Count Nikolai Tolstoy | We Will Fight For Queen and Country

Подписаться 2,1 млн

Просмотров 25 тыс.

50% 1

Count Nikolai Tolstoy gives his argument in proposition for fighting for Queen and Country.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
Count Nikolai Tolstoy opens by agreeing, as any sensible person would, that war is a terrible thing and destroys lives of innocents. What he disagrees with is that all wars are wrong, or right for that matter as the complexities are far too great for such simplicity.
He says that the Iraq war, instigated by Tony Blair, was not fought for honourable reasons and caused a lot of suffering for the Iraqi people. Also there was no countrywide benefit for us even being there. The same goes for Afghanistan. He says he was fascinated by Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, where he stood outside congress asking politicians if they had sons in the military, none of them did.
He highlights that fighting for Queen and Country is just a convention, for example you have to declare war in somebodies name, and the name of the Queen is always used as is traditional.
Filmed on Thursday 7th February 2013
MOTION: THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT FIGHT FOR QUEEN AND COUNTRY
RESULT: MOTION DEFEATED
ABOUT NIKOLAI TOLSTOY:
Chancellor of International Monarchist League; stood against Cameron as UKIP Candidate for Witney in 2010.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

Опубликовано:

4 апр 2013

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 80

@winnington6923 8 лет назад

most commenters here hate him because of his accent and social class, and not his arguments.... just goes to show how stupid people can be

@porthard5951 7 лет назад

The Thin Red Line incorrect, I hate him for all the reasons you list and his argument, I notice a lot of people when confronted by such ignorance and snobbery will align themselves with such behaviour as to not appear dim themselves, never mistake privilege for intelligence.

@mansourkuanyshev3022 3 года назад

@@porthard5951 you are an