Most important event in British History

29 Jul 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Birth of Thomas Paine
Birth of the Trades Unions
Publication of the Communist manifesto
And apparently the 1966 victory in the world cup....or at least the papers seem to think so
But the single most significant moment in human history happened in Birmingham on Mothers day in 1964 at about noon

Yes, the wonderful Thomas Paine. I got into trouble years ago with a boss at an annual dinner. After a toast to the Queen was drunk I immediately proposed a toast to Thomas Paine. Was promptly called to the office next morning.
Another political figure (in the early 20th century) who played a part in the welfare of the working class in Britian was the Italian anarchist Enrico Malatesta. What set him apart from many other anarchists was his emphasis on the role of love in society.

29 Jul 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
But the single most significant moment in human history happened in Birmingham on Mothers day in 1964 at about noon

The fifth number one for the Beatles?

30 Jul 2010

sorry but the most important thing in history british or otherwise is this

take 1 min at work to see how you would cope without it most would not have jobs .and one minute at home
after a 3 day powercut a couple years back you soon learn how much you rely on it wink

30 Jul 2010

Have a look at the "What if" books, you'll see that history turns on very small details. These books go from Greek / Roman times to the present day and show that what appears to be tiny decisions at the time have massive effects on world history.
John

30 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
The most important thing in British history was Churchill defeating the Nazis. We would all be leading completely different lives now had we of lost the war.

That could be said of almost any war we have fought in history. Surely defeating Napoleon the First during the early nineteenth century also stopped the same thing?
Back to the OP, well it's so hard to define a single point or time in history, as many historical changes to our society of today have occurred over weeks, months or even years.
A few what if's to ponder: what if the american rebellion had been crushed? What if Napoleon the First hadn't been defeated, What if Tsar Nicholas II hadn't been assasinated?
For me the single most definable point in British History occurred on Sunday, 28 June 1914, at approximately 1:15 pm in Sarajevo.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is a clearly definable moment in history and has arguably led to some of the most massive changes in British and world history.
Initially it led to the Great War, a period that changed society and the landscape forever. This in turn led to the Second World War and the birth of Nations such as Canada (in it's own right), Independence in India amongst others and the eventual dismembering of the British Empire. Furthermore The Cold War began as a direct consequence and we are all too familiar with the fallout of that particular period of history.
The technological advances that have occurred due to this timeline are immense as are the political and social changes.
Stop for a while and contemplate where we would be now, if it hadn't have been for that single definable moment on a summers day in Sarajevo.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
The most important thing in British history was Churchill defeating the Nazis.

We would all be leading completely different lives now had we of lost the war.
A man of our times...for the right times.

Quite a force in the First World War also
Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1911 where he helped modernize the navy. Churchill was one of the first people to grasp the military potential of aircraft and in 1912 he set up the Royal Naval Air Service. He also established an Air Department at the Admiralty so as to make full use of this new technology. Churchill was so enthusiastic about these new developments that he took flying lessons.
Don't mention Gallipoli. Or any of Churchill's many other errors. Or the way he changed his opinions with astonishing regularity.
Oddly, I recently discovered that Churchill's first ever letter was against the banning of the debauchery that used to go on at the back of music halls, where prostitutes plied their trade. Shame he went downhill so fast.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
An interesting debate on newsnight last night set me thinking.
It is a small c conservative view of history but for me it would be the signing of the Magna Carta.
Putting into writing the basic liberties of free men in England was revolutionary,enshrining the right to trial,to belongings and curtailing the absolute power of the monarch was centuries ahead of most European countries.

Fab text of the actual document here.
The only arguement i have against the MC is that without it we would have probably had a revolution,but then you cant have everything.
On newsnight there were arguements for the abolition of slavery and the 1904 Act limiting the power of the Lords.
Cameron argued for 1940,(in India,nice one Dave ):dry:
What would you argue for?

