Why The British Bulldog Spirit Is in the Genes
|AR Articles on Science and Genetics|
|More news stories on Science and Genetics|
When Sir Winston Churchill declared we shall fight them on the beaches, there is no doubt he was speaking from the heart.
It would, however, seem he may also have had some help from his DNA.
Scientists believe they have discovered the gene which explains stubborn and bullheaded behaviour.
An estimated one-third of us has the gene mutation which researchers say is nature’s way of ensuring there are always some who ‘shall never surrender’.
The team at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Germany say such historical greats as Lord Nelson, Sir Winston and suffragette leader Emily Pankhurst probably had it.
“Where would we be without those few individuals who refuse to accept defeat and who continue to soldier onwards when common sense tells the rest of mankind that there’s no use trying?” said Dr Tilmann Klein, one of the authors of the study.
About 30 per cent of the population has the A1 gene mutation, which researchers say, leaves individuals less able to make use of the brain chemical dopamine, which plays a key role in learning.
People with the flawed gene have fewer D2 receptors — cells which help the brain use dopamine — and so find it hard to learn from their mistakes.
This means that rather than accept failure, they will keep trying.
People without the mutant gene will ‘learn’ from their mistakes and stop trying.
The researchers studied a group of 26 men, 12 of whom had the A1 gene mutation for low numbers of D2 receptors.
As part of the study the subjects were shown sets of two symbols on a computer screen, and were asked to select one.
The choice was followed by either a smiling face or a frown flashing on the screen.
The researchers then tested to check whether the men had learned to choose the symbol that was the most positively reinforced and avoid the one that was the most negatively reinforced.
According to the results of the study, published in the journal Science, they found men with fewer D2 receptors had trouble avoiding their mistakes.
Brain imaging then was used to confirm that the region called the “rostral cingulate zone” was involved in learning from mistakes.
This particular region was found to be more active in the volunteers with normal D2 levels during the learning sessions, compared to those with the mutation.
“The fact that nearly 30 percent of the population has this A1 mutation, we can only surmise that A1 must offer some genetic advantages,” said Dr Klein.
(Posted on January 4, 2008)
If there is one ancestral trait which can save the British*, it is the bulldog in their blood. We must realize at the same time that the bulldog has to have an appropriate leg to sink his fangs into. At the bidding of Atlee and his successors, he has been directed to attack his own hind leg. Whether this can be undone is beyond me to say.
*by saying ‘the British’ I am not referring to people who are merely occupying Albion. It takes more than a geographical accident to make a Brit.
Posted by at 8:58 PM on January 4
What a ridiculous article. Why are they trying to equate strong will with a learning disability? I guess, it isn’t difficult to understand why a group of effeminate psychologists who are notoriously weak-willed and foppish would tend to believe that a strong-willed man is an abnormality.
It’s clear they got the whole thing wrong. Not giving-up doesn’t equate to “not learning.” Most strong-willed people have much higher IQ’s than weak-willed. Strong-willed people learn from their mistakes. They go “back to the drawing board” and create a new plan and then attack again.
This is just more psycho-babble trying trying to convince people that a trait generally considered to be masculine, toughness, is undesirable. Classic feminist/queerist non-sense.
Posted by Russ at 9:32 PM on January 4
Is that so ?
Tell me more about the 26 men .
I don’t like what I read here .
Show me the sample and the methodology behind it else it is more nonsense from the world of those in science who don’t understand things statistical .
Posted by Len at 10:19 PM on January 4
Isn’t it interesting that such a specific claim can be made about the British people because there are genes that act as proof?
Would it not be interesting to find the genes that shed light on the plight of African nations? Oh wait, that’s ‘racism.’ But it’s okay to note the stubbornness of British whites. That’s the racial confidence of whites for you.
Posted by John R. Kennedy at 10:43 PM on January 4
The Brits fought the second world war for nothing, for their descendants to give the place over to foreigners.
Sad but true.
Posted by at 11:19 PM on January 4
This makes Britain’s recent race-replacement scheme — i.e., replacement of its indigenous White population with millions of South Asians, Africans, Arabs, Filipinos and Vietnamese — even more tragic. Britain’s genetic makeup is the product of millennia of careful shaping of the island’s heritage. Following the great Anglo-Saxon migrations of the 5th century A.D. from northern Germany, the UK’s genetic integrity has remained relatively intact — until now, with both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK collaborating to wipe out any remaining trace of Britain’s genetic distinctiveness.
I traveled to the UK this past summer on a project, and I left in a state of dejection at the unstoppable slow-motion destruction of this once-White nation. In urban centers like Manchester, Bradford and Birmingham, you’re more likely to encounter an Indian, Zimbabwean, Bangladeshi, Arab or Filipino neighborhood than one populated by White Britons. Even more depressingly, it’s not just in the cities — even those once-charming little English townships are becoming transplanted versions of the Indian Subcontinent rather than British towns. Close to half a million more such Africans and South Asians flood in every year to Britain, while almost 2/3 that number of White Britons leave for good. That’s over 1,500 years of carefully crafted White English heritage, now being undone in little more than two decades by British political correctness.
Posted by Earl of Wight at 11:50 PM on January 4
Churchill loved war. While Churchill adamantly opposed a cease fire with Germany and bull doggingly refused to end the war, thousands of British were being maimed and killed needlessly. I don’t know if AmRen readers know this but, Stalin beat Hitler. A less of a bull dog, but more a statesman would have save the Empire and let the two dictators bleed each other dry.
Posted by P noctura at 12:22 AM on January 5
I think they’re trying to say, anyone who doesn’t knuckly under to current trends, i.e., the multi-cult and the constant wisdom of this newspaper, is a less intelligent person, and an unwitting victim of their own genes. They’ve certainly gone down the road of calling naysayers mentally ill, before. Then again maybe it’s a harmless article enlightening us on the behavior of stubborn, bullheaded and slow learning men.
Posted by at 12:24 AM on January 5
Didn’t these charismatic, strong-willed, natural-leader types used to be called “alphas”? Weren’t they the ones to which we turn to get things done and without them we basically drift? The people they named, e.g. Lord Nelson, Winston Churchill and Emily Pankhurst, they all seem to fit that description.
Posted by idareya at 2:08 AM on January 5
Contrary to popular opinion, Winston Churchill did very great damage to the U.K. He never made the great radio speech attributed to him. It was a 37-year old actor impersonating him.
1) Churchill was all for war with Germany in 1914 and 1939. Of course, he had no intention of doing any of the ACTUAL fighting himself personally. These two wars cost Britain her empire, economy and position in the world. He bears a good deal of responsibility for this.
2) He was the driving force behind the Dardanelles fiasco in 1915-16.
3) He was largely responsible for the Norwegian disaster in 1940.
4) He refused all aid, contact and support to the various anti-Nazi German groups. This included many senior German generals.
5) A committed Douhet, he openly advocated the ‘carpet’ or ‘area’ bombing of German cities to kill as many German civilians as possible.
6) Under Churchill Britain bombed German cities first. This is a historic fact.
7) He did every dirty trick he could to try and drag the U.S. into the war to win it for Britain. Hundreds of secret agents were shipped to the U.S. and a massive disinformation campaign was begun.
8) He impulsively threw his nation into Stalin’s arms in June 1941 when he should have waited and built up British strength while the Nazi & Bolshevik regimes wore each other out and only offered limited support to the USSR and attached political strings to this aid like the restoration of Poland’s eastern 1939 border.
9) Convinced he was a military genius he interfered in many military operations. He ordered the Prince of Wales & Repulse to Singapore with no air support dooming the two ships for no return. He was responsible for the fiasco in Greece when he decided to intervene there. This prevented a British conquest of Italian north Africa by almost three years.
10) He supported Tito and his communists in Yugoslavia over the Chetniks and King Peter.
11) On his watch eastern Europe fell to communism.
12) In 1944-45 he wanted to drop poison gas on German cities. Only the direct intervention of FDR prevented this.
After the war, when he was no longer in power, the official British history of the war was written. When he was returned to power it was destroyed and new copies were written. That says a great deal about his war leadership. Essentially he was all style and very little substance. The Churchill mythology is very powerful. It is also very untrue.
Posted by at 2:37 AM on January 5
This is PC along with saying jews have a high IQ but if you point out the average IQ of blacks you will be charged with inciting racial and ethnic hatred.
Posted by Amsterdamsky at 4:29 AM on January 5
I’m finding it very difficult to reconcile Sir Winston Churchill’s writing with this learning difficulty.
I suppose in 2008 many people will find it hard to believe that a Brit could have total confidence in his own culture.
Posted by Iain at 7:21 AM on January 5
Perhaps they have it backwards. This gene imparts the ability toview the fat that an alternative method may work instead of dismally giving up at the first failure. I suppose every scientist and inventor that ever lived had the “learning disability”
Posted by at 8:08 AM on January 5
This study may well be making a mountain of a molehill, but if you know a super stubborn person you know what it is the study claims to explain.
And the matter is not tied to IQ. I have a relative whose IQ is 124. Now that is not genius, but is well above average, easily high enough for him to have been able to earn an MD, JD or PhD if he so desired, before the lowered requirements to ease black ‘successes.’ He is the most stubborn man I have ever encountered and he refuses to learn from his mistakes. Once something gets latched onto his brain, he bites in and holds on just like a pit bull, no matter how much failure it causes.
That trait is a good one if such people are programmed by culture, family and religion to preserve the right things, but when those super stubborn people have been programmed by their governments, business leaders and ‘Christian’ leaders to embrace various forms of culturally and racially suicidal liberalism, then their stubbirness will bite down and refuse to let up, right until the moment of death.
This study may help some understand why so many Liberals of ‘British’ extraction are so viciously self-righteous while ignoring all facts, logic and common sense that show them to be diametrically wrong.
Churchill is a great way to understand it: his stubbornness latched onto destroying Germany, which was his focus more than destroying Hitler - Winnie had it back before WW1 - and he would hold that bite even to going to bed with Joe Stalin, which meant going to bed with Marxism and a monster whose death count made Hitler’s seem amateurish. Once Churchill had the idea, he was going to do it, no matter the cost short term or long term, no matter the cost in lives, money or loss of historic culture and identity.
Posted by at 9:43 AM on January 5
“Would it not be interesting to find the genes that shed light on the plight of African nations?”
My dear JRKennedy, these researchers would say that the Africans have the more intelligent “give up” genes, rather than the British Bulldogs’ “slow-learner” genes.
Once you understand the coded language, the nuances, and the anti-white bias, it’s a fun game! ;)
Posted by at 1:28 PM on January 5
How can someone equate being strong willed to being a slow and difficult learner?
Sir Winston Churchill, who was referenced as a famous person with the said gene, was in fact a very bright and intelligent man: He, despite having a speech impediment, or stutter, became one of the world’s most skilled and renowed orators; he, despite being relatively young for politics, won a seat in the Houses of Parliament at age 27; he was a prolific writer and historian, having written over 25 stories, biographies and histories. (The aforesaid things are only a few examples of the many great things Sir Winston Churchill accomplished.)
It’s ironic how the article portrays people with the said gene as stubborn and unintelligent, because Sir Wintson Churchill, who was mentioned as having the said gene, was very intelligent and successful. Perhaps the notion of aprox. 1/3rd of Britons having a gene that makes them stubborn and unintelligent is completely false.
Posted by Roy at 2:34 PM on January 5
In Response to 2:37 AM on January 5:
*1) Churchill was all for war with Germany in 1914 and 1939. Of course, he had no intention of doing any of the ACTUAL fighting himself personally.*
You’re blaming Churchill for failing to pick up a gun and join the troops on the frontline?!? (And this is your first criticism?) Please, you’ve got to be joking if you’re upset that an elderly Prime Minister thought his services were best used by actually leading a country, rathing that getting himself killed on the battlefield and abdicating his role as the country’s leader.
*5) A committed Douhet, he openly advocated the ‘carpet’ or ‘area’ bombing of German cities to kill as many German civilians as possible.*
First, how did this damage the UK (see your beginning comment that he damaged the UK)? Second, by this standard, I take it you believe that the U.S. is just as “guilty” (Hiroshima & Nagasaki)??
