Post a reply

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Acé

LDS wrote:Just to clear up one very important point here, your lack of knowledge about the two islands being different countries is not the fault of a lack of history on the subject.

You learn about international borders in Geography not History.

Geography is the study of what currently is, History is the study of why that happened.

The extent to which someone like Ace needs to know the History of Ireland is somewhat debatable. He is, after all, an English citizen, not an Irish citizen. The same can be said for Scotland and Wales, but more so for Ireland as Ireland is a separate country.

Furthermore, since Ace is 24, then his GSCEs would have been 10 yeas ago to 8 years ago, a time when the Irish question was pretty much resolved once again. There wasn't a lot anyone needed to know. It's only come back into the spotlight as a result of Brexit, which wasn't a thing 8 to 10 years ago.

And yes, Ace is quite correct, in that the most relevant history to Ace's generation would have been the two world wars. As they are the reset that put the world in the position it is in today.


wow I think I'm in love with you. You put everything so eloquently lol

I mean, not to upset the Irish here but my school and other schools around me (as we did projects together), we covered something like "Ancient Rome" and its influence in shaping the future far more than anything Ireland or even England related

American Civil War, French Revolution etc was also covered (on a GCSE level ofc), things like that, that's what my history was

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby McManusFan

My memory of history at school was largely WWI and WWII over and over and over again, with the odd bit of Tudors thrown in. I really enjoyed history, but the syllabus was so bloody repetative, and rarely if ever showed Britain in a poor light - nothing on the empire, and maybe one lesson on the slave trade.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:My memory of history at school was largely WWI and WWII over and over and over again, with the odd bit of Tudors thrown in. I really enjoyed history, but the syllabus was so bloody repetative,


Yes, that happened with me as well.

McManusFan wrote:and rarely if ever showed Britain in a poor light - nothing on the empire, and maybe one lesson on the slave trade.


It's not really the job of the teacher or syllabus to impose a morality on any event in history, it's kind of the point of it for you, as a historian, to interpret the data and present it as why you think it's morally wrong or right.

And morality often depends on whether someone is breaking the law or not. Slavery was not against the law, for example. However, it was obviously morally distasteful for many in Britain as The British Empire was pretty much the first empire in history to very quickly ban the practice.

So are you going to use the historical data to scold the British Empire for what some people did in it at one particular point, or are you going to praise the British Empire for having the balls to start the process to end global slavery? That's real education, realising that PoVs exist.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby McManusFan

LDS wrote:
McManusFan wrote:My memory of history at school was largely WWI and WWII over and over and over again, with the odd bit of Tudors thrown in. I really enjoyed history, but the syllabus was so bloody repetative,


Yes, that happened with me as well.

McManusFan wrote:and rarely if ever showed Britain in a poor light - nothing on the empire, and maybe one lesson on the slave trade.


It's not really the job of the teacher or syllabus to impose a morality on any event in history, it's kind of the point of it for you, as a historian, to interpret the data and present it as why you think it's morally wrong or right.

And morality often depends on whether someone is breaking the law or not. Slavery was not against the law, for example. However, it was obviously morally distasteful for many in Britain as The British Empire was pretty much the first empire in history to very quickly ban the practice.

So are you going to use the historical data to scold the British Empire for what some people did in it at one particular point, or are you going to praise the British Empire for having the balls to start the process to end global slavery? That's real education, realising that PoVs exist.


I see your point, and at least half agree with it. But I think you are arguing at cross purposes here, by having a syllabus that contains more than just how 'great' Britain was during the wars you get the sort of critical thinking you're talking about.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

McManusFan wrote:I see your point, and at least half agree with it. But I think you are arguing at cross purposes here, by having a syllabus that contains more than just how 'great' Britain was during the wars you get the sort of critical thinking you're talking about.


You'll have to be more specific here as you've completely lost me. No-one gets out of the First World War in a positive light. It was by far the biggest non-natural disaster to ever inflict humanity. The Second World War on the other hand, then yes, Britain was pretty much Great throughout and you could say the Britain Empire had her finest moment right at her death.