Withdrawal of the Romans in the early fifth century - without their money the Saxons could no longer be paid and the decline and pillge of Britain at the hands of the mercenaries became almost inevitable, even as the British ruling class tired to use their remaining resources to buy the Saxons off.
Were the romans by this era really a force that would have deterred the saxons?They didnt deter the Goths from sacking Rome.
i have to admit that my knowledge of this period comes mainly from my obbession with the Authurian legend.
The saxons were here as mercenaries. They had to be paid with gold. Once the Romans withdrew the circulation of currency dropped sharply, as did international trade. othe saxons couldn't be paid. Arthur and his ilk succeeded in holding back the saxons for a generation or so, but not for long enough.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
The most important thing in British history was Churchill defeating the Nazis.

We would all be leading completely different lives now had we of lost the war.
A man of our times...for the right times.

Quite a force in the First World War also
Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1911 where he helped modernize the navy. Churchill was one of the first people to grasp the military potential of aircraft and in 1912 he set up the Royal Naval Air Service. He also established an Air Department at the Admiralty so as to make full use of this new technology. Churchill was so enthusiastic about these new developments that he took flying lessons.
Don't mention Gallipoli. Or any of Churchill's many other errors. Or the way he changed his opinions with astonishing regularity.
Oddly, I recently discovered that Churchill's first ever letter was against the banning of the debauchery that used to go on at the back of music halls, where prostitutes plied their trade. Shame he went downhill so fast.
It is very easy to point out where people went wrong with the wonders of hindsight. In his position, at that time he made more correct ones than wrong ones. Some may have been very distasteful to us, but that is what war calls for.
As for Gallipoli, I believe if the navy had continued to force the Dardanelles as Churchill wished things could have been very different. I have read quite a bit on this and some historians firmly believe the Turks would have scummed had the Navy not given up when it did, due to the Turks poor moral and dwindling supplies of heavy munitions. Also if they had acted as he had suggested in September 1914 this may have also helped.
During the second World War his influance on moral of troops and the country were in my view paramount

30 Jul 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
The most important thing in British history was Churchill defeating the Nazis.

We would all be leading completely different lives now had we of lost the war.
A man of our times...for the right times.

Quite a force in the First World War also
Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1911 where he helped modernize the navy. Churchill was one of the first people to grasp the military potential of aircraft and in 1912 he set up the Royal Naval Air Service. He also established an Air Department at the Admiralty so as to make full use of this new technology. Churchill was so enthusiastic about these new developments that he took flying lessons.
Don't mention Gallipoli. Or any of Churchill's many other errors. Or the way he changed his opinions with astonishing regularity.
Oddly, I recently discovered that Churchill's first ever letter was against the banning of the debauchery that used to go on at the back of music halls, where prostitutes plied their trade. Shame he went downhill so fast.
It is very easy to point out where people went wrong with the wonders of hindsight. In his position, at that time he made more correct ones than wrong ones. Some may have been very distasteful to us, but that is what war calls for.
As for Gallipoli, I believe if the navy had continued to force the Dardanelles as Churchill wished things could have been very different. I have read quite a bit on this and some historians firmly believe the Turks would have scummed had the Navy not given up when it did, due to the Turks poor moral and dwindling supplies of heavy munitions. Also if they had acted as he had suggested in September 1914 this may have also helped.
During the second World War his influance on moral of troops and the country were in my view paramount
And that's why the army voted him out of power as soon as they got the chance.
As for Gallipoli, the navy made a reasonable assessment about the risks of trying to force a passage through heavily mined waters overlooked by coastal - risks that Churchill should have known of from the outset.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
The most important thing in British history was Churchill defeating the Nazis.

We would all be leading completely different lives now had we of lost the war.
A man of our times...for the right times.

