It's "British" not "English"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**micahaphone**

Nah, America is just awesome. Can't beat us.

Besides, we have the nukes, so we get to decide who can challenge our authority or our ego.

**Henners91**

We have nukes... that we've bought off of you.

Though I believe we designed our first ones all by ourselves!

**micahaphone**

Henners91 wrote:We have nukes... that we've bought off of you.

Though I believe we designed our first ones all by ourselves!

First nuclear devices were created in the Manhattan project, done by who?

Oh, that's right, America.

**ChrisWWII**

In collaboration with the Brits mind you! We can't take all the credit, but we can note that we have something like 5000 warheads, and the Brits have 200.

**Henners91**

200 is enough...

**Wolfstan**

Henners91 wrote:Err I'd heard the same thing Wolfstan (about the Celts being a Victorian myth) but you've got a bit of a fact wrong: "Popular" British history refers to those that were conquered by the Normans as the Anglo-Saxons, dervied from the German Angles and Saxons that conquered the Britons after the Romans left.

Sorry, was generalising so didn't bother with adding that. Of course the main line of history would of been; Stone age peoples, migration of the Bronze age peoples (or as they are refered to, Celts), then the Romans, then the Saxon's (who could be decended from Celts?), part settlement by the Vikings, then the Normans.

**Henners91**

Well they say that the Saxons are the most dominant genetic strain because they bred with the Celts and totally assimilated them.

**Albatross**

Henners91 wrote:Well they say that the Saxons are the most dominant genetic strain because they bred with the Celts and totally assimilated them.

'They' don't say that, or at least not in any of the source material I've read on the subject.

You should check this book out (I've just wiki'd it for brevity's sake):

wiki wrote:Blood of the Isles

In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:

* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon.

...The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.

It's a good read, if 'dry' in places.

**Ratius**

How could the Irishman get captured by the SS when the Irish didnt fight against them, and possibly assisted them?

Seriously. How the feth can you be "neutral" against THE NAZI MENACE?

Ive got no respect for this neutral BS, i prefer my enemies that picked the other side of the fence more than those wishy washy neutral fethers..

And dont even start me on the Spaniards!

You are trolling right?

**helgrenze**

Albatross wrote:
* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon.

So wait..... Brits are really Cro-mags? no wonder folks don't want to identify as "english decent".

**Albatross**

About what? Irish sympathy for the Nazis?

I suggest looking up the 'Blueshirt' movement - some of their membership were ardent fascists. On the flip-side of that coin, it's pretty widely-accepted that the IRA assisted the Nazis...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

helgrenze wrote:
Albatross wrote:
* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon.

So wait..... Brits are really Cro-mags? no wonder folks don't want to identify as "english decent".

You are aware that we're all, as humans, descended from Cro-Magnon man, yeah?

**ChrisWWII**

Technically we're all Cro-Magnons, as Cro-Magnons are classified Homo Sapiens Sapiens as opposed to their relatives Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.

**Albatross**

Aye, that may be, but were are physically pretty distinct from them, enough to say that we're 'descended' from them, IMO.

**Cheesecat**

ChrisWWII wrote:Technically we're all Cro-Magnons, as Cro-Magnons are classified Homo Sapiens Sapiens as opposed to their relatives Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.

Were anatomically identical to Cro-Magnon all they are is an earlier form of Homo Sapiens.

**Manchu**

Alby, what about all that William the Conqueror business? How can you all be Celts with no French blood? Must have just been a lot of Celts ruled by the French (and lately Germans).

**MeanGreenStompa**

Manchu wrote:Alby, what about all that William the Conqueror business? How can you all be Celts with no French blood? Must have just been a lot of Celts ruled by the French (and lately Germans).

Bear in mind how small conquering armies were in those days.

Basically a couple thousand lads showed up and beat up a couple thousand others, then the peasantry looked up from ploughing mud and working down mines to be told they would belong to a new lord of the land with a funny sounding name, were told to thank god and saint peter they had it so good and then went back to ploughing the mud and working down the mines.

The ruling elites would have changes many times, the actual citizenry far less.

**Kilkrazy**

helgrenze wrote:
Albatross wrote:
* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon.

So wait..... Brits are really Cro-mags? no wonder folks don't want to identify as "english decent".

You're kidding, right?

Cro-magnons were the supermen of prehistoric cavemen. Modern homo sapiens is a weak, degenerate version with less robust physique and smaller cranial capacity.

**ChrisWWII**

Albatross wrote:Aye, that may be, but were are physically pretty distinct from them, enough to say that we're 'descended' from them, IMO.

