No, I didnt know this. I kinda knew that he had backers and sympathtizers in the UK like he had in the US but thought not as many as in the US with backers like Ford.

didnt know he had a realtionship with a brit. there could even be a child of him living in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_Mitford

lol

my granddads had nothing to do with this, trust me.

thats a good one. Peter Sellers was a jew btw, as was Chaplin.

thanks. so they hated the jews in london and the UK? why did they dislike them?

More not giving a **** than hating

ok thanks.
Winston Churchill was outraged though and made a public announcement in a speech condemning the murder of the jews.

Initially Churchill main concern about Germany was they would take our God given rightful possession of India from us.

Most of the ruling class made churchill seem decent by comparison

WW2 allowed britain to redefine itself but it took a very very bad guy to make the british empire the hero in the story

The British empire wasn't bad for historical standards, it's only bad under a radical, a-historical, anti human standard of "everyone loves every human being" which runs contrary to every biological fiber of **** sapiens sapiens

I'm not advocating for any other empire as better although obviously I recall what the romans did for us. Certainly helped the good old british empire to go out on such a moral high - not sure any other empire managed that.

It was pretty bad even by historical standards. Facilitating the Transatlantic trade of ~12 million Africans and the invention of concentration camps in Southern Africa, for instance, were gross, as were some of its acts in India and East Africa.

On the other hand people point out that Belgium and Holland were also guilty of atrocities, France has a lot of Algerian blood on its hands, and that he full extent of the UK's barbarity is mainly a function of the scope of its Empire, which itself was merely a function of being an island with a huge navy, and that therefore it's daft to suppose that any other nation in the same circumstances would have behaved much better at that time (see the earlier Spanish Empire for examples).

So you can take whatever view you want.

The only saving grace I can find is that, having realised that the Empire game was well and truly up after rebellions in India and Kenya, the Brits attempted managed withdrawals in Africa rather than running off without their toys as France did which left newly-independent countries with grinding shortages of qualified professionals (teachers, medics etc). Adverts were placed in newspapers here for qualified people to spend some time in such colonies in the run up to independence to try to smooth the transition as much as possible, and many people here took up the opportunity in the 1950s to "give something back" for a few years and experience a very different world, including my own parents.

I’ve always found it slightly silly when people try to categorise the British Empire as good or bad in a binary way. It clearly did some good things, and also clearly did some bad things. I don’t know why some people struggle with that.

Some things that happened under British Empire were bad by any reasonable standard though.

Braverman wring about "ghettoised" Britain

Sellers' mother was Jewish, but I don't think Chaplin was Jewish at all. When asked, he said, 'I don't have that honour.' If anything he was part Romany.

List any which other empires in human history didn't do the same or worse (to be bad for a reasonable standard approx half empires should have not done that)

Belgium was "worst ever in history" or close to that at least for a specific dynamic (treatment of natives in a colony).

Arabs facilitated slave trade for longer and for more people (as a % of human beings living in the areas they were around at the time). Romans as well. Slavery isn't bad historically, the totality of empires had it in human history, can't blame the English for it in any way or form.

France was notoriously "one of the best ever" for colonial management, surpassed only by the Netherlands (wrt how they treated natives).

The Roman empire was possibly the best thing to ever happen in human history after we discovered agriculture, if that's your standard ofc the British empire looks bad.

Britain also abolished the Atlantic slave trade and fought an actual naval war against it. Portugal transported more enslaved Africans than any other country, and as to who 'facilitated' the trade, it was the West Africans who, as was their ancient custom, rounded the people up, shackled them, put them on the death march to the slave ports (with a 20% death rate, at least as high as on the ships of the infamous Middle Passage, if not higher) and sold them. Until the 20th century, ownership of slaves was an important status indicator for upper-class West Africans. And West Africans still practise slavery -- with children on cocoa plantations and adults sold as domestic servants to Arabia and sometimes Europe.

No, after the Government of India Act 1935 was passed, making the provinces of India self-governing and leaving only reserved powers of intervention and foreign and defence policy in the hands of the Raj in New Delhi, Churchill, who had loudly opposed the Act, accepted it (as a Parliamentarian) and accepted that it would mean complete Indian self-government in due time. The Act formed the framework of the interim constitutions of India and Pakistan when independence came in 1947. (Churchill didn't like the term 'independence', because the legislation made India and Pakistan Dominions, but Attlee's letter in reply pointed out that the Dominions were independent states, and that was that.) Churchill's main concern about the Germans was that they would overrun Europe and attack this country, as indeed they tried to do.

There was obviously no question of Germany taking India. But the Japanese did intend to, till their defeat in Burma by the British and Indian Fourteenth Army under Slim. I doubt that Indians would have cared for Japanese overlords any more than the Chinese and Koreans did. An Indian division (all-volunteer, the 2.5-million-man Indian Army of that time being reputedly the largest volunteer army in history, though the British Army of 1914-16 may have exceeded it with possibly 2.6 million volunteers before conscription) also fought well against the Germans in North Africa and Italy.

None of which justifies the UK's part in the slave trade of Africans to the Americas, so I don't understand the point you're making.

No, I don't suppose you do.

That was his 'A crime without a name' radio address in the summer of 1941, exposing the beginnings of the Holocaust like Babi Yar, which he made despite the risk of revealing that the British had broken the Enigma code. He claimed the information came from British liaison officers with the Red Army, even though there were no such liaison officers just then. Surprisingly the Germans swallowed it.

Well just for you it went like this:

Me: UK did some terrible things with the slave trade that's a lot worse than most other countries

You: Well that's ok because the UK abolished slavery at home, remember, and anyway we could never have exploited Africa so much without the help of other Africans which makes it ok so shrug who cares, and by the way look at Portugal and also by the way <<irrelevant military history>>

Good luck to anyone trying to work out what your actual point is if it's anything other than blather. At least you didn't go on another posting rant about what atrocious people NHS nurses are again, after one bad experience, or about how Sir Keir Starmer QC KFC BBQ will be a wonderful centrist Labour leader and by the way he lives a few doors away from me unimpressive name-dropping nonsense.

Here's the Kentish Town hero a few years ago. What a fine principled man.

** NEWSFLASH: Sunak meets target **