Quite a force in the First World War also
Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in October 1911 where he helped modernize the navy. Churchill was one of the first people to grasp the military potential of aircraft and in 1912 he set up the Royal Naval Air Service. He also established an Air Department at the Admiralty so as to make full use of this new technology. Churchill was so enthusiastic about these new developments that he took flying lessons.
Don't mention Gallipoli. Or any of Churchill's many other errors. Or the way he changed his opinions with astonishing regularity.
Oddly, I recently discovered that Churchill's first ever letter was against the banning of the debauchery that used to go on at the back of music halls, where prostitutes plied their trade. Shame he went downhill so fast.
It is very easy to point out where people went wrong with the wonders of hindsight. In his position, at that time he made more correct ones than wrong ones. Some may have been very distasteful to us, but that is what war calls for.
As for Gallipoli, I believe if the navy had continued to force the Dardanelles as Churchill wished things could have been very different. I have read quite a bit on this and some historians firmly believe the Turks would have scummed had the Navy not given up when it did, due to the Turks poor moral and dwindling supplies of heavy munitions. Also if they had acted as he had suggested in September 1914 this may have also helped.
During the second World War his influance on moral of troops and the country were in my view paramount
And that's why the army voted him out of power as soon as they got the chance.
As for Gallipoli, the navy made a reasonable assessment about the risks of trying to force a passage through heavily mined waters overlooked by coastal - risks that Churchill should have known of from the outset.
As I said earlyer, some historians firmly believe the Turks would have scummed had the Navy not given up when it did.
But, We will have to agree to disagrre rather than high jack this thread any further wink

30 Jul 2010

I thought this thread was for people to give their views on the most important event in British history?
Why do some feel the need to pick holes in peoples choices?
I gave my views on who I thought and it was purely my opinion. That does not make it right or wrong, as somebody has already stated there have been many things over many centuries that have changed the face of this country. All of them important turning points in our history one way or another.

30 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I thought this thread was for people to give their views on the most important event in British history?
Why do some feel the need to pick holes in peoples choices?
I gave my views on who I thought and it was purely my opinion. That does not make it right or wrong, as somebody has already stated there have been many things over many centuries that have changed the face of this country. All of them important turning points in our history one way or another.

Good question.
Poor account of history though...

30 Jul 2010

July 64 was a pretty good vintage too.

Quote by foxylady2209
Birth of Thomas Paine who?
Birth of the Trades Unions
Publication of the Communist manifesto
And apparently the 1966 victory in the world cup....or at least the papers seem to think so
But the single most significant moment in human history happened in Birmingham on Mothers day in 1964 at about noon

I have to agrre - 1964 was a good year - but September was the peak month. biggrin

30 Jul 2010

As Churchill correctly Identified ..... "never has so much been owed to so few by so many"
The Battle of Britain saved us from Nazi air superiority and with that would have come a successful invasion.
God Bless all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in order that we may be free.
Ngde

30 Jul 2010

Quote by niceguysdoexist
As Churchill correctly Identified ..... "never has so much been owed to so few by so many"
The Battle of Britain saved us from Nazi air superiority and with that would have come a successful invasion.
God Bless all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in order that we may be free.
Ngde

Try telling that to some of the people on this sanctimonious forum. lol

31 Jul 2010

If you need a world war 2 hero of the Battle of Britain try this bloke -
Quite possibly not a nice bloke, but a genuine hero. I find the Polish Air Force memorial one of the most beautiful reminders that world war two was a complicated, multi national battle on the part of people of many countries who couldn't abide fascism...

31 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
If you need a world war 2 hero of the Battle of Britain try this bloke -
Quite possibly not a nice bloke, but a genuine hero. I find the Polish Air Force memorial one of the most beautiful reminders that world war two was a complicated, multi national battle on the part of people of many countries who couldn't abide fascism...

So it had nothing to do with this then....on the 25th Aug 1939 when he finally signed a military alliance with Poland under the Polish-British Common Defense Pact?
It had nothing to do with fascism at the start.
Had Hitler invaded virtually any other country Neville Chamberlain would not have intervened.
However, Chamberlain's decision to sign with Poland after Czechoslovakia meant Britain, along with France, were now both committed to protecting a nation where they had no common borders to. On top of that, Poland had no other allies near her; Polish-Russian relations were rather hostile, and Romania had a significant percentage of pro-German politicians. "This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken", exclaimed Churchill. Military historian Basil Liddell Hart further added that it "placed Britain's destiny in the hands of Poland's rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment.
Nothing to do with fascism at the start.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
If you need a world war 2 hero of the Battle of Britain try this bloke -
Quite possibly not a nice bloke, but a genuine hero. I find the Polish Air Force memorial one of the most beautiful reminders that world war two was a complicated, multi national battle on the part of people of many countries who couldn't abide fascism...

So it had nothing to do with this then....on the 25th Aug 1939 when he finally signed a military alliance with Poland under the Polish-British Common Defense Pact?
It had nothing to do with fascism at the start.
Had Hitler invaded virtually any other country Neville Chamberlain would not have intervened.
However, Chamberlain's decision to sign with Poland after Czechoslovakia meant Britain, along with France, were now both committed to protecting a nation where they had no common borders to. On top of that, Poland had no other allies near her; Polish-Russian relations were rather hostile, and Romania had a significant percentage of pro-German politicians. "This is the maddest single action this country has ever taken", exclaimed Churchill. Military historian Basil Liddell Hart further added that it "placed Britain's destiny in the hands of Poland's rulers, men of very dubious and unstable judgment.
Nothing to do with fascism at the start.
I agree with you if you're saying it was a complicated story. If you think Churchill was wrong to oppose support for Poland it's an interesting line since it suggests you're conceding Churchill could often be wrong; if you think he was right you get yourself into the counter factual game of trying to work out if Germany would be stronger or weaker after conquering Poland without being drawn into a further war.
Since some Britons had bene fighting fascism since 1936 (George Orwell amongst them) I'd argue that for many pople it always was about opposing fascism since they, like Liddell Hart, were under no illusions about the nature of either the Czech government betrayed by Chamberlain or the Polish government guaranteed by Chamberlain.

31 Jul 2010

Had this pact been signed even one year earlier, before the annexation of Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia, it would had created a near complete encirclement of Germany, making a military expansion extremely difficult for Germany......fact.
I may not be good at law but am very good on history.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Had this pact been signed even one year earlier, before the annexation of Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia, it would had created a near complete encirclement of Germany, making a military expansion extremely difficult for Germany......fact.
I may not be good at law but am very good on history.

But coming back to your point about Churchill, was he right or wrong?
And would he have been right in 1938 or wrong?

31 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
Had this pact been signed even one year earlier, before the annexation of Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia, it would had created a near complete encirclement of Germany, making a military expansion extremely difficult for Germany......fact.
I may not be good at law but am very good on history.

But coming back to your point about Churchill, was he right or wrong?
And would he have been right in 1938 or wrong?
Who knows as I am not a historian....I leave that to the experts in that field. Differing opinions on many issues from even experts.
Also just for the record....I never said Churchill was never wrong, nobody is that perfect, not even you!

31 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Had this pact been signed even one year earlier, before the annexation of Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia, it would had created a near complete encirclement of Germany, making a military expansion extremely difficult for Germany......fact.
I may not be good at law but am very good on history.

But coming back to your point about Churchill, was he right or wrong?
And would he have been right in 1938 or wrong?
Who knows as I am not a historian....I leave that to the experts in that field. Differing opinions on many issues from even experts.
Also just for the record....I never said Churchill was never wrong, nobody is that perfect, not even you!
You can't be very good on history and not be a historian - history is a practice, not a body of knowledge.
I am far from perfect - I just don't share your deferential world view and addiction to great man theories of events.

31 Jul 2010

I must admit though..what I find so funny is not only your but others on here who hold your views, that the only PM who has ever had a state funeral, was the great man himself. The other one who will no doubt get the other honour in all probability will be the great Lady herself.....Maggs.
That must really, I mean really, grate on the Socialists out there.
I could never imagine one from the dear old, no sorry New Labour movement.
Still they probably will never do anything to warrant one. lol

Obviously Thatcher is not dead yet and the state funeral could well not happen...what ya think?
Scrapes finger nails on blackboard, or is that a white board now? wink

BTW for the record, being good at history does not make one a historian.
That is like being a painter and decorator, and then being asked to comment on a fine piece of art from say Picasso.
Similar but hardly equates to being an expert.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I must admit though..what I find so funny is not only your but others on here who hold your views, that the only PM who has ever had a state funeral, was the great man himself. The other one who will no doubt get the other honour in all probability will be the great Lady herself.....Maggs.
That must really, I mean really, grate on the Socialists out there.
I could never imagine one from the dear old, no sorry New Labour movement.
Still they probably will never do anything to warrant one.
Obviously Thatcher is not dead yet and the state funeral could well not happen...what ya think?
Scrapes finger nails on blackboard, or is that a white board now?
BTW for the record, being good at history does not make one a historian.
That is like being a painter and decorator, and then being asked to comment on a fine piece of art from say Picasso.
Similar but hardly equates to being an expert.

Well, we'll have to differ on history and historians then. I happen to believe that historians like EP Thompson, Raph Samuel and Gwyn Alf Williams in the UK created a practice of history that blurs the distinction between consumers and producers of history. Of course anyone who believes in the great man theory of history won't believe that, but then they're hoist by their own petard in that Thompson, Samuels and Williams were great historians themselves.

31 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
I must admit though..what I find so funny is not only your but others on here who hold your views, that the only PM who has ever had a state funeral, was the great man himself. The other one who will no doubt get the other honour in all probability will be the great Lady herself.....Maggs.
That must really, I mean really, grate on the Socialists out there.
I could never imagine one from the dear old, no sorry New Labour movement.
Still they probably will never do anything to warrant one.
Obviously Thatcher is not dead yet and the state funeral could well not happen...what ya think?
Scrapes finger nails on blackboard, or is that a white board now?
BTW for the record, being good at history does not make one a historian.
That is like being a painter and decorator, and then being asked to comment on a fine piece of art from say Picasso.
Similar but hardly equates to being an expert.

Well, we'll have to differ on history and historians then. I happen to believe that historians like EP Thompson, Raph Samuel and Gwyn Alf Williams in the UK created a practice of history that blurs the distinction between consumers and producers of history. Of course anyone who believes in the great man theory of history won't believe that, but then they're hoist by their own petard in that Thompson, Samuels and Williams were great historians themselves.
In that case we are all historians :lol:

31 Jul 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I must admit though..what I find so funny is not only your but others on here who hold your views, that the only PM who has ever had a state funeral, was the great man himself. The other one who will no doubt get the other honour in all probability will be the great Lady herself.....Maggs.
That must really, I mean really, grate on the Socialists out there.
I could never imagine one from the dear old, no sorry New Labour movement.
Still they probably will never do anything to warrant one.
Obviously Thatcher is not dead yet and the state funeral could well not happen...what ya think?
Scrapes finger nails on blackboard, or is that a white board now?
BTW for the record, being good at history does not make one a historian.
That is like being a painter and decorator, and then being asked to comment on a fine piece of art from say Picasso.
Similar but hardly equates to being an expert.

Well, we'll have to differ on history and historians then. I happen to believe that historians like EP Thompson, Raph Samuel and Gwyn Alf Williams in the UK created a practice of history that blurs the distinction between consumers and producers of history. Of course anyone who believes in the great man theory of history won't believe that, but then they're hoist by their own petard in that Thompson, Samuels and Williams were great historians themselves.
In that case we are all historians :lol:
I believe we all are - just some of us refuse the task of making and re-making our own histories and tug our forelocks at the sight of great men.

1 Aug 2010

Quote by awayman
I believe we all are - just some of us refuse the task of making and re-making our own histories and tug our forelocks at the sight of great men.

On another tangent all together then, do you feel it is such a bad thing to have a hierarchy in our society?

2 Aug 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009

I believe we all are - just some of us refuse the task of making and re-making our own histories and tug our forelocks at the sight of great men.

On another tangent all together then, do you feel it is such a bad thing to have a hierarchy in our society?
Yes.
I am, after all, a socialist.

2 Aug 2010

I suspected you may both say that, and one other perhaps.
I may start another thread as feel this could be interesting fun and educational, for me, to explore further

13 Aug 2011

Quote by awayman
Yes.
I am, after all, a socialist.

ok I'm not on a firm footing here, but as I understand socialism its most extreme conclusion is communism.
How can an equal society ever work when by it's very nature somebody has to be in charge therefore creating a minimum of a two stage hierarchy and social structure?