What on earth were you reading to find anything great about Britain in WW1 and what were you reading to find anything not-great about Britain in WW2?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:
LDS wrote:what were you reading to find anything not-great about Britain in WW2?

Something about the bombing of Dresden?


Well that's not a very long list of grievances is it.

So you think the bombing of Dresden should have an entire course dedicated to it, and the kids should just spend a day or two on everything else?

Or you think they should have a course on the whole thing and a day or two on Dresden (and the emergence of civilian bombing generally)?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:
LDS wrote:what were you reading to find anything not-great about Britain in WW2?

Something about the bombing of Dresden?


Well that's not a very long list of grievances is it.

So you think the bombing of Dresden should have an entire course dedicated to it, and the kids should just spend a day or two on everything else?

Or you think they should have a course on the whole thing and a day or two on Dresden (and the emergence of civilian bombing generally)?

It just seemed to me that you were implying everything Britain did in WW2 was great. And yes, I think a day or two about the bombing of Dresden and war crimes in general would be a good lesson to show there is always evil on both sides during a war.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:It just seemed to me that you were implying everything Britain did in WW2 was great. And yes, I think a day or two about the bombing of Dresden and war crimes in general would be a good lesson to show there is always evil on both sides during a war.


They do have lessons on civilian bombing.

However, you've raised a fascinating point here which I think deserves more discussion. You've claimed that the bombing of Dresden represents an act of evil, and this suggests evil was perpetrated on both sides with some quantity of equity.

Do you honestly think that Britain being bombed to dust for a very long time, and then, when Britain finally regained air superiority, Britain... regretfully... decides to repay the gesture in kind, as a means to attempt to shorten the war so with at least the best intentions, is an act of evil during wartime? And that you think that that act is equivalent in evil to the blitzes the Nazis inflicted from the outset without any sense of remorse or regret?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:It just seemed to me that you were implying everything Britain did in WW2 was great. And yes, I think a day or two about the bombing of Dresden and war crimes in general would be a good lesson to show there is always evil on both sides during a war.


They do have lessons on civilian bombing.

However, you've raised a fascinating point here which I think deserves more discussion. You've claimed that the bombing of Dresden represents an act of evil, and this suggests evil was perpetrated on both sides with some quantity of equity.

Do you honestly think that Britain being bombed to dust for a very long time, and then, when Britain finally regained air superiority, Britain... regretfully... decides to repay the gesture in kind, as a means to attempt to shorten the war so with at least the best intentions, is an act of evil during wartime? And that you think that that act is equivalent in evil to the blitzes the Nazis inflicted from the outset without any sense of remorse or regret?

The war was over. There was no need to bomb thousands of innocent women, elderly people and children. it was basically an order from Stalin. It was a horrible war crime.


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47201136

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was ... -war-crime

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:The war was over. There was no need to bomb thousands of innocent women, elderly people and children. it was basically an order from Stalin. It was a horrible war crime.


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47201136

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/was ... -war-crime


It's interesting how the link you provide actually disagrees with you. The Spectator article is a review of a book by someone who is an expert on the bombing raids during the war, and who at the time of the article had just released a book specifically about Dresden, which the article says he decides that Dresden is, in fact, not really what you'd call a war crime:

Mckay wrote:Since then the decision to bomb it has been widely described as a war crime. McKay does not agree, and argues cogently against the idea:


‘War crime’ above all implies intentionality and rational decision-making... Just as it cannot be assumed that individuals always act with perfect rationality, so the same must be said for entire organisations acting with one will... Any conflict of such duration and scale will... create repercussions that start to chip away at the foundations of sanity itself, and in so doing reveal the inherent delicacy of civilisation."


And you said yourself that this was at the bequest of Stalin, not part of the British Empire's intentional strategy. The Americans were also a huge influence by this point in the war. If anything, it is more proof that the British Empire had ceased to be an independent nation with the diplomatic strength to govern solely from its own agenda.

On top of this, the whole concept of carpet bombing was an entirely new form of warfare, previously unexplored or thought about prior to this war. Even in McKay's extremely critical work that focuses solely on this one specific event, you can still feel the regretful nature of it, which is far, far removed from the gleeful nature of the initial Nazi attitude to the process.

