Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Morph · Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: Favourite part of History?

As a bit of a history saddo i love to read many books on history.

What is everyones favourite historical event or person.

I'll go first.
At dunkirk there was a Scottish regiment who asked when put on the boats back to Britain "What part of France are you taking us to?"
When told they were going to Britian in retreat they remarked "Not bloody us son, were off to fight the jerries"
They then left the boats and charged back into the fighting without being seen again

This may sound like romantic nonsence but ill never forget it.
It can be found in the memiors of ex-ww2 servicemen in the Max Arther book Forgotten Voices of the second world war

_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Holebender · Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject:

I think that one is somebody's fantasy.

What really happened at Dunkirk was that the 51st (Highland) Division was used to form the rearguard and kept the Germans at bay while the rest of the BEF got off the beach. It wasn't some miracle, it was highlanders.

After the beach was clear, the 51st was abandoned to its fate. They fought their way across northern France to a place called St Valery where, again, the British government refused to rescue them. A few (very few) escaped in boats manned by local French fishermen but most were forced to surrender after exhausting all their ammunition and supplies. The survivors spent the rest of the war as POWs.

That is definitely not my favourite piece of history.

Here's a better piece of Second World War history for you; there was a man from Aberdeen called Alexander Macrobert who had no education and got a job in a textile mill. As he worked he spent his spare time reading and educated himself. When he was in his twenties (in the late 19th Century) he had a chance to go out to India and work in a mill there. He took the opportunity and worked hard and worked his way up until he was in a position to buy his own mill. He proved to be a good businessman and he amassed a fortune. When his parents became ill he returned to Scotland and bought an estate in Aberdeenshire and moved his parents into the big house to live out their final years in luxury. After his parents died, Alexander went back to India to manage his business affairs and, on the ship to India, he met an American heiress named Rachel whom he married.

In time The Macroberts had three sons, Alastair, Roland, and Iain, and Alexander acquired a baronetcy. He became Sir Alexander Macrobert, First Baronet of Douneside and his wife became Lady Rachel Macrobert. Sir Alexander and his sons were all keen on the new technology of aviation and, as each became old enough to learn, the three boys became pilots, as their father had.

When Sir Alexander died in the 1930s his eldest son became Sir Alastair Macrobert, Second Baronet of Douneside, and took over the running of the family business in India. Meanwhile Roland Macrobert joined the RAF and became a fighter pilot. Iain was still at school. Sir Alistair used to fly himself around India in the course of his business and, unfortunately, died when his plane crashed shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. The title passed to Flight Lieutenant Sir Roland Macrobert.

When war broke out, the youngest brother, Iain, joined the RAF and flew search and rescue missions for Coastal Command, rescuing pilots who had crashed into the North Sea.

Sir Roland was killed leading his squadron of Hurricane fighters in a raid on an enemy airfield in Iraq. The title passed to Iain.

Within a month of his brother's death Sir Ian's plane failed to return from patrol and he was posted missing, presumed dead. His body was never recovered.

Lady Rachel had lost all three of her sons within as many years and had no-one to inherit her fortune so what do you suppose she did? She wrote a cheque for fifty thousand pounds and sent it to the Air Ministry with instructions to buy a bomber aircraft and name it Macrobert's Reply, and to use it to take the war to the enemy. She wrote a second cheque and sent it off to buy three Hurricane fighters to be named for her sons.

When the original Macrobert's Reply was damaged beyond repair when it crashed into a fighter on the runway at RAF Lossiemouth, Lady Rachel bought another one, also named Macrobert's Reply. When the second Macrobert's Reply was shot down on a mission over Denmark the RAF replaced it with yet another, and they have continued the tradition ever since. The current Macrobert's Reply is a Tornado jet based at RAF Lossiemouth which saw action in the Gulf War.