Technically we're anatomically identical to Cro-Magnon man, they are considered the first 'modern' human beings, if I recall my old anthropology reading.

**Albatross**

Cheesecat wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:Technically we're all Cro-Magnons, as Cro-Magnons are classified Homo Sapiens Sapiens as opposed to their relatives Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis.

Were anatomically identical to Cro-Magnon all they are is an earlier form of Homo Sapiens.

...so not the current form? So...different then?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Bear in mind how small conquering armies were in those days.

Basically a couple thousand lads showed up and beat up a couple thousand others, then the peasantry looked up from ploughing mud and working down mines to be told they would belong to a new lord of the land with a funny sounding name, were told to thank god and saint peter they had it so good and then went back to ploughing the mud and working down the mines.

The ruling elites would have changes many times, the actual citizenry far less.

Yeah, Manchu - pretty much this. In the book I cited, the guy talks about how the image of Viking 'rape-and-pillage' that so excites teenage boys (for example) is probably largely inaccurate, and that there is evidence that they brought their wives with them when they settled here, meaning that interbreeding was likely to be much lower than originally thought. It's the culture that is impacted in the most meaningful ways - the genetic make-up, less so.

**Ratius**

About what? Irish sympathy for the Nazis?

I suggest looking up the 'Blueshirt' movement - some of their membership were ardent fascists. On the flip-side of that coin, it's pretty widely-accepted that the IRA assisted the Nazis...

Neither of those facts are in dispute.

However they do not back up the implied and rather sweeping psuedo statement of

Irish sympathy for the Nazis?

A trite dip into recent history reveals much more then a few morons beating a drum (bluehirts not the IRA) who had Nazi sympathies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-royals-and-the-nazis-486584.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-15924727-touchy-subject-of-royal-links-with-nazi-germany.do

Shall we root out every pro nazi source from every country involved in WW2?

Keep the implied generalisations to a minimum please

**Albatross**

Ratius wrote:
About what? Irish sympathy for the Nazis?

I suggest looking up the 'Blueshirt' movement - some of their membership were ardent fascists. On the flip-side of that coin, it's pretty widely-accepted that the IRA assisted the Nazis...

Neither of those facts are in dispute.

So there was some Irish sympathy for the Nazi party then, yes?

However they do not back up the implied and rather sweeping psuedo statement of
Irish sympathy for the Nazis?

Feel free to draw whatever implications you like, but if I said 'during WWII, all Irish were Nazi sympathisers' you should have no difficulty in quoting that part of my post. The button's right there. Go nuts.

A trite dip into recent history reveals much more then a few morons beating a drum (bluehirts not the IRA)...

Oh, of course! We simply MUSN'T say anything negative about the IRA! Wow.

They actively aided German spies, you know...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-royals-and-the-nazis-486584.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-15924727-touchy-subject-of-royal-links-with-nazi-germany.do

Shall we root out every pro nazi source from every country involved in WW2?

Keep the implied generalisations to a minimum please

You're pretty touchy about this, aren't you?

**Ratius**

Not at all but one gets a feel for certain posters upon browsing a forum section for so long.
You'll forgive me if I decline to engage you further, I can see exactly where this is going.

**ph34r**

Guitardian wrote:seriously brits, it's United Statesians, not Americans.. you're going to make the people of Argentina cry.

**Henners91**

Didn't the Irish shelter U-Boats?

Manchu wrote:Alby, what about all that William the Conqueror business? How can you all be Celts with no French blood? Must have just been a lot of Celts ruled by the French (and lately Germans).

If you come over as a conquering class to establish a new upper strata to rule society, you do not breed with the Natives.

**Ketara**

Henners91 wrote:Didn't the Irish shelter U-Boats?

Urban myth. There's a few eyewitness accounts, but very little evidence to ever show this to eb true.

**Albatross**

Ratius wrote:Not at all but one gets a feel for certain posters upon browsing a forum section for so long.

What? You feel I'm anti-Irish? That's hilarious.

You'll forgive me if I decline to engage you further, I can see exactly where this is going.

I don't really recall asking for your opinion on anything in the first place, so fine.

**Bromsy**

Snap

**chromedog**

What's the difference between British and Scottish or Welsh?

When they win, they are British.
When they lose, they are (Scots, Welsh).

**Albatross**

Truth!

**loki old fart**

Henners91 wrote:That wouldn't go down very well either...

A lot of people seem to think that Great Britain is a continent altogether seperate.

The same phools that vote UKIP.

No worse than a fool who can't spell fools

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:I dunno. Welshmen are as gaelic as the Scots or Irish.

And anyone calling me European can feck right off.

Surely you mean celts not gaelic