You are quite correct though, in that, in our current day and age, it can be looked back on as a learning moment. I think you vastly over-play your position though if you choose to mark Dresden down as something which is an equivalence of evil that specifically tars the British involvement in the war. Especially as your own sources point out that it occurred precisely at the point when the British weren't even the ones running the show any more...

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

Sorry LDS, something went wrong with my post. Posting frim my phone. I just wanted to include the link from the BBC. The one where the British veteran says the bombing of Dresden was a war crime.The other link was a mistake. It was a carefully planned attack to kill as many innocent and vulnerable people as possible, when the war was already won. Definitely a war crime in my opinion.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:This is the link I wanted to show:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-47201136


Yes, I saw that. It's a guy saying he thinks it's a war crime. Just as you say you think it's a war crime. However, in order to come to that conclusion you have to exclude an awful lot of other data and just look at it at face value.

You know, it's a bit like Shane when discussing snooker players. A player can have a 20 year career, be a generally great bloke for that time and all the etc, but if Shane thinks he's worn a hat inside and shane thinks that's proof that the player is disrespectful by nature, then that's what he wants to talk about and the only thing he'll talk about regarding a player.

I mean, WW2, that's one really big event, right. The British were involved in a heck of a lot of events during that time. Most of those events really do bring a lump to your throat in just how awesome they were. And the people they were holding out against, my, but they were some uniquely nasty opposition weren't they. You'd have to be really digging around with one very specific objective to, firstly, want to find some dirt on the British during that time and, secondly, to want to deliberately and specifically emphasise and magnify any dirt you do manage to find.

I mean, what do you want? Do you want all the British high command to be posthumously stripped of any positivity and put on trial for war crimes? Is that what you're asking for? If not, why go to the extreme of a mono-perspective absolute of stating "it was a war crime", do you even understand the severity of your position?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS, many people believe it was a war crime. It was a vicious attack on thousands of innocent people when the war was already over. Like the veteran said, the British could at least recognize that and apologize. This was not a mistake. It was the brutal slaughter of thousands of women, children, elderly people and refugees. Churchill knew he was bombing innocent people and he knew the war was already won. We need to learn from history, not deny it, and respect the innocent people who were burned alive for nothing.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:LDS, many people believe it was a war crime. It was a vicious attack on thousands of innocent people when the war was already over. Like the veteran said, the British could at least recognize that and apologize. This was not a mistake. It was the brutal slaughter of thousands of women, children, elderly people and refugees. Churchill knew he was bombing innocent people and he knew the war was already won. We need to learn from history, not deny it, and respect the innocent people who were burned alive for nothing.


Wow.

I'm not aware of anyone denying that it took place. I'm not aware of anyone not learning from it. As far as I'm aware, there's been lots of mutual apologising to each other since the war.

What more are you asking for?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

LDS wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:LDS, many people believe it was a war crime. It was a vicious attack on thousands of innocent people when the war was already over. Like the veteran said, the British could at least recognize that and apologize. This was not a mistake. It was the brutal slaughter of thousands of women, children, elderly people and refugees. Churchill knew he was bombing innocent people and he knew the war was already won. We need to learn from history, not deny it, and respect the innocent people who were burned alive for nothing.


Wow.

I'm not aware of anyone denying that it took place. I'm not aware of anyone not learning from it. As far as I'm aware, there's been lots of mutual apologising to each other since the war.

What more are you asking for?

It seemed to me like you were denying it was a war crime and saying that the British were not responsable.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Holden Chinaski wrote:LDS, many people believe it was a war crime. It was a vicious attack on thousands of innocent people when the war was already over. Like the veteran said, the British could at least recognize that and apologize. This was not a mistake. It was the brutal slaughter of thousands of women, children, elderly people and refugees. Churchill knew he was bombing innocent people and he knew the war was already won. We need to learn from history, not deny it, and respect the innocent people who were burned alive for nothing.


It is all very well taking the moral high ground years later but what action would we have authorised if we'd been in charge at the time?

If it was a war crime, what then? Are any people involved in the bombing still alive? What are we expected to do with that conclusion if such was reached?