When Lady Rachel died her fortune was used to set up a trust fund to support various charitable causes. One of the charities the Macrobert Trust helped support was the first children's hospice in Scotland which was named Rachel House after Lady Rachel, in recognition of the substantial donation received from the Trust.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Morph · Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject:

its in the book, taken from an interview with an old man who was there. Your story backs up my claims by adding in the battalion, due to the book being at my work i couldnt add this fact.

Is it not possible that the old man does not know what happened to the 51st batallion? also it shows the bravery of that proud batallion and therefore can be validated as agood piece of history
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 923

Holebender wrote "I think that one is somebody's fantasy".

Okay, here is another story which sounds like somebody's fantasy, but there are reasons for thinking it isn't.

Quite a few years ago, I saw on television, I think it was on "Reporting Scotland", a fairly elderly, but also quite well known, Italian opera singer being interviewed. No, I can't remember his name. I am not an opera fan. But I do remember his story.

He was visiting a friend of his in Scotland, and he was asked by the interviewer how they had met. If I remember correctly, the Italian opera singer's Scottish friend was standing beside him in front of the television camera, and nodded his confirmation of the story of how they met.

The answer was that, during the latter stages of the Second World War, when the Germans had decided the only way to stop the allies advancing up through Italy was to do the job themselves, this Italian opera singer (who was not, at that time, an opera singer) had, as a young teenager, become involved with the Resistance in German-occupied territory.

At one point, when the British were advancing on the area where he lived, the Germans were shooting anybody they thought might harbour Resistance sympathies, and he had to hide in a wood. He heard a lot of shooting, but then it went quiet again, and he thought it might be safe to come out.

But as soon as he emerged from the wood, right away he saw a unit of troops on patrol, and right away they also saw him. He didn't recognise the uniform that they were wearing, and he didn't know if they were Germans or British.

If he ran, they would shoot him for sure, so he decided the only thing for it was to approach them. So he walked up to them, smiled nervously, and asked them "English?".

The soldiers did NOT look friendly when he said this. They all shook their heads, and the officer in charge stared hard at him and said " NO . Not English. "

Oh no, he thought, they're Germans ! And I have just shown them I'm friendly towards the English ! I'm a dead man ! They're going to shoot me!

" And THAT " , he told the television interviewer, " was how I found out it is VERY important to know the difference between the Scots and the English".

Rinty · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:53 am Post subject:

So Holebender, your favourite piece of history was when our air force was bombing the kurds with gas? Maybe Saddam Hussein should have been given the aberdeenshire estate as a reward for his heroics and carrying out "macroberts reply" for him.

My mum researches social history and my favourites are all stories to do with local people and some the stories of emigration and dark secrets in my own family. Small snippets of information have often inspired my mum to look further into individuals own lives with fascinating stories emerging.

As far as World wars go my favourite stories are my own grandfather's experiences in the Burma jungle and my other grandfather who was shot at the Somme but was lucky enough to have survived intact, he later died in a pit at his work.

But my favourite time in history overall is the reformation and the various civil battles and wars in the 17th and 18th centuries. Revolutions and republics, covenanters and jacobites, great stuff.

Holebender · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:16 am Post subject:

Rinty, you're an arse.

I did not say it was my favourite piece of history, but that's beside the point. Read again and you will see Sir Roland Macrobert was killed during the Second World War. The gassing of the Kurds was during the 1920s when Sir Roland was a small boy.

The Macroberts were local people to me. Roland and Iain's names are on our local war memorial as they died serving in the Second World War. Lady Rachel, although American by birth, loved Scotland and used her money to do a great deal of good. She made a massive contribution to the war effort and deserves our respect, not your pathetic snidey remarks which only serve to illustrate your poor grasp of the historical timeline.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 923

Holebender wrote "I did not say it was my favourite piece of history".

Well I didn't say that story about an Italian opera singer's first encounter with Scots during WW2 was MY favourite piece of history, either. It's just an interesting story, that's all.