*7) He did every dirty trick he could to try and drag the U.S. into the war to win it for Britain. Hundreds of secret agents were shipped to the U.S. and a massive disinformation campaign was begun.*
Evidence please. What “massive disinformation campaign” are you talking about?
*11) On his watch eastern Europe fell to communism.*
You criticize him for “intervening” in Greece, but then you criticize him here for not intervening in Eastern Europe. Besides the hypocrisy of your criticism, I didn’t realize it was his responsibility to ensure foreign lands not succumb to communism (and all the while the U.K. was fighting the greatest war it had ever faced).
*12) In 1944-45 he wanted to drop poison gas on German cities. Only the direct intervention of FDR prevented this.*
Do you feel the same way about Americans’ use of atomic weapons on Japan?
*After the war, when he was no longer in power, the official British history of the war was written. When he was returned to power it was destroyed and new copies were written.*
Posted by Kevin at 5:10 PM on January 5
“Churchill loved war…I don’t know if AmRen readers know this”
Posted by P noctura at 12:22 AM on January 5
Amren readers are pretty erudite and I can tell you that one comment doesn’t make an argument. I presume you’ve read Churchill’s account of WWII, for which he won the Nobel prize for literature (it’s a bit long for soundbite people). For a more intimate perspective, read John Colville’s war-time diary (he was Churchill’s private secretary)
This ‘Churchill was a warmonger’ line liberals like to spout is very tired now. Churchill was a soldier, he fought on horseback with a sword against Muslim fanatics. There was nothing any British soldier did that he wouldn’t have done himself. Liberals conveniently forget that Churchill not only didn’t start the war, he wasn’t even PM when war broke out.
“Contrary to popular opinion,…”
Posted by at 2:37 AM on January 5
You need to read books not websites. Churchill left politics to command a regiment in France during WWI. The Nazis bombed English cities first (and Spanish cities first of all). The military disasters you mention are normal in war. The US was running the war in the end and it was Roosevelt who let Eastern Europe go. I won’t bother disputing any more of your ‘facts’, it’s getting boring…
Posted by Eugene at 9:15 PM on January 5
5) “A committed Douhet, he openly advocated the ‘carpet’ or ‘area’ bombing of German cities to kill as many German civilians as possible.
First, how did this damage the UK (see your beginning comment that he damaged the UK)? Second, by this standard, I take it you believe that the U.S. is just as “guilty” (Hiroshima & Nagasaki)??”
It damaged the Uk because this led to German retaliation and more British deaths. Plus do not forget his role in the unlawfull surender of anti-communist Russians and Cossacks to Stalin. Read Nikolai Tolstoy’s work.
Posted by Maderchod at 10:44 PM on January 5
“these researchers would say that the Africans have the more intelligent “give up” genes, rather than the British Bulldogs’ “slow-learner” genes.”
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
How can they claim that these genes for stubbornness and tenacity are distinctively British when they also state that only 30% of the population have that characteristic?
Also, anyone who has ever dealt with a stubborn Irishman would find out what the word bulldog means. Having both elements in my family, I can say that the English are far more adaptable and the Irish far more stubborn. Not for nothing did the Irish resist occupation for a thousand years, often against impossible odds, and still refuse to give up! Churchill only fought the Germans for six.
Posted by at 2:39 AM on January 6
[Churchill] he was a prolific writer and historian, having written over 25 stories, biographies and histories. (The aforesaid things are only a few examples of the many great things Sir Winston Churchill accomplished.)
posted by Roy
— — — — — -
In your ecstasies of praise for Churchill, you failed to mention that he also brought about the demise of the British Empire, lost all the advantages that the war was supposed to gain, ruled Britain as a dictator, left his country in ruin, cost the British half a million lives (not counting casualties for the Commonwealth), left Eastern Europe under communism, and set the stage for the ultimate death of Britain itself.
Posted by at 3:04 AM on January 6
I have never really been a fan of Churchill’s but he was the man for the moment and to that we should all be grateful.
