www.ditl.org

Second best. After Life of Brian.

Point.

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Sorry to jump in late here. Blackstar, I like you a lot, but I have to distance myself from you right now and vehemently point out that not all Americans consider Sir Winston Churchill to be "some random British guy." Nor do we all think that Europe is a country.

Mikey wrote:Sorry to jump in late here. Blackstar, I like you a lot, but I have to distance myself from you right now and vehemently point out that not all Americans consider Sir Winston Churchill to be "some random British guy." Nor do we all think that Europe is a country.

Indeed, the US Navy in particular seems to think very highly of him

Good find, Seafort. I didn't know there were still any active warships in the USN named for non-Americans (although Sir Winston did come from American stock...)

Mikey wrote:Sorry to jump in late here. Blackstar, I like you a lot, but I have to distance myself from you right now and vehemently point out that not all Americans consider Sir Winston Churchill to be "some random British guy." Nor do we all think that Europe is a country.

Don't worry, we know.

Indeed, the US Navy in particular seems to think very highly of him

Well, nice to know they recognise his importance in history. He was a very important man, and a strong leader.

*sigh* Good luck getting anyone over here to admit that, though.

Really? Over here we seem to have a generally large amount of respect for him. Why would people over there dislike him?

He's responsible for the debacle that was the Black and Tans.

After WWI, when most of Ireland decided they'd like their own country, Churchill ordered the deployment of a group of ex-military personel known as the Black and Tans to take down the IRA.
Thing is, the Black and Tans were about as subtle as a sledgehammer, and just as compasionate. They murdered and raped civilians, burned farms, and even burned Cork City down after a group of them were attacked by and IRA flying collum.
Those actions pushed even more people over to the side of the IRA, which eventualy caused the British to give up and allow us our independance.
Then during WWII, he was almost responsible for us joining Hitler.

So, not the best of reputations over here.

Yeesh. They sure gloss over all of that in our history books.

For the record, I support freedom for my Irish cousins. Maybe this century, right?

Rochey wrote:Then during WWII, he was almost responsible for us joining Hitler.

What was that over? The Treaty Ports? Which, IIRC, de Valera grabbed without reference to the Treaty in the late 30s.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeesh. They sure gloss over all of that in our history books.

The Anglo-Irish War was, to put it mildly, an unpleasant business, that was effectively a civil war with all the nastiness that usually goes with such wars. All that most most people this side of the Irish Sea know about it is that in the early 20s most of Ireland became a different country, and that's it.

A big part of the problem was that having just come out of the worst war in history, the army had lost its old professional core and become, rather than a colonial police force, a force trained for assaulting heavily defended entrenched positions, against machine guns and with heavy artillery support. This experience did not lend itself to the "hearts and minds" approach required to deal with an insurgency.

The other key problems the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force (the Black and Tans official title) had was that it was formed of volunteers, and a lot more than it expected. Since most of those who had fought in the war had no interest in yet more fighting, particularly on British soil, the only volunteers were those who enjoyed violence for its own sake - a bunch of sociopaths effectively. The numbers meant not only that they didn't have enough uniforms to go round - resulting in the mish-mash of dark blue RIC uniforms and khaki army uniform that gave them their nickname - but that training and leadership were also thin on the ground. The entire setup was a recipe for the widespread thuggishness that ensued.

Tsu wrote:Yeesh. They sure gloss over all of that in our history books.

Out of curiosity, are you English, or from somewhere else?

For the record, I support freedom for my Irish cousins. Maybe this century, right?

Uh...we are free. Unless you mean those lot up the north. But then, they don't want to be part of us, and we don't really want them to be part of us, either.

Seafort wrote:What was that over? The Treaty Ports? Which, IIRC, de Valera grabbed without reference to the Treaty in the late 30s.

Yep. De Valera nabbed the three ports we promised you could have back when the treaty was signed. The British protested initialy, but didn't do anything.
When the war started, Churchill tried to reclaim the ports, but de Valera threatened to ally with Hitler if Churchill made any move against us.
Of course, we were pretty much on the verge of joining Hitler, anyway. I think it was really only the fact that we had just recently fought tooth and nail to get our own democracy that stopped us turning into a fascist dictatorship.

Rochey wrote:Out of curiosity, are you English, or from somewhere else?

I'm half Native American (Commanche, Cherokee and Blackfoot), and the other half is a melange of Irish, Italian, English and a tiny bit of French. If you're referring to my geographical location, I'm in Houston, Texas.

Uh...we are free. Unless you mean those lot up the north. But then, they don't want to be part of us, and we don't really want them to be part of us, either.

I should've said, " Unity for my Irish cousins" instead.

I'm half Native American (Commanche, Cherokee and Blackfoot), and the other half is a melange of Irish, Italian, English and a tiny bit of French. If you're referring to my geographical location, I'm in Houston, Texas.

Well, I can see how they wouldn't bother with Ireland over in the US.

I should've said, " Unity for my Irish cousins" instead.

Okay. Though I'll reiterate that none of us really want that, anyway.

Rochey wrote:

I should've said, " Unity for my Irish cousins" instead.

Okay. Though I'll reiterate that none of us really want that, anyway.

With the exception of the Provos and their ilk, who can't be described as representatives of the majority either side of the border.

Rochey wrote:...Okay. Though I'll reiterate that none of us really want that, anyway.

Why not? I'm a bit confused on that point.