There are many pieces of history, in many countries, including pieces which still remain to be discovered, so far as you and I are concerned, so to limit yourself to "a favourite piece" seems to me to be a bit like those historical reconstruction groups which re-enact particular battles in particular periods. Okay, they're having fun, but, in a way, if you have a "favourite" piece of history, then you are to some extent closing yourself off from finding out new things.

I have just finished reading "Plagues and Peoples", by William McNeill. It is world history on the grand scale, going from our earliest ancestors to modern times, dealing with the impact of disease on history. How civilisation encourages disease, how the Mongol conquest of eastern Europe brought an exchange of bacteria between China and Europe, the appearance of the Black Death, how European sailors exploring the globe took European diseases with them, how the Aztecs and the Incas started dropping dead in their millions as soon as they encountered the Spaniards, when cholera first appeared, how leprosy (which killed Robert the Bruce) evolved into something else, etc etc. The book was published in 1976, and it doesn't mention modern phenomena such as Aids, but it does PREDICT that there will be new diseases. Fascinating stuff, about an aspect of history usually neglected.

Morph · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:

well guys it can be a good story from hitory also lets not argue about we all have viewpoints
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Rinty · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject:

"I did not say it was my favourite piece of history, but that's beside the point. Read again and you will see Sir Roland Macrobert was killed during the Second World War. The gassing of the Kurds was during the 1920s when Sir Roland was a small boy."

Apologies. That would mean he was just bombing the Iraqis for wanting to control their own territory and airbases.

Holebender · Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:

Wrong again. He was bombing an enemy airfield. How many airfields did the Iraqis have during the Second World War? Whose side were they fighting on? Did you ever consider the possibility that this was a Luftwaffe base? Do you suppose when the RAF bombed Stavanger they were bombing the Norwegian airforce or do you, just maybe, consider that Norway was occupied territory and the RAF was bombing a German base?

Even if it had been an Iraqi base, what would that mean? It would mean that the Iraqis were siding with the Axis powers and were fighting against the British and our allies (unless you believe that, with all the enemies we already had, the Allies just decided to pick a fight with Iraq - maybe to rid them of weapons of mass destruction - while fighting for our very survival on the European front). What would that mean? That they were our enemies in a World War. What would that mean? That we would fight against them! It really isn't difficult if you actually think about it instead of opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.

Your remarks on this show a woeful lack of knowledge of the period, Rinty, and have really diminished the respect I once had for your posts.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Rinty · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject:

Bollocks. The iraqis did talk to the axis powers, mainly the french vichy govt. but that was as much anti-britishness following colonial rule as anything else. Perhaps you could show me something that would change my mind but I didnt think the luftwaffe HAD bases in Iraq. The "enemy" in Iraq were the Iraqis own leaders who did not agree to the tight conditions on their freedom from colonialism which, in effect, meant that Britain still had control of the oilfields in kurdish north iraq, financially and with miltary support if needed.

Instead of stating that I dont have knowledge of the region in that time, why dont you demonstrate your knowledge. Personally I dont think there is much to celebrate in our bombers, especially if there was no threat to Britain. But we see still, to this day, the hostility to Britain in Iraq and its well desereved, earned as it was,from many years of oppression and killing.

Regime change was the name of the day back then too. When Ali backed out of the treaty with Britain re the oilfields, we made a big play about the fact that they were "pro-axis", divided the nation by promising the kurds the oil and promising the Sunis that they would control the country (most kurds are sunnis) and installed a new "pro-allied forces" regime in Iraq.

I am no historian, I am sure there many here who will have a better knowledge, but I have read this subject and dont see the british bombers in Iraq as heroes back then any morer than now.

I especially dont see much to celebrate about someone who made their cash exploiting Indians and his ancestors using that wealth to but bombers to bomb Iraqis. Your macroberts sound like a ruthless nasty bunch to me.

Holebender · Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject:

I suggest you read it all again.

One of the Macroberts was killed flying a Hurricane Fighter in Iraq.

The bombers were based a Lossiemouth... hardly a suitable starting point for bombing Iraq, especially in the 1940s before the advent of mid-air refuelling.