Posted by JasonC at 3:50 AM on January 6
2:37 AM: After his Dardenelles invasion failed, Churchill resigned his position as First Lord of the Admiralty (equivalent to Secretary of the Navy) and took command of an infantry battalion on the Western Front, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. I’ll go along with much of what you say, but he was not afraid to fight personally.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 4:38 AM on January 6
Kevin at 5:10 PM: Regarding your response to paragraph 7: The “massive disinformation campaign” was aimed at American isolationists, patriots who did not want to waste American lives to serve foreign interests. When we entered the war, the British agents remained in place to influence American policy in Britain’s favor. Read up on the “America First Committee”. I suggest “Desperate Deception”, by Thomas E. Mahl, and “In Danger Undaunted: The Anti-Interventionist Movement of 1940-41, as Revealed in the Papers of the America First Committee”, edited by Justus D. Doenecke. A subscription to “Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture” would be enlightening as well.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 5:03 AM on January 6
“6) Under Churchill Britain bombed German cities first. This is a historic fact.”
If you mean Wilhelmshaven and Cuxhaven, these were vital ports and therefore legitimate targets in war, as were Portsmouth and Liverpool.
I suppose you’re going to tell me that the V1s and V2s were designed to deliver medical supplies?
Posted by Iain at 7:23 AM on January 6
— “Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” Noel Ignatiev, Harvard professor.
Keep it up, ladies and gents, you’re doing a good job.
Posted by at 1:45 PM on January 6
“I have never really been a fan of Churchill’s but he was the man for the moment and to that we should all be grateful. “
Posted by JasonC
Grateful for WHAT? Please tell.
Posted by voter at 2:20 PM on January 6
“In your ecstasies of praise for Churchill, you failed to mention that he also brought about the demise of the British Empire, lost all the advantages that the war was supposed to gain”….
Churchill won the war. But he lost the peace
Posted by at 2:24 PM on January 6
Well I don’t know about the validity of this study but I would not write off Britain quite yet. The Marxist/liberal multicultural campaign has done great damage but an estimated 85% of the British population is still ethnically British (either English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish). The approx. 15% of foreign origin include many whites from Eastern Europe.
From what I know of the USA, which I must admit I have not visited, I am more worried about the future of that country than of Britain. Here in Britain we have a modest but established and growing party (the British National Party) that openly struggles for the survival of the British nation and culture. It is a party that everyone has heard of (even if only from the usual Marxist hysteria and lies about being Neo-Nazis etc) and has had modest but growing local election success. In the USA there seem to be many individuals and anti-immigration groups who have the same goal but as far as I’m aware there is no national party to bring them together yet.
Have a look at the British National Party’s website, it has much interesting news and information on its activities: www.bnp.org.uk
Posted by Ed at 7:02 PM on January 6
“2:37AM: After his Dardenelles invasion failed, Churchill… took command of an infantry battalion on the Western Front, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
I’ll go along with much of what you say, but he was not afraid to fight personally. “
Posted by Schoolteacher
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
2:37 did not say/claim that he was “afraid to fight personally”, but rather that he, like all elderly politicians/old men who are warmongers, had no intention of fighting WW2 himself.
The indisputable bottom line remains that WWII cost Britain and the the Commonwealth over half hmillion war dead, with no benefit, while Churchill and his family came through it unscathed.
Churchill was a great self-promoter, as was his social-climbing American mother and her rich New York family, the Jeromes. As 2:37 said, the Churchill myth is all about style and no substance.
Posted by 1492 at 9:56 PM on January 6
The mainstream media is more obsessed with ‘genetics’ than AmRen. Of course they cover completely different issues, ones related to mental illness, diseases like alcoholism and drug use, increasingly sex-differences, social pathology and now these stubborn people.
It’s up to the reader to decide who the hateful bigots are.
Posted by at 9:56 AM on January 7
“Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones too…. until the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.” Noel Ignatiev, Harvard professor.
Keep it up, ladies and gents, you’re doing a good job.
Posted by at 1:45 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I’m not sure what “bashing” you’re trying to imply, but I am sure that Churchill in dividing and bleeding the white race as he did and warring with fellow whites throughout his life from the disgusting Boer War onward, did far more to “destroy” the race than Professor Ignatiev could ever dream of. Neither is any friend of ours. But how many war deaths does Ignatief have on his record? Calling attention to those who have damaged us is not bashing. But ignoring them (or showering praise) is abetment.
It seems that some Englishmen still feel duty-bound to support him. I am of English blood, by the way, not German, but I am white first.
Posted by at 12:51 PM on January 7
“It’s clear they got the whole thing wrong. Not giving-up doesn’t equate to “not learning.” Most strong-willed people have much higher IQ’s than weak-willed. Strong-willed people learn from their mistakes. They go “back to the drawing board” and create a new plan and then attack again.”
Posted by Russ at 9:32 PM on January 4
It is a thin line however, between intelligent determination and stubborn dogmatism that prevents learning. But once one gives in to dogmatic assertion as a habit, intelligent learning is inhibited. I have known a lot of very intelligent people who got their intellect parked at a certain point and have not learned anything new for years, they just enlarge the scope of their dogmatic views. I find this on every level, everyplace. Politically, both liberals and conservatives suffer from it as well as many professionals and lettered individuals.
Posted by Whiteplight at 3:31 PM on January 7
RE the responsibilty for the slaughter of civilians in WW2: the entire book Advance to Barbarism, written by Englishman F.J.P Veale, is online and explains where the responsibility lies in exhaustive detail.
Here he is discussing another book written by anoter Englishman- a senior Air Ministry official during the war:
Bombing Vindicated” is a remarkable book: in fact, an amazing book having regard to the date when it was written.[******************] Mr. Spaight is not content merely to admit that upon Britain rests the responsibility for starting the practice of bombing civilian populations, but insists that to Britain must be awarded the entire credit for conceiving and carrying into effect this practice. He derides (p. 149) the suggestion rather half-heartedly put forward at the time by the Ministry of Information that “the whole majestic process had been set in operation” because an unidentified plane had dropped some bombs on a wood near Canterbury. Nor will he admit the splendid decision of May 11, 1940, “was unpremeditated”. On the contrary, he insists hotly (p. 38), that this decision can be traced “to a brainwave which came to British experts in 1936,” when the Bomber Command was organized — “The whole raison d’être of Bomber Command,” he tells us (p. 60), “was to bomb Germany should she be our enemy”. Further, he says it was obvious that Hitler realized that this was Britain’s intention in the event of war, and that he was, in consequence, genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement “confining the action of aircraft to the battle zones”. Finally, he agrees that Hitler only undertook the bombing of the British civilian population reluctantly three months after the R.A.F. had commenced bombing the German civilian population, and expresses the opinion (p. 47) that after it had started Hitler would have been willing at any time to have stopped the slaughter — “Hitler assuredly did not want the mutual bombing to go on.” The reader will find the facts of the case set out with frank jubilation by Mr. Spaight in the above-mentioned book, and with the objective detachment of a veteran historian.
Posted by icr at 3:47 PM on January 8
Whether this study holds up or not there seems to be nothing in it that compares different ethnic or racial groups.
Posted by icr at 5:47 PM on January 8
The praise for Churchill is the result of the same brainwashing that steers white guilt and controls multiculturalism. Churchill was a tool who led his nation into war per his ‘masters’ orders, the people who saved him from bankruptcy. It’s as simple as that. It’s also true that the Irish and the Scots are far more stubborn and tough than the English.
Posted by Read real history at 10:56 PM on January 8
“It is a thin line however, between intelligent determination and stubborn dogmatism that prevents learning….. Posted by Whiteplight at 3:31 PM on January 7 “
I disagree that it is a fine line. I believe it is a chasm wider than the Grand Canyon. Whites were, and are, the most brilliant innovators of technological advancement in history, bar none — ( especially starting from the Renaissance era). But sadly they are also the most infuriatingly stubborn and intransigent people when it comes to their enthusiasm for their own destruction and displacement. This perplexing paradox is worthy of a Zen koan.
Posted by at 3:01 AM on January 9
“I suppose you’re going to tell me that the V1s and V2s were designed to deliver medical supplies?”
Posted by Iain
No Iain, but were the intensive bombing attacks of the RAF against German cities meant to deliver medical supplies either? You know they weren’t. Their targets and casualties were overwhelmingly civilians. And intentionally so. The intertion was to “make them bleed and suffer”, as I believe were Churchill’s words. Many people speak of Hamburg and Dresden, as if these two examples alone were unique. But there were many, many others like them. Most large or mid-size German cities were virtually leveled, and their population decimated, to an extent that never happened to any of the western allies.
Consider the bombing of Kassel as one example.
During the night of October 22/23, 1943, 569 British bombers razed Kassel, destroying 90% of the city centre in a firestorm comparable to the one in Hamburg . By far most of the casualties were civilians or wounded soldiers recuperating in local hospitals. The attack included one of the most accurate target markings since the Hamburg firestorm raid. On the night of the Kassel firestorm raid RAF Bomber Command introduced Operation Corona to confuse the German nightfighters, making the raid a complete success — so devastating that the regional Gauleiter, Karl Weinrich, was removed from his post soon after.
The first heavy raid was on the night of 27/28 August 1942 by 306 aircraft of RAF Bomber Command. There was widespread damage, particularly in the south-western parts of the city. 144 buildings were destroyed and 317 seriously damaged. Second raid: Kassel became the target for another major air raid on the night of 2/3 October 1943.
The third raid: Bomber Command returned on the night of 22/23 October, 1943 with a force of 569 bombers, the pathfinders clearly marked the target area (Martinsplatz in central Kassel) so well that within five minutes the whole ancient town was illuminated. Within the next 80 minutes the waves of bombers dropped at least 1,800 tons of high explosives and incendiaries. The high explosive bombs demolished or extensively damaged buildings, but the incendiaries did the worst damage. Ton for ton, they had been found to be four to five times as destructive as high explosive.
The bombing was so intense that incendiary bombs fell with a density of up to two per square meter. The medieval heart of Kassel consisted almost completely of wooden houses. Each building in the city center was hit by at least two liquid white phosphorus incendiary bombs and several of the 460,000 magnesium fire-sticks rained on the city. After 15 minutes of attack the whole inner city was ablaze in a firestorm like the one at Hamburg, creating temperatures of 1500°C and above. It was consuming nearly all oxygen and sucking fresh air into the fire. People desperately trying to escape the fire zone were caught by the 100 mph wind, stripped of their clothes, and sucked back into the fire. Kassel, which had a pre-raid population of 236,000 (1939), burned for seven days. It is believed that at least 10,000 people died and 150,000 inhabitants were bombed-out that night, and the city center was 95% destroyed. It took weeks to collect all the corpses from the streets and out of the ruined cellars.
Many more raids were flown on Kassel before the end of the war, but none anywhere as devastating as the raid of October 22, 1943. When the Americans captured the city in March 1945, only 50,000 people were still residing there. After the War, Kassel was one of the last major cities in West Germany to be rebuilt. It has never regained either its pre-war population or its importance.
One poster attempted to compare the American atom bombing of Nagasaki. But from the ferocity of the bombing of Kassel, it’s obvious the only reason Churchill didn’t use the atom bomb on Germany was because he didn’t have one.
But let me be clear: I’m not blaming the British for being vicious, I’m blaming Churchill. Looking at the war in hindsight and seeing the present ugly fruits of what Churchill wrought, I view him as a misguided, malicious, old dipsomaniac who loved war, as old warmongers do, so long as he could get someone else to fight it for him.
Posted by ghw at 5:29 AM on January 9
Much the same was true in WW1. The Kaiser refused to allow Zeppellin bombing of England because the high command could not guarantee that civilians wouldn’t be killed. What in Pentagon-speak is called “collateral damage”. Needless to say the British and French air forces had no such moral qualms and bombed many targets killing civilians. Still, the Kaiser held out for a long time against great pressure from the German high command. It was only after one bombing raid of a town far from the front and of no military significance where many German school-children were killed that he finally relented and allowed bombing of England to begin.
Posted by at 8:09 AM on January 9
“The praise for Churchill is the result of the same brainwashing that steers white guilt. Churchill was a tool who led his nation into war…..”
Posted by Read real history
Isn’t it pathetic! What’s particularly disheartening about it is that even people here at Amren — supposedly more aware and enlightened than the run-of-the-mill cattle out there in the herd — are still laboring under this early propaganda that they were fed, and while lamenting their present condition, they will vigourously defend the very person who led them into this mess.
They are complaining about the mud but defending the puddle!
