Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: EU Re-writes History | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 10:59:29 10/25/04 Mon Now the sacrifice of this nation and our Commonwealth brothers in the salvation of Europe is ignored! Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany, now the EU is complicit in it. Yes, the following is an article from the Sunday Times at the weekend: How we didn’t win the war Pelle Neroth and John Elliott Brussels leaves Britain’s WW2 role out of European history book DON’T mention the second world war and certainly not Dunkirk, the blitz or D-Day. Weeks after an official European Union map deleted Wales, a Brussels-produced history of Europe has failed to mention Britain’s role in the war. The elegantly produced Histoires de l’Europe Volume I, a full-colour textbook for schoolchildren, allocates four of its 114 pages to each of the 28 members and prospective members of the EU. There is a timeline covering up to two millenniums for each country, outlining key events in its national history. But for Britain between 1931, when the author notes that the Commonwealth was created, and 1947, when Britain pulled out of India and Pakistan, nothing significant seems to have occurred. In the first years of the last century, up to 1931, again nothing noteworthy appears to have happened — or perhaps there just was not enough space to mention the first world war. Those responsible for the odd omission are in the Belgian section of the European parliament’s Office of Information, which has printed about 10,000 copies of the book since early 2002 and has distributed it to Belgian children aged 16 to 18. The cover of the book is emblazoned with an EU flag, and the back bears the logo of the office of official publications of the European Union. Leading British historians and politicians last week described a history of Britain that failed to mention the nation’s role in both world wars as inexplicable. Dr David Starkey, who presents Channel 4’s new flagship series Monarchy, said: “That is ludicrous. Are you really saying there is no mention of the second world war under Britain? The jaw drops. “Clearly only one country resisted Germany in 1939-40 and it is rather important that country is mentioned; and the first world war is one of the central events in British domestic history. “What this must seem to suggest is that Britain decided not to take part in either of the two European conflicts of the 20th century, in which case the outcome of those conflicts would have been somewhat different, to put it mildly.” Starkey added that devoting equal numbers of pages to all countries, from smaller ones such as Luxembourg and Slovenia, to larger ones like France, Germany and Italy, was part of “this strange Euro world we are moving into, where all countries have to be treated as if they were born free and equal”. He identified two other clangers in the British section. The book states that the Victorian era began in 1815, but Victoria did not accede to the throne until 1837, and although the book claims that Charles I died in 1646, he was in fact beheaded in 1649. Chris Heaton-Harris, Conservative MEP for the East Midlands, greeted the news that the book overlooked Britain’s role in the two world wars with a gale of laughter. He said: “Crikey, that’s terrible. It’s surprising they’ve forgotten this important part of history, when the West came together to defeat a common enemy. “June 1944 is pretty important. Shortly after that they (the Belgians) were able to start their debate about whether they speak French or Flemish, because they weren’t all speaking German.” Robert Whelan, deputy director of Civitas, the right-leaning think tank, said: “You couldn’t make it up. The second world war is as important as anything that has happened in our history. Omitting it makes any claim that this is a history of our country ridiculous.” He also took issue with the choice of British cultural figures. The three authors mentioned are Lewis Caroll (sic), Shakespeare and Rudyard Kipling. Whelan said: “This is perverse: they chose Carroll and Kipling? I think this is the Belgians taking the piss.” The second world war is mentioned in the sections devoted to many countries other than Britain. But in the French pages Britain is mentioned only because General de Gaulle led the French resistance from London. The German pages do not mention the word Nazi but note that 1929 saw “a surge in extremist movements” and that in 1933 Hitler became chancellor. Peter Thomas, director of the Belgian section of the European parliament’s Office of Information, said the book did not reflect the parliament’s views: “It is just a publication prepared by the Belgian information office of the European parliament.” He said that the book “was not a scientific work, it had no aim to be so”. He added that before publication the book had been sent to the diplomatic representatives of every country for their comments to be taken on board. But Hungary and Turkey are both understood to have disputed their portrayal in the book. A Sunday Times reporter was allowed to buy the book from an official EU bookstore in Brussels only after the sales assistant had torn out the Hungarian pages. Last week Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, accused the British media of perpetuating an outdated picture of Germany by continually talking about the war. On a visit to London he said: “If you want to learn how a traditional Prussian goosestep works, you have to watch British television, in Germany in the younger generation — even my generation — nobody knows how to perform it.” Critics accused him of being oversensitive. In a separate move, Euro-MPs are set this week to approve the spending of ¤9m (£6.2m) of taxpayers’ money to promote the new European constitution before a score of referendums across the EU. Conservative MEPs have already decried the move as a crude attempt to sway public opinion towards a yes vote. “The EU should not be trying to interfere in the democratic processes of Britain in an attempt to persuade the British people to support a dangerous constitution. These are matters for national Parliaments,” said Yorkshire MEP Timothy Kirkhope. The Queen is expected officially to acknowledge German suffering inflicted by British blanket bombing in the second world war during a state visit to the country in nine days’ time. Her conciliatory words are expected to come in a speech before the regional parliament in Düsseldorf, coinciding with the 60th anniversary of the destruction of the old city by the RAF. Allied air raids killed an estimated 600,000 civilians in Germany from 1941 to 1945, including 35,000 in Dresden. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: What about German flattening of Rotterdam, Coventry or London? What about German death camps? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:50:55 10/25/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Some more things | |
|
Author: Gregorsz [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:28:14 10/28/04 Thu It's a shame such an important piece of history is kinda ommited. Britain's role in WW2 should be recognized, as well as her role after it. The fact that they left Poland to Stalin's murderous plans (although polish soldiers fought side by side with British ones) or the annexation of slavic territory to Italy (a fascist state during WW2!), just for British political interests. Yes, I definitely would prefer that the good things performed by Britain during WW2 and the bad ones after it would be correctly mentioned! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: funny really | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:29:05 10/26/04 Tue HAHA, it's kind of funny to think of it in terms of them bringing all these false (and leaving out crucial)facts in British history, but then pretending that Germany had done nothing wrong from 1939-1945. But what do you expect from them. They're just trying to swade your elections. It's a good idea on their part. But it just shows how corrupt they are. And i didnt quite understand this section: "Peter Thomas, director of the Belgian section of the European parliament’s Office of Information, said the book did not reflect the parliament’s views: “It is just a publication prepared by the Belgian information office of the European parliament.” He said that the book “was not a scientific work, it had no aim to be so”." So what he's trying to say, is that to not take the book seriosuly, and that it is merely propoganda? Sorry im not sure, if someone could clarify that'd be nice [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: hmm | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:13:59 10/26/04 Tue The vagaries of the European Union’s political machinery are beyond not only my understanding, but perhaps that of most of its citizens. I can only assume that any institution entitled “Information Office”, serves solely to misinform and manipulate public opinion. The incessant use of spin and deceit on this continent by our own Government, and by the institutions of the EU, serves as an ironic reminder of the legacy of Joseph Goebbels. Beware the Ministry of Information! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: "But what do you expect from them?" | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:24:25 10/26/04 Tue From the Belgians, I expect nothing better. They killed more people in the Congo than the Germans did in he Holocaust and not a single Belgian knows about it. Ditto Japan. It is no secret that Japanese school textbooks make no mention of the Japanese forced labour camps between Burma and the Phillipines, in which hundreds of thousands of people died. I have to be very careful when discussing history with Japanese friends, because it is very easy to mention something - the Kwai River, for example - and get blank looks, then a few tentative questions, then shock, then disbelief, and then I have a hard time keeping my temper. The Germans, on the other hand, are a different matter. Since the War, the Germans have done everything they can to qualify for re-admission to the human race, and have done it well. All their school textbooks focus on Wilhelmine Germany and the subsequent Third Reich, the evils of the Holocaust and the betrayal of the Italians (which to my mind was one of the worst things in a nasty war). Indeed, the over-apologetic German has become a standing joke in this country. Harry Enfield and Chums, a now defunct comedy sketch programme, featured something quite common: a German tourist who refused to allow anyone to accept his apologies for the war... "But how can you say zat it iss alright? Look at zese ugly buildungs along ze Thames... if it vere not for my people, zere vould be pretty little Olde Worlde Englisch pubs viz Wisteria and Honeysuckle above ze door, now look at zis concrete rubbish! All ze Luftwaffe's fault! Ve are evil!" (Interestingly, I was walking past the last uncleared WWII bomb-site in London a couple of weeks ago, and the council is starting to clear it and renovate it... I think it's rather a shame, in a way... in my opinion it should have been kept as a Blitzkrieg Memorial or something.) And while this German self-immolation is a comic exaggeration, it can be exasperating sometimes to discuss the 1930s and 40s with Germans, because their insistence that everything is their fault rather precludes in-depth historical discussion. But to return to the original point, I take issue with anyone who tells me that the Germans have an historical blind spot about their past, or even a rose-tinted historical view. As a Jew (well, half), I have no problems with modern Germany, and I am satisfied that their national atonement since 1945 has been complete and genuinely felt. Now, Austria on the other hand... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Germans and buildings | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:37:50 10/26/04 Tue Yes, from my experience of Germans, far from being “don’t mention the war”, it would seem that they rarely talk about anything else. It’s quite embarrassing really. On another point completely, don’t you find it very irritating that many of the buildings destroyed in France and Germany during the war were rebuilt in their original period design, whereas we however, resurrected our cityscapes in the most inescapably grotesque way, emphasising the ubiquitous lack of architectural talent of the day? I understand all of the socio-economic reasons for this however. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Yar | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:52:41 10/26/04 Tue I wholeheartedly agree. We have done more damage to London than the Germans ever did. Indeed, it started before the war, when the old palaces along the Strand were torn down in favour of the new Art Deco monstrosities which we see now. Ditto Regent Street, which used to be one of the finest streets on Earth, all Pugin from All Soul's Church to Picadilly Circus. But what we did with the gaps in our city after the war was worse. I've been to Dresden, which was more or less melted by the RAF, except for the bits which were evaporated. They have rebuilt it to its original baroque blue-prints (as they say round here, "com'era, dov'era"), and it is wonderful. And what did we do in London? The South Bank. Centre Point Tower. Euston Tower. Those high-rise buildings around Regents Park. That phallic thing next to Hyde Park which makes me froth at the mouth in righteous indignation every time I am misguided enough to attempt to take a young lady boating on the Serpentine. If anyone wants to see what Britain has really become - and I direct this at those of you from the Commonwealth who visit London occasionally - I ask you to visit something called the Brunswick Centre in Bloomsbury. Next to Russell Square. And you know the worst? Euston station, because the Luftwaffe didn't even hit it. In the 1960s, we just thought that a neo-Gothic palace with the finest iron-vaulted ceiling on Earth was a bit old hat, and so just tore it down and replaced it with the current concrete cube. I can imagine Her Majesty as she cut the red ribbon back in '64 thinking of Windsor Castle and muttering under her breath, "who's got the world's finest vaulted ceiling NOW, suckers!" And worse than that is that they tore down the old marble arch at the entrance to the station. There was no reason for it, it just didn't appear on the developers plans... it was finer than Marble Arch by the Park, and had stood there for a century, and everyone assumed that it was a silly mistake which would never happen. Then the inhabitants of NW1 woke up one morning to find it gone, and it was too late. Now we have a plastic bus-shelter with tramps in it. The Luftwaffe were amateurs compared to the GLC when it came to destroying all that was best in London. Maggie had a good go at getting rid of the whole ghastly institution; but now that Red Ken is back, bringing his Edifice Complex along with him, it won't be long before London is as ugly as Birmingham. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Not just London... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:03:22 10/26/04 Tue Of course, after Birmingham, some of the worst crimes against architecture have been, and continue to be committed, in Glasgow. Countless masterpieces have been demolished over the years, and of course the 60s planners were responsible for erasing a significant amount of Victorian gothic while driving a motorway through the city centre. I am only thankful that the 60s planners did not proceed with the whole plan, which was to demolish the whole of the grid city centre (the finest example of a Victorian city in Europe I believe), and replace it with a two-dimensional array of grey Stalinist cereal boxes. I have seen the proposals, I can only conclude that during the 60s, everyone involved in architecture and planning were so high on LSD that their designs seemed more worthy of merit than they were. Even today, we have buildings of international importance that are on a UN list of endangered buildings – one of which is Alexander “Greek” Thomson’s St. Vincent Street Church, which is owned by the City Council! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Glasgow | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:14:02 10/26/04 Tue Quite. In my opinion, Glasgow is still a finer city than Edinbirgh, whatever they say. After all, it was the second city of the Empire. The 1960s planners got away with a lot, though, and I take some confort from the fact that many of them are now old and infirm, and have lived to see their beloved concrete become grimy and streaked beyond our ability to clean, in a way in which the Victorian red brick which they hate so much has not. Here's a good game which I play with some of my friends who study architecture, and should be repeated with anyone who hangs around with budding young architects: 1) Take them all to one of the bridges across the Thames, preferably Waterloo Bridge since it is on the bend and has views both up and down the river. 2) Listen carefully to which buildings they draw to your attention. 3) Those who wave a friendly hand at the Palace of Westminster, St Paul's, Blackfriar's Bridge, the County Hall and St Brides, these you may buy drinks and invite to parties. 4) Those who feel that the new Hungerford Bridge, the National Theatre, the Royal Festival Hall, the London Eye, that new Gherkin thing, Nat West Tower, the MPs' new office building (Portcullis House, is it called?) and the Vauxhall developments, these you must push off the bridge and drown before they graduate and start to do any serious damage. This four-point plan worked well until I came across a chap who liked both in equal measure. But he was from Edinburgh and can be forgiven, therefore, for being a bit eccentric. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:38:19 10/26/04 Tue I actually quite like the Swiss Re tower (Gherkin) and Portcullis house, but I am saddened at the loss of what used to stand at these two sites. The Royal festival hall is junk, like most buildings from that period. The space rocket thing was the only piece of the festival worth preserving in my opinion. It reminds me of the art deco kitsch at the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow in 1938 too, all of which has been lost. What was wrong with County Hall exactly? Why did Commissar Ken move London Government from a purpose built building on the most recognisable waterfronts in the world, to an egg-shaped greenhouse next to Tower Bridge? Is it more of this “transparent democracy” metaphorical rubbish? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 1960's planners in Toronto | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:13:14 10/26/04 Tue Downtown Toronto, though never bombed, has been almost completely rebuilt since the 1960's. Many of the grand Victorian buildings were demolished and replaced with modern office towers. A 1966 plan to construct a downtown expressway ring would have involved demolition of more, but that was stopped after massive protests in the 1970's. Parts of the expressway system proceed towards the city centre and stop just outside downtown because the rest was cancelled. One good thing that did happen was that many of the beautiful columns and edifaces from demolished downtown buildings were saved and transported to a public garden in the suburbs and then erected again there as monuments. I live near this garden and I often walk through it. It seems funny to walk through a park and see a huge column or ediface with 60 King Street West engraved on it! (a street in downtown). It was still a good idea to save some of the beautiful architecture by relocating them as decorative monuments in a public park rather than just eliminating them completely. Urban planning is my profession, by the way (post 1960's). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Movement of monuments... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:18:59 10/26/04 Tue It's not as bizarre as what they did in India in the 1950s. A fair majority of British structures in the major cities had royal coats of arms, reliefs depicting the King-Emperors etc. etc. They couldn't easily get rid of them, but didn't want them cluttering up their independent country's towns. So, most of them were picked up and moved to the suburban parks and what-not. Walking through Victoria Gardens in Bangalore, or the MG Gardens outside Calcutta, you occasionally come round a clump of pipal or gum trees and find the front only of a large building over the doorframe of which is a seven foot statue of Queen Vic. These Indian public parks have become a graveyard for imperial statuary, and walking through deserted bibighars or phulavaariya is rather sad... rather like that poem by Shelley: "And on the pedestal these words appear: 'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair'. Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away." But I grow sentimental... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Coventry is the ugliest of them all | |
|
Author: Chris (BARBADOS) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:00:50 10/26/04 Tue I would have to say that Coventry has even uglier buildings than Birmingham. At least Birmingham managed to salvage some older buildings in the Market Street area. Between the Germans and the city planners, the city looks like it was inspired by Orwell's 1984. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: 60s planners | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:32 10/27/04 Wed I thank the stars every day I walk along George Street, (with its Georgian stone grandeur, definitely preferable to Glasgow's Victorian ornament over substance) that the 60s planners were foiled before they drove their motorway through the centre of Edinburgh too, or one of the jewels of Europe would have little left of its heart but six lanes of concrete. My fear is that the 60s architects are coming back! And the government is determined to 'update' planning laws too to encourage development. I think we do need easier and cheaper development (and the Georgians and Victorians seemed to do OK with minimal planning laws), but I'm afraid I think history might soon repeat itself as the new generation of minimalists assert their pretentious inhuman cr*p on our landscape. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |