offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:15:13



Quote:


> > Guess you never heard of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact?  Britain was all
alone
> > in summer 1940 when operation sealion was being planned and attempted.
USA
> > had made it clear that it wasn't going to get involved, and the Soviets
were
> > semi-allied with Nazis. Can't remember when Italy declared war in
Britain,
> > but it might have been around this time.

> I'm not getting involved in the history of India, about which I am no
> expert in.

> With regard to the para above:

> Following the Fall of France, Britain was alone, if one discounts
> places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the
> rest of the Empire and Commonwealth, and if one also discounts the
> assistance of the various "governments-in-exile" (such as the Poles,
> Czechs, Free French, etc).

I should have termed it Britain and her empire was all alone...
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:34:42


Quote:

> > I was in Bangalore last year was told that any mail still sent to Bombay
> > instead of Mumbai would not be delivered.  I asked why not?  and was
told it
> > was due to national pride, and that India was reverting city names to
Indian

> No not due to national pride or anything but since the original names
> had been twisted by the British to suit their own selves. Bombay was
> Mumbai, Calcutta was Kolkata. Just like Peking was chaged to Bejing.
> So???? We have not changed names given to cities by Mughal rulers
> because they had built the original city themselves instead of just
> changing their names by twisting them.  Hyderabad, Ahmedabad(Hindu name
> is Karnavati) are few examples.

Why go for all the expense and inconvenience in reverting city names that
have been in common usage for the last couple of centuries if not for
anything other than nationalistic pride?  What other motive could there
possibly be for this? Reverting to former names doesn't make the post go any
quicker, nor does the traffic in those cities pollute less because of this.
Please tell me what other motive could there be to go through all this
trouble and expense in renaming several large cities?

New Delhi should be added to you list of examples, except it wasn't Moghul
rulers that built this particular city....

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 07:21:54


Quote:

> Operation Sealion was planned, although never attempted. Given the
> planning and resources allocated to Sealion, its chance of success was
> as near zero as makes no difference. There are many subjects about
> which I have a lot to be modest about, but not about my knowledge of
> Operation Sealion.

Wasn't the so called Battle of Britain the first phase of sealion?
Luftwaffe lost a lot of planes in this and never achieved air supremacy.

Quote:

> Describing the USSR as semi-allied to Germany is a massive
> oversimplification of a complex situation. The USSR was supplying goods
> to Germany, but was cutting back because German financial resources
> were pretty close to being exhausted, and while Stalin was happy enough
> to sell raw materials to Germany, he didn't regard himself as a charity
> and wasn't going to just give the stuff away. The USSR was also in the
> process of restructuring its army in the aftermath of the Winter War
> with Finland, which didn't go as well for the USSR as it would have
> liked.

Stalin was totally convinced that the non-agression pact was solid. So much
so that he was not expecting barbarossa at all, despite intelligence to the
contrary.?

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by davidf.. » Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:30:36

Quote:



> > Operation Sealion was planned, although never attempted....

> Wasn't the so called Battle of Britain the first phase of sealion?
> Luftwaffe lost a lot of planes in this and never achieved air supremacy.

To oversimplify, one of the German pre-conditions for Sealion was air
supremacy. Failure to achieve those pre-conditions meant that the
Operation never reached the starting blocks.

Quote:

> > Describing the USSR as semi-allied to Germany is a massive
> > oversimplification of a complex situation....

> Stalin was totally convinced that the non-agression pact was solid. So much
> so that he was not expecting barbarossa at all, despite intelligence to the
> contrary.?

Trusting to a non-aggression pact is not the same as being semi-allied.

Ob Cricket Content.
Curious to see Lara batting at 9; anyone know why he batted so low.
Injury? Trying to give the others confidence in being able to achieve a
modest target (which spectacularly backfired)?

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by ganes.. » Sat, 23 Sep 2006 06:08:49

Quote:


> > Andrew Dunford as usual chose not to understand the post:

> >> The real action is Sunday's playoff for last place between South Africa and
> >> ........ India.

> > Where did i compare them with India? I never described Ind as a
> > sporting nation.
> > Compare Eng to Germany or Aus and you get what i am saying. They are
> > shit as compared to their other West European neighbours and even East
> > European
> > countries.

> Don't get all pissy, but
> In the most watched sport, the British have always had several drivers

- I know for some bizzare reason, F1 racing is popular in India with
the wannabe cool crowd who spend hours in bars watching images of
dwarfs in helmets drive boxes in circles but really calling it the most
watched sport is going a bit too far. Even calling it a sport is a
stretch.

Quote:
> I think it is a joke to compare GB with India citing Leander Paes. Tim
> Henman is easily a more successful player than any Indian tennis player
> EVER...unfortunate as that might be.

Its not a joke to compare India against any country citing Paes - he
has an outstanding davis cup record and is a champion in doubles.
since Perry and until the advent of Henman, Indian tennis was more
competetive than GB. We made the Davis Cup finals a few times and could
have won it in 74 against RSA if not for the boycott.
Also, I think the elder Krishnan had a record comparable to that of
Henman.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Cheers!
> --
> Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Mad Hamis » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 22:54:51

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 23:21:54 +0100, "MichaelM"

Quote:



>> Operation Sealion was planned, although never attempted. Given the
>> planning and resources allocated to Sealion, its chance of success was
>> as near zero as makes no difference. There are many subjects about
>> which I have a lot to be modest about, but not about my knowledge of
>> Operation Sealion.

>Wasn't the so called Battle of Britain the first phase of sealion?

The Battle of Britain was started targetting RAAF bases to try and
achieve air superiority, then it became an attempt to break the will
to fight of the English by saturation bombing on London.

The first phase was laying groundwork for sealion, the second wasn't.

Quote:
>Luftwaffe lost a lot of planes in this and never achieved air supremacy.

and the UK forces finished with more planes and pilots than they had
at the start of the campaign.

comparison of navy forces in the region
RN                                      Kriegsmarine
5 capital ships                         1 capital ship
11 cruisers                             1 cruiser
53 destroyers                           10 destroyers
23 destroyers on convoy duty            20-30 submarines

the plan was to land 9 divisions in the UK, with under 3 months
planning.
D-Day landed 5 divisions and had a couple of years of planning...

The first resupply of the 9 divisions was going to be 8-10 days after
they landed.

There were 28 divisions in the UK...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:10:18

Quote:

> Please tell me what other motive could there be to go through all this
> trouble and expense in renaming several large cities?

Let me put this question the other way. Why did the British change the
original names of these cities if not for their superiority complex???

Quote:
> New Delhi should be added to you list of examples, except it wasn't Moghul
> rulers that built this particular city....

That shows your lack of knowledge of Indian history. Delhi(pronounced
Dilli in Hindi or Hindustani language) came into prominence as a city
only during the Mughal rule. It was their headquarters when they united
most of India under the name Hindustan. Originally, Delhi was a small
dwelling place by the Hindu name of Indraprastha. New Delhi is an
extension of Delhi that came into being after India got independence
and built the national capital in that area.Nobody complained when
Indraprtashtha became Delhi because it was majorly built by the Mughal
ruler(i think Mohd-bin-Tughlaq).

Don

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Michael » Tue, 26 Sep 2006 06:48:46


Quote:


> > Please tell me what other motive could there be to go through all this
> > trouble and expense in renaming several large cities?

> Let me put this question the other way. Why did the British change the
> original names of these cities if not for their superiority complex???

Misinterpretetion is likely the real reason; however, I ain't got a clue as
to Madras/Chennai.  Madras  is not an English word, and neither is Calcutta
nor is Bombay for that matter.

This is besides the point though ~ why di the names revert back to Chennai
etc. if nothing more than nationalistic pride?

Quote:

> > New Delhi should be added to you list of examples, except it wasn't
Moghul
> > rulers that built this particular city....

> That shows your lack of knowledge of Indian history. Delhi(pronounced
> Dilli in Hindi or Hindustani language) came into prominence as a city
> only during the Mughal rule. It was their headquarters when they united
> most of India under the name Hindustan. Originally, Delhi was a small
> dwelling place by the Hindu name of Indraprastha. New Delhi is an
> extension of Delhi that came into being after India got independence
> and built the national capital in that area.Nobody complained when
> Indraprtashtha became Delhi because it was majorly built by the Mughal
> ruler(i think Mohd-bin-Tughlaq).

I thought that Sir Edward Luytens designed New Delhi?

Calcutta was the historic centre of the British presence in India, and
effectively the capital of the British East India Company. However, Delhi
had been the historic capital of much of the subcontinent for long historic
periods. In particular, it had been the most recent capital of the Mughals.
There remained an association with Imperial grandeur that the British Raj
tried to use by holding several durbars for the Viceroy and visiting
Royalty. In 1911, at the King-Emperor George V's Coronation Durbar, the
announcement was made that the capital of the Raj was to be shifted from
Calcutta to Delhi.
New Delhi was laid out to the south of the older city constructed by Shah
Jahan, which is now often referred to as Old Delhi. However, New Delhi
overlays many of the previous cities constructed there; hence it includes
many monuments of previous cities, and constructions.

Much of New Delhi was planned by Sir Edwin Lutyens, who laid out a grandiose
central administrative area as a testament to British imperial pretensions.
Rajpath - then Kingsway - stretched from the War Memorial - now India Gate
to the Viceroy's House - Rashtrapati Bhavan atop Raisina Hill. The scale,
extravagance and magnificence of New Delhi was not unlike Washington, or
Haussmann and his patron Napoleon III's Paris, both cities designed to awe
the newcomer with the power of the central State. The Mughal garden of
Rashtrapati Bhavan was designed with more regard to India's climate and
design tradition, following a conversation with Constance Villiers-Stuart.

Tucked away are other clues to the worldview of the designers; Herbert
Baker's Parliament House is barely visible from Rajpath, as deliberative
democracy was not a central part of Britain's plans for India; in fact, the
main entrance to the Central Secretariat North Block declares "Liberty will
not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a
blessing which must be earned before it can be enjoyed"

Wilkipedia.

"

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:15:13

Quote:





>>>>> Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
>>>>> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
>>>>> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
>>>>> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
>>>>> invasion.
>>>> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
>>>> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
>>>> like to admit.
>>>    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
>>>    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
>>>    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
>>>    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
>>>    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
>>>    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
>>>    Congress' intentions.
>> Not Jinnah... Don guessed right though :)

>    Any proof that Gandhiji was a 'paedophile'? Or is this
>    another wild senseless allegation against MK Gandhi??

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=22136

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Vig » Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:17:27

Quote:


>> OT




>>>>> Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
>>>>> slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
>>>>> which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
>>>>> is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
>>>>> invasion.
>>>> Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
>>>> certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
>>>> like to admit.
>>>    I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
>>>    on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
>>>    Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
>>>    Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
>>>    religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
>>>    the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
>>>    Congress' intentions.
>> It might also have been that he was power-hungry, suffering from
>> tuberculosis from the mid-1940s onwards, and jealous of Nehru (who
>> didn't help matters by jilting Jinnah at every opportunity). Was Gandhi
>> a saint? No, probably not, and one might question how much
>> applicability principles like non-*** have when the enemy isn't
>> willing to budge, as Mandela did and does in his autobiography.

> Gandhi pretty well put the idea of non-*** resistance on the map.
> Talk of him being a paedophile (by Vig) seems ludicrous. Muhammad is a
> much better candidate. For generations in India, child marriages were
> common. To accuse Gandhi of paedophilia for merely having children warm
> his body? Bizarre.

Polygamy and sleeping with other women atleast was not. Gandhi was a man
of questionable morals. However, the freedom fighters chose him as their
poster boy...

http://SportToday.org/

Cheers!
--
Vig

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:55:15

Quote:


> > Please tell me what other motive could there be to go through all this
> > trouble and expense in renaming several large cities?

> Let me put this question the other way. Why did the British change the
> original names of these cities if not for their superiority complex???

> > New Delhi should be added to you list of examples, except it wasn't Moghul
> > rulers that built this particular city....

> That shows your lack of knowledge of Indian history. Delhi(pronounced
> Dilli in Hindi or Hindustani language) came into prominence as a city
> only during the Mughal rule. It was their headquarters when they united
> most of India under the name Hindustan. Originally, Delhi was a small
> dwelling place by the Hindu name of Indraprastha. New Delhi is an
> extension of Delhi that came into being after India got independence
> and built the national capital in that area.Nobody complained when
> Indraprtashtha became Delhi because it was majorly built by the Mughal
> ruler(i think Mohd-bin-Tughlaq).

> Don

The Mughals were a foreign imperial power. So you rather one form of
domination over another- big deal.
 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:07:23

.

Quote:

> Its not a joke to compare India against any country citing Paes - he
> has an outstanding davis cup record and is a champion in doubles.
> since Perry and until the advent of Henman, Indian tennis was more
> competetive than GB. We made the Davis Cup finals a few times and could
> have won it in 74 against RSA if not for the boycott.
> Also, I think the elder Krishnan had a record comparable to that of
> Henman.

How's your FAQ going?

Yes, India have had some good tennis players, although Britain has much
better players at the moment. Not just Henman, but Andrew Murray is far
better than Paes. Roger Taylor is also probably a better player than
Krishnan, and the Armitraj brothers are at least matched by John Lloyd,
Buster Mottram, etc. No doubt, amongst the male players since WWII,
there isn't a lot in it. When you factor in the women, with ***ia
Wade, Ann Jones, Angela Mortimer, Truman, Sue Barker and the like,
India isn't really in the ballpark.
Obviously you are comparing the mens' side of things primarily.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:17:49

Quote:

> The Mughals were a foreign imperial power.

And so were the scythians, the huns and before that 4000 years back the
Aryans
who founded the Hindu culture. Idiot, everybody has to come from
somewhere.

But the point is all so-called invaders of India integrated themselved
with the Indian peoples and their culture except the racist British.

Don

 So you rather one form of

Quote:
> domination over another- big deal.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by eusebiu » Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:41:56

Quote:


> > The Mughals were a foreign imperial power.

> And so were the scythians, the huns and before that 4000 years back the
> Aryans
> who founded the Hindu culture. Idiot, everybody has to come from
> somewhere.

> But the point is all so-called invaders of India integrated themselved
> with the Indian peoples and their culture except the racist British.

> Don

Maybe they weren't given enough time.
Quote:

>  So you rather one form of
> > domination over another- big deal.

 
 
 

offtopic: when will england stop crapping at the Soccer WC etc etc

Post by Don » Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:46:01

Quote:



> > > The Mughals were a foreign imperial power.

> > And so were the scythians, the huns and before that 4000 years back the
> > Aryans
> > who founded the Hindu culture. Idiot, everybody has to come from
> > somewhere.

> > But the point is all so-called invaders of India integrated themselved
> > with the Indian peoples and their culture except the racist British.

> > Don

> Maybe they weren't given enough time.

No because the main intention was to rule the rich country and loot all
its riches
and take it back to England. The entire British Raj was remotely
controled from England.

Don