Posted by ghw at 2:41 PM on January 9
May I suggest to you two books. ‘The conduct of War’ & ‘Brute Force’. These books may change what you THINK you KNOW about WW2. They are two of the best books I have ever read in my life. And believe me I READ.
Posted by at 6:24 PM on January 9
“It seems that some Englishmen still feel duty-bound to support him. I am of English blood .. but I am white first.”
Posted by at 12:51 PM
It baffles me … How can any British person, viewing “the ugly fruits” of what Churchill has brought them, continue to defend him?
Posted by at 9:13 PM on January 9
Speaking of the bulldog spirit and the reference to the disastrous arrival of the Empire Windrush, a ship bringing the first West Indian immigrants to Britain in 1948, reminds me of an article in Larry Auster’s column VFR https://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/008497.html
Posted by Victor at 4:19 PM on August 7
Although it was the Labour Party that in 1948 first opened the doors for non-White immigration into Britain, with only 40,000 coloured immigrants in 1954 Churchill didn’t want to be accused of being a nasty Tory by barring them. Therefore, he declined to take any action.
This discussion about Churchill has been had here before. In going back and re-reading some former threads, I was impressed at the quality and depth of the comments. Some others might enjoy re-reading them too.
And, for balance, here is a pro-Churchill article that was run in Amren (and a good one). /ar/2007/01/
“One of Mr. Churchill’s private
secretaries remembered that “at that time
it seemed a very good idea to get
[coloured] bus conductors and stuff.” A
junior minister complained that “it was
becoming hard to find somebody to carry
your bags at the station.” As one minis-
ter put it later, “we were just stalling and
hoping for the best.” After Churchill re-
signed, the internationalist Anthony
Eden took over, and any hope of serious
immigration control was lost.”
However despite whatever claims apologists could make that Churchill did possess some racial awareness and (supposedly) disapproved of colored immigration, the stark fact remains that when given the chance to curb non-white immigration into Britain, he failed to do so. The present rot set in on his watch and he did nothing. He also opposed the very elements that would have done something (Oswald Mosley et al).
Posted by ghw at 10:56 PM on January 10
You make some valid points. I personally have never really bought the line that Britain “had” to import overseas foreigners after WW2 because of supposed “labour shortages”. Britain’s losses in WW1 were TWICE as high as they were in WW2. Apparently nobody felt that Britain needed a flood of blacks and Asians in the 1920’s & 30’s. Also when in 1948 the commonwealth immigration act was passed Enoch Powell immediately expressed concern to the minister’s in Attlee’s government. He was repeatedly assurred that the act was essentially meaningless because “very, very, very few colored people will ever come to Britain”. My own read on this was that Britain was in the process of changing the empire into a commonwealth, a sort of kinder gentler empire and wanted to pay lip-service to the idea of the empire as a kind of voluntary club rather than an imperial instrument. It was intended for cosmetic purposes. I am not sure they fully realized what they were starting. It would have been much better for the U.K. if its’ elites had after WW2 just accepted the international decline of their country and had written off the empire altogether rather then create a commonwealth. Instead of trying to maintain a connection to Jamaica and India they should have just given those countries their independence and avoided an ‘imperial backwash’. But the British elites had fallen too deep into their role of themselves as global citizens and couldn’t accept the new changed geopolitical realities. (Like the U.S. govt today).
Recent documents released by the govt show that Churchill was fully aware of the harm immigration was doing to Britain but he balked at doing anything about it for fear of being called a “racist”. He didn’t let the charge of “warmonger” stop him from acting against Hitler. He was willing to “save” Britain from a non-existent threat from Germany but UNWILLING to really SAVE Britain from the very real danger of foreign immivasion.
Posted by at 5:50 PM on January 11
Winston Churchill regularly tops the ‘Greatest Briton of all time’ polls, voted for by the historically-ignorant British public. Admiring WAS an Englishman, I have to say that over the last few years I have read more about what happened in the war, and its real causes. I have come to despise the man, and the legacy he has left behind.
Posted by at 6:05 PM on January 15
There is probably no person in history who is so misrepresented as Winston Churchill. What people BELIEVE about him and what the TRUTH is, is as different as night and day.
Posted by at 7:17 AM on January 17