island to the north populated by his "aryan" cousins. But the British narrative after the war would have you believe it was Churchill's resolute stand and "We shall fight them on the beaches..yada yada" oratory that convinced Hitler not to invade.sanjaykumar wrote: Churchill rode the American coat tails to victory, his English 'aristocratic', as you put it,curishness would not let him acknowledge the heroic Soviet war effort without which Germany would almost certainly have invaded Britain.
On the other hand, if the English Channel did not exist and Hitler had decided on an Operation Barbarossa style invasion of Britain, then Churchill or no Churchill, they would have been soundly beaten. Early in the war, with no American help, they had no idea how to defeat the likes of Guderian and Manstein on the field of battle. That had been proven in France itself.
I think they were very very angry when their embassy was bombed.Suraj wrote:China spent a long time quietly stomaching insults during the Deng/Jiang/Hu eras. There's a selective belief that they were much more vocal, but its often been for show. E.g. we haven't had our embassy bombed by anyone like they had. It's only in the Eleven era that they've gone wolf warrior. Our time will come.
TEARS OF RAGE:
CHINESE NATIONALIST REACTIONS TO THE BELGRADE EMBASSY BOMBING
Peter Hays Gries
The US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999 sparked mass protests from Chinese across the globe. Few accepted America's explanation that the bombing (and subsequent death of three Chinese journalists) was a mistake caused by the CIA's use of outdated maps. Chinese students in the United States and Europe demonstrated against what they called "NATO fascism". The American consul's residence in Chengdu was firebombed. In Beijing Chinese students demanded revenge, chanting "Blood for blood!" Others threw bricks at US embassy buildings as People's Liberation Army soldiers looked on, and Ambassador James Sasser and other American diplomats were trapped inside for days.
The demonstrations shocked the US media, which quickly pointed blame at the Chinese government for inflaming the protests. A brief review of major US newspaper editorials of 11 May reveals a consensus view: the Chinese people were not genuinely angry with (innocent) America: they were, rather, manipulated by Communist propaganda that the bombing was intentional. The San Francisco Chronicle complained that Beijing "failed to tell its citizens that the U.S. attack was an accident and that President Clinton has apologized to Beijing". The Washington Post declared: "The Big Lie is alive and well in Beijing .. It should come as no surprise, after weeks of internal propaganda, that many ordinary Chinese now believe the embassy bombing was deliberate". Such "state-supervised anger", the Boston Globe declared, was neither genuine nor popular. The "brutes in Beijing" were responsible for the Chinese people'...
"I do not want to say anything in defence of myself, but simply to prove the justice of my deed. As for myself, no English law court has got any authority to arrest and detain me in prison, or pass sentence of death on me. That is the reason I did not have any counsel to defend me."
"And I maintain that if it is patriotic in an Englishman to fight against the Germans if they were to occupy this country, it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English.I hold the English people responsible for the murder of 80 millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking away ₤100,000,000 every year from India to this country. I also hold them responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do. And the Englishman who goes out to India and gets, say, ₤100 a month, that simply means that he passes a sentence of death on a thousand of my poor countrymen, because these thousand people could easily live on this ₤100, which the Englishman spends mostly on his frivolities and pleasures. Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part to kill the Englishman who is polluting our sacred land. I am surprised at the terrible hypocrisy, the farce, and the mockery of the English people. They pose as the champions of oppressed humanity—the peoples of the Congo and the people of Russia—when there is terrible oppression and horrible atrocities committed in India; for example, the killing of two millions of people every year and the outraging of our women. In case this country is occupied by Germans, and the Englishman, not bearing to see the Germans walking with the insolence of conquerors in the streets of London, goes and kills one or two Germans, and that Englishman is held as a patriot by the people of this country, then certainly I am prepared to work for the emancipation of my Motherland. Whatever else I have to say is in the paper before the Court I make this statement, not because I wish to plead for mercy or anything of that kind. I wish that English people should sentence me to death, for in that case the vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen. I put forward this statement to show the justice of my cause to the outside world, and especially to our sympathisers in America and Germany."
"I have told you over and over again that I do not acknowledge the authority of the Court, You can do whatever you like. I do not mind at all. You can pass sentence of death on me. I do not care. You white people are all-powerful now, but, remember, it shall have our turn in the time to come, when we can do what we like."