USA dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan for heaven's sake.

Sometimes in war it is necessary to take action to achieve an outcome that might otherwise not be possible to achieve.

If the bombing of Dresden hastened the end of the war then that is all good in my book.

And innocent people die in wars, that's just how it is, 10s of millions did so in wwii (estimates vary but civilian deaths could be as high as 60m and military personnel as high as 30m. Equating to around 3% of the population of the world at the time).

Many more died as an indirect result due to displacement, poverty, starvation, disease etc.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Holden Chinaski wrote:It seemed to me like you were denying it was a war crime and saying that the British were not responsable.


The link you provided from an expert on the topic who has no specifically biased axe to grind came to the conclusion that it wasn't a war crime. And, to be fair, I'd respect his opinion more than yours. I obviously don't deny your right to an opinion, but I have to say that you haven't done much to qualify your opinion, from an education point of view

And, again, you actually said yourself that the event took place because of an order from Stalin, which I can't help but associate with it not being entirely the responsibility of the British high command, no.

I'm not sure what more I can say, you seem to be in denial of the very things you yourself post and are now just repeating an extremely base and extremely face-value assessment of a tragic event without regard for the very things that make for a balanced education (the point of the discussion).

Yes, you can present your opinion. But you aren't doing so very well, so dropping marks there. You also haven't given any reason as to why you wish to elevate this event to the status of a war crime, so added suspicion here. And you haven't said what the final objective is once you've achieved your goal of convincing everyone it's a war crime, so dropping marks here again.

A passionate F+ ?

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Holden Chinaski

mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

One of the worst genocides ever. But those innocent people in Dresden had nothing to do with that.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Iranu

mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Holden Chinaski wrote:
mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

One of the worst genocides ever. But those innocent people in Dresden had nothing to do with that.


Hitler made them part of it.

Many countries, and their peoples, were dragged into the war against their will, losing millions of their citizens, britain and usa amongst them.

It was nothing to do with them either.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby LDS

Iranu wrote:This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


Well, yes, the term 'war crime' is normally reserved for the really nasty stuff, so, yes, it is indeed a bit weird that Dresden is being compared to it. I agree that that's not a really useful direction for the convo to go in as it does add confusion, but it's not disingenuous in the sense that it's Holden who is comparing Dresden with The Final Solution.

And, yes, I agree, whether Dresden is a war crime or not isn't the point, the point is indeed whether it's an example of something that's not great, which it is, but, as stated in my first reply, it's not a huge list of things is it...

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Iranu wrote:
mick745 wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:The bombing of Dresden did nothing to stop the war. It was already won. It was a terrible crime just like that British war veteran said it was.


Blimey "a terrible crime". How do you define the holocaust?

This is a weird thing to say. Comparing bombing to civilians to one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind is kind of... disingenuous.

Whether or not Dresden was a war crime isn’t really the point, right? It’s whether it’s an example of something Britain did that was “not great”.


I was saying wwii is probably the worst thing that has ever happened in human history. The bombing of dresden is not really a "terrible crime" if you look at the entire record of the axis powers during the same period. In fact compared to the holocaust its hardly significant at all.

Russian troops didnt come as liberators but as conquerors, raping and pillaging through eastern europe committing war crimes as they went.

We would all like to change history but they neednt have lost their lives at all if their leader hadnt gone to war against innocent countries in the first place.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby Pink Ball

Lads, right now I don't give a buck what countries did what. I normally do care, all coutries do bad rubbish, all countries do good rubbish. Usually that interests me.

But the question posed by this thread is "Why has the Republic of Ireland not hosted a ranking event/major invitational for eight years?"

I was willing to indulge some of our chat but now it's just ridiculous.

Re: snooker.org 'hits': a few observations

Postby mick745

Pink Ball wrote:Lads, right now I don't give a buck what countries did what. I normally do care, all coutries do bad rubbish, all countries do good rubbish. Usually that interests me.

But the question posed by this thread is "Why has the Republic of Ireland not hosted a ranking event/major invitational for eight years?"

I was willing to indulge some of our chat but now it's just ridiculous.


Are you saying we've drifted off topic a tad?