If all you can do is demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice, I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Holebender · Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject:

The biggest mistake people make when reading history, and this is especially true of the casual reader as opposed to the academic, is to apply their own morals and values to the people and events being read about. You have to consider people and their actions in the context of their time, not ours. The Macroberts were imperialists and capitalists, but they were Victorians and that was what Victorians did. They didn't devise the system, they didn't grab the colonies, they worked within the system.

Yes, I'm sure Alexander Macrobert exploited his Indian workers, but don't we do the same every time we buy a cheap teeshirt from our local supermarket, or a pair of over-priced trainers from our local sports shop? How much do you suppose an Indian labourer was paid for that cup of tea you're drinking? At least Macrobert went out to India and exploited the workers directly instead of benefitting from their labour without ever seeing their faces or knowing their names.

Another common mistake when reading history, or the news, is to blame the soldier for the war. Rank and file soldiers, sailors, and airmen don't decide when and where wars will be fought, they just go out and do the dirty work for the people who do. You can decide on the rightness or otherwise of including Iraq among the "enemy" during the Second World War, but don't blame the people who died there for the decisions of politicians.

John Maclean once said that a bayonet was a weapon with a working man at each end. The man wielding the bayonet isn't the one who started the war, he's just the poor bugger who has to fight it.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Rinty · Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject:

Thanks for your wise words on common mistakes when reading history. And for your information on types of airborne killing machines. Still see no proof for your enemies in iraq or lufwaffe airbases though. Also I still dont see any back up argument to your assertion that I dont know anything about Iraq at the time.

I may be appling my morals to the macroberts adventures in India but I am comfortable in the knowledge that many before me questioned the morals of it at the time.

Instead of stating that I dont know what I am talking about, or accusing me of misreading history, why dont you actually out the counterargument to prove your point? What particular part am I misreading? what part of the iraqi situiation at the time do I misunderstand?

Morph · Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject:

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 628

Rinty · Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject:

NO he is accusing me of speaking about the situation in Iraq in WW2 without having knowledge of it. He used his "history teacher" bit as a further attempt to puit down my point while avoiding the issue of letting me hear why he thinks my views on Iraq are wrong and/or a demonstartion of how.
a) my knowledge is poor, and
b) I am applying a modern analysis to a historical event.

Holebender · Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject:

This is taken from www.macrobertsreply.com

Rinty · Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:19 am Post subject:

Nice bit of googling. I am not aware that the Luftwaffe were based in Iraq. The British govt fircibly removed the Iraqi govt and replaced it with one more sypmathetic to their oil interests in Mosul after the Ali govt had talks with the vichy govt in France.

Now it may be that I dont have the whole information and that my knowledge of the situation at the time is limited to what I have read. Perhaps the Iraqisd invited the luftwaffe in to protect Mosul and, along with Kirkuk, it was centre of the oilfields and the bone of contention between Briatin and Iraq following independence.

You have accused me of having no knowledge of a subject that I have read about. If you increase my knowledge by providing new information that I didnt previously know I would welcome that. But it seems that you are just googling stuff as you go along and are, in fact, the person who didnt know much about it.

Thanks for the exceprt though, it adds to my knowlege of the situation. It doesnt make me proud of the wonderful macroberts family though or any less cynical of their exploitation of Indians and their decision to buy a bomber with the proceeds.

Holebender · Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject:

I knew the story as it is part of my local history and thought others might be interested. I googled for a quote because I had originally recounted the tale from memory and had immediately been jumped all over by you for condoning an attack on peace-loving Iraqis by the landed gentry. The toffs must have been in the wrong and the peasants must have been innocent victims. You can be such a cliched stereotype at times, Jim.

I admire Rachel Macrobert's fortitude, and that was the point of the story, not that some guy was or was not a hero. I also admire Alexander Macrobert for making something of himself despite the poor start he had, and, by the way, the company he started in India is still in business.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso