Tango01 | 21 Apr 2022 9:15 p.m. PST |
"When was Britain's finest hour? For most readers the answer is easy: the summer of 1940, when Britain stood alone in defiance of the Third Reich, urged on by the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill. But I would argue that Britain's finest hour came in 1815, with the victory at Waterloo, sealing the final triumph in a 22-year-long war with Revolutionary and then Napoleonic France. In 1815, Britain reached a pinnacle of military might that it never afterwards matched…" Main page
link
Armand |
Erzherzog Johann | 21 Apr 2022 10:30 p.m. PST |
July 30th 1966 at Wembley apparently . . . |
Jeffers | 21 Apr 2022 11:58 p.m. PST |
Slightly earlier – June 25th. 😎 |
Artilleryman | 22 Apr 2022 1:08 a.m. PST |
Ah, but that was only England's finest hour. |
Bozkashi Jones | 22 Apr 2022 1:58 a.m. PST |
Proud though I am, as a Briton, of Britain taking a stand in WW2, that legacy has been a mixed blessing since 1945. It has created a sense of individualism, isolation and idealised nostalgia ever since and enabled right-wing 'patriotic' leaders to invoke the 'spirit of the blitz' – just look at the ridiculousness of our Prime Minister comparing the Brexit vote with Ukraine's stand against Russia. As one who has served, it is ironic that some considered me a traitor for my democratic vote to remain in the European Union. The truth is we should be proud of our stand in 1940, but we were never alone – Czech, Polish, Norwegian, French, Danish, Belgian emigres fought with us, as did our then Empire including Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, hard-fighting Indians and many from the Caribbean nations we have treated so shabbily since in the Windrush scandal. Even the 'neutral' US did a lot more before 1941 than they are given credit for, especially in the North Atlantic. My grandfathers, one of whom was on the last ship out from Dunkirk and the other of whom spent three years on the Burma Railway after the tragedy of Singapore, were wonderful men from a wonderful generation; my grandmothers, keeping hearth and home going and being bombed out in the Liverpool Blitz were equally so. It is not Britain's finest hour that we stood alone in 1940; it is Britain's finest hour that we gave refuge to those fleeing the evil of Nazism and that we were a beacon of resistance for all free peoples. Just my take, Nick |
colgar6 | 22 Apr 2022 3:39 a.m. PST |
Well said, Bozkashi Jones! |
4th Cuirassier | 22 Apr 2022 6:07 a.m. PST |
It has created a sense of individualism, isolation and idealised nostalgia ever since Evidence? |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Apr 2022 6:31 a.m. PST |
More proof that the British believe Waterloo was a British victory, that through their laborious 22 year effort, only THEY defeated Napoleon and that IT was a universally acclaimed, sacrificial service to the free world. Ethnocentrism in action.
|
mkenny | 22 Apr 2022 7:19 a.m. PST |
It has created a sense of individualism, isolation and idealised nostalgia ever since When the thugs were out in force in London to 'protect' the statue of Winston Churchill from whatever conspiracy theory threat that was current at that time a reporter went through the crowd asking them what they thought about Churchill and his role in WW2. It was mostly pot-bellied old men who could best be described as 'not very bright' To a man all interviewed struggled to make any point that did not include the words 'Hitler' 'Nazis' & 'stood alone' and perhaps 2 sentences saying how great he was without being able to give any examples of the greatness. Not one of them knew anything at all about Churchill and they were there because he was hijacked to represent the petty small-minded little-englander mindset. That idolised and fact-free nostalgia |
Gazzola | 22 Apr 2022 7:46 a.m. PST |
I think the bit where the silly author states that Britain 'had to bombard Copenhagen into submission in 1807 when the Danes sided with Bonaparte' says it all. LOL |
donlowry | 22 Apr 2022 9:17 a.m. PST |
Probably sometime in the evening, after work, when they reach their favorite pub. |
42flanker | 22 Apr 2022 10:38 a.m. PST |
More proof that the British believe Waterloo was a British victory "The combined British and Prussian victory at Waterloo on 18 June 1815" Unequivocal evidence, if ever you wanted it. |
Au pas de Charge | 22 Apr 2022 1:47 p.m. PST |
Unequivocal evidence, if ever you wanted it. I am sorry but the second paragraph says this:
But I would argue that Britain's finest hour came in 1815, with the victory at Waterloo, sealing the final triumph in a 22-year-long war with Revolutionary and then Napoleonic France. In 1815, Britain reached a pinnacle of military might that it never afterwards matched. Really no sign of Prussia there. Too clever by half This is interesting: It was mostly pot-bellied old men who could best be described as 'not very bright' To a man all interviewed struggled to make any point that did not include the words 'Hitler' 'Nazis' & 'stood alone' and perhaps 2 sentences saying how great he was without being able to give any examples of the greatness. Not one of them knew anything at all about Churchill and they were there because he was hijacked to represent the petty small-minded little-englander mindset. That idolised and fact-free nostalgia I wonder how many of them post here? |
Tango01 | 22 Apr 2022 3:20 p.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 22 Apr 2022 3:55 p.m. PST |
1940, Waterloo was a encore |
Tgerritsen | 22 Apr 2022 10:02 p.m. PST |
The correct answer is 5 o'clock, right after tea. |
Michman | 23 Apr 2022 12:02 a.m. PST |
"Britain's finest hour that we gave refuge to those fleeing the evil of Nazism" Indeed very well said – and including the French side of my family, for which we are forever thankful. |
42flanker | 23 Apr 2022 5:22 a.m. PST |
Really no sign of Prussia there. Why would there be? The author's propositon concerns Britain, not Prussia. Prussia hadn't been continually at war with France since 1793 (barring the time-out in 1803. The war ended in unequivocal victory ('triumph' if you like, but probably not) in which Britain had been a principal player. Britain did reach a pinnacle of military might in 1815, which would be gradually eclipsed as the century went on. There is nothing there that to suggest that Britain was the sole victor of Waterloo and he states elsewhere, unequivocally, that this was not the case. QED. Frankly, I would have thought this slight piece of puff is hardly worth your fuss, but if you want to feel offended, go ahead. That is your privilege. |
Au pas de Charge | 23 Apr 2022 7:37 a.m. PST |
Frankly, I would have thought this slight piece of puff is hardly worth your fuss, but if you want to feel offended, go ahead. That is your privilege. None of the fluff on this forum is worth my fuss. And yet, here I am. Very little offends me, not even obnoxious nationalistic proto-historians. However, when they think their blither gives them carte blanche to get aggressive with the guests, I do think it worthwhile to show them to the door. |
42flanker | 23 Apr 2022 8:15 a.m. PST |
I have read through this postquite carefully and struggle to find any obnoxious nationalistic proto-historians taking liberties with the guests, let alone anyone claiming that Britain won the battle of Waterloo single-handed. |
dibble | 23 Apr 2022 12:11 p.m. PST |
Britain Popping across the channel, spanking the naughty French, coming back home, until the naughty French started playing up a few more times, where the Brit's had to go across and give em' another bloody good hiding. But then, the French finally heard the sou tinkle on the rues pavées de Paris and decided to join what they could not beat. Which was a good thing, because together we both helped to save the world twice. As for our finest hour? There aren't enough of them in the day. |
14Bore | 23 Apr 2022 1:23 p.m. PST |
Even at Waterloo discounting Lrussians the British still had Hanoverians, Netherlands and KGL |
Blutarski | 23 Apr 2022 2:33 p.m. PST |
I'll place my vote for "Chariots of Fire". B |
Tango01 | 23 Apr 2022 3:29 p.m. PST |
|
dibble | 23 Apr 2022 4:18 p.m. PST |
14Bore Even at Waterloo discounting Lrussians the British still had Hanoverians, Netherlands and KGL Yeah! But the Hanoverians, Netherlanders, KGL and the Prussians also had Wellington. As well as the fighting quality of the British. |
deadhead | 24 Apr 2022 5:33 a.m. PST |
Plus the Nassau and Brunswick contingents of course. |
42flanker | 24 Apr 2022 7:34 a.m. PST |
The 'Britain/Prussia' paradigm presumably relates to the two commanders-in-chief under whom the various national contingents fought. I don't suppose we'll read reference to the "Anglo-Dutch- Prussian (with minor German states) victory at Waterloo" any time soon. The Belgians wouldn't like it anyway.
|
johannes55 | 24 Apr 2022 1:09 p.m. PST |
Belgium didn't exist then formally so there were no belgian army at Waterloo. Think i must duck now for our Belgian contributers :-) |
deadhead | 24 Apr 2022 1:58 p.m. PST |
This is a very important point. Belgium did not exist as such and it took over a decade later to establish it as a separate entity. But it is hard to appreciate what the DoW achieved with what did truly start out as an "Infamous Army". He swapped hopeless Spanish allies and a mixed bunch of Portuguese (ranging from elite to an absolute shower) in the Peninsula, for what he commanded in the Low Countries. Progressively better by June 1815, but a very dodgy prospect.
What is just incredible is how almost (almost) every non British unit did perform between 16 and 18th of June. Britain's Finest Hour however is different. June 1940 takes some beating. OK, there was a large (not overwhelming) Royal Navy to protect the UK. All European Allies were now in UK exile or treating with the Hitlerites. No prospect of significant US direct military intervention and USSR far from such, at the time. Logic, commonsense, practicality, all say agree a cease fire with Nazi Germany. Preserve the Empire, the homeland, and work with those Jewish scientists on this daft idea of nuclear fission (fusion can come after Berlin is glowing in the dark and OK I do accept that they were in the USA by then) Fighting on alone was just incredible back then. Illogical possibly, but it all did turn out for the best. Imagine without (and many writers have done so) |
42flanker | 24 Apr 2022 3:44 p.m. PST |
"Belgium didn't exist.." "Belgium did not exist" Don't say I didn't warn you. They have dogs with machine guns. |
Tango01 | 25 Apr 2022 3:21 p.m. PST |
|
ferg981 | 26 Apr 2022 12:14 p.m. PST |
Winning the War of 1812 after being attacked by surprise whilst fighting a major european conflict. On a side note it seems like the thread has been highjacked by the usual EU ideologists and their rampant imaginations. The UK isn't rejoining the EU so its time to move on. |
Wolfhag | 26 Apr 2022 12:52 p.m. PST |
In 2003 when they won the World Rugby title. Wolfhag |
Escapee | 26 Apr 2022 1:37 p.m. PST |
Trafalgar…initiated more than a hundred years of world wide naval dominance unmatched in history. Waterloo was a tough fight but more of a coda to Napoleons defeat at Leipzig, and in Russia before that. He could never have won in 1815 with hundreds of thousands of Austrian and Russians on the way and his best Marshals and troops much reduced. |
Escapee | 26 Apr 2022 3:04 p.m. PST |
And what better hero than Nelson.? There is no one more British, one for the ages. |
arthur1815 | 27 Apr 2022 1:19 a.m. PST |
Sadly, here in UK there are now some who wish to denigrate Nelson because he did not espouse the cause of the abolition of slavery and his duties as a naval officer meant he acted to protect the interests of slaveholders by protecting British colonies in the Caribbean from the French. |
Escapee | 27 Apr 2022 1:45 a.m. PST |
He fought to protect the nation and its Empire. He was a military professional, spent most of his time at sea, and did not seem to conflate this duty with other causes. As far as I know he was apolitical compared to Wellington. Unless I am mistaken? |
Gazzola | 27 Apr 2022 5:32 a.m. PST |
There seems to be people who, just because someone was a great naval officer, such as Nelson, nothing negative should be revealed, well not against British 'heroes' anyway. If he was considered a British hero he must have been an angel. LOL However, he certainly supported slavery but more so because of the economic profit it created for Britain and the slave owners, many of which he was friends with, such as Taylor. I'm not sure, but I believe his wife Frances may have been the widow of a slave owner and they married on slave plantation. It didn't stop him cheating on her, though. LOL link Like Churchill, you can't take away what they did on the military side but there should not be a silence about what they supported either. For example, I was watching a documentary that was about hidden places in the Uk and it revealed a massive but secret Mustard gas plant and the presenter stated that even though Churchill and signed up to some sort of treaty/agreement not to employ such weapons, he also made it clear he would use it against the Germans should they have landed on the beaches of Britain. The fact the gas would have affected civilians didn't seem to matter. As we know, slavery was profit making, otherwise those making vast profits from the trade and those supporting it would never have undertaken the horrible business. But all heroes have flaws and should not be ignored just because they are British heroes. |
arthur1815 | 27 Apr 2022 6:40 a.m. PST |
"But all heroes have flaws and should not be ignored just because they are British heroes." I agree. The problem, IMHO, is that any connection to slavery or racism seems to be regarded as outweighing any historical character's virtues or admirable achievements nowadays. In Nelson's time, I suspect the majority of white Britons either supported, or were indifferent to, slavery and that the admiral was no different. It seems unreasonable to pillory him individually for not being in advance of the thinking of his own time and supporting the efforts of William Wilberforce and the Anti-Slavery Society. As for his treatment of his wife, which was shameful, that pertains to his private character, not to his service as a naval officer. IIRC, in the old Navy there was a traditional mess toast: 'Sweethearts and wives – may they never meet!' As for Churchill and the proposed use of mustard gas if the Germans were to invade, perhaps the British people would have approved – after all, all civilians had been issued with gas masks – if it would have kept their country free, never mind any treaty he had signed? And threatening to use such weapons – not itself a crime – may on its own succeed in deterring the enemy. Churchill was the war leader Britain needed; but the people wisely voted against him afterwards. |
Escapee | 27 Apr 2022 9:50 a.m. PST |
Yes, Nelsons personal life is not relevant here, although it has tarnished his character over time. But his political aspirations and beliefs are not comparable to Wellington's who was a good general and a consumate political player. Or do I have this one wrong as well? |
mkenny | 27 Apr 2022 12:02 p.m. PST |
Sadly, here in UK there are now some who wish to denigrate Nelson I must have missed that. Links please to the denigration of Nelson. |
ferg981 | 27 Apr 2022 12:27 p.m. PST |
mkenny Here you go – there was also a link to the same story in the telegraph but it was behind a paywall link Kind Regards J |
arthur1815 | 27 Apr 2022 12:52 p.m. PST |
|
mkenny | 27 Apr 2022 2:31 p.m. PST |
A Guardian article from 2017 and a 2021 story about a 2019 event from a paper known to print outright lies that got no traction in popular media but appears to be very important for a loony 'Save Our Statues' group desperate to start a cultural war. The usual drunken gaggle pot-bellied old duffers desperate to get back to the 'good old days' of the Empire. Yesterdays men constantly refighting yesterdays wars as they feel no worth unless they are attacking someone. These same drunks attacked the Police in London when they went there to 'protect' the Statue of Winston Churchill. |
ferg981 | 28 Apr 2022 12:46 p.m. PST |
mkenny None of that changes the fact that you asked us to provide links about the denigration of Nelson and we provided 3 within 1 hour of your original post. Perhaps you should have said "provide links about the denigration of Nelson in the past 24 hours" and we may have been unable to do so, thus proving your point (perhaps) But as things stand, it looks like you have in fact, missed the anti-Nelson sentiment in Great Britain Kind Regards J |
arthur1815 | 28 Apr 2022 1:01 p.m. PST |
mkenny, is your comment about the veracity of the Daily Mail a claim that Goldsmith's College is not considering removing some statues? Just because something is reported in the Mail does not ipso facto make it untrue, and ferg981 did point out that the same story was also reported in the Telegraph. You are correct that some rather unpleasant people behaved very badly over Churchill's statue; I could, if I wished, probably write an equally vivid caricature of people who want to remove statues and try to discredit their opinions by referring to the illegal acts of those people who destroyed the statue of a slaveholder. But that would not be to debate this serious issue rationally, so I shall refrain. As for "got no traction in popular media" Afua Hirsch, the author of the Guardian article, also presented a television documentary on Channel Four, The Battle for Britain's Heroes, which referred to Nelson and his links to slavery. I'm surprised you missed that – I would have imagined from your post that you would have been an ardent follower of her publications! |
Escapee | 28 Apr 2022 3:06 p.m. PST |
Well now I don't know what to think anymore. I don't know much about Nelson and the slave trade, slavery in the West Indies, etc. He cheated on his wife, an unfortunate and not uncommon thing. But for a couple of fine hours or so, he fought and gave his life and won a great victory for Britain. If all the rest of his hours were not so fine, he still provided this one. I am sticking with this as my choice. |
4th Cuirassier | 29 Apr 2022 2:55 a.m. PST |
I sometimes muse over what people of today will be hated for by the tiny woke minority of 200 years' time. I reckon it will be something like climate change bedwetting. Outfits like Greenpeace will be damned as ignorant, colonially-minded western fascists who tried to manage the sky. In doing so, they deliberately and heartlessly condemned millions of brown foreigners to poverty, disease and perpetual recession – by making energy, and hence the production of everything, impossibly expensive. These shameful moral incompetents should have known that climate change was actually beneficial. Many did but they went along with it anyway because they enjoyed preaching. Comrades, it's high time the statue of ecofascist bigot King George VII was pulled down and chucked into the transdimensional quark sub-plasma particle stream. |
mkenny | 29 Apr 2022 3:19 a.m. PST |
As for "got no traction in popular media" Afua Hirsch, the author of the Guardian article, also presented a television documentary on Channel Four, The Battle for Britain's Heroes, which referred to Nelson and his links to slavery. I'm surprised you missed that – I would have imagined from your post that you would have been an ardent follower of her publications! I am sorry you confused me with one of those fragile people who spend their entire internet life looking for ways to be outraged. I have better things to do with my time then engage in a never-ending culture war. I suppose you could say I had a sense of proportion and thus unlikely to obsess about obscure articles from 4 year old newspapers. There are no crimson coloured objects under the place where I sleep. The Express and Mail newspapers hold extreme political views and whilst The Mail is the better-known purveyor of untruth The Express is , if anything, to the right of The Mail and uses David Icke type conspiracy theories about anything and anyone they deem as remotely 'leftist'. |
mkenny | 29 Apr 2022 3:31 a.m. PST |
; I could, if I wished, probably write an equally vivid caricature of people who want to remove statues and try to discredit their opinions by referring to the illegal acts of those people who destroyed the statue of a slaveholder. You could if you read papers like The Mail and The Express. However this would only serve to prove my claim that both these papers distort reality for political ends. Lies that gullible people are so desperate to believe they forgo any fact-checking before repeating If you are referring to the Colston statue (and you almost certainly are) the people charged with criminal activity were found not guilty. The Courts decided it was not a crime. I am surprised you missed the acres of demented outrage in the right-wing rags when this verdict was delivered. Quite simply your claim there were 'illegal acts' in the removal of 'the statue of a slaveholder' is false. It is a flat-out lie to state otherwise. Note also that the jury had an 11-1 split in favour of the 'Not Guilty' verdict which should give you pause for thought. The views you hold are not as mainstream as you have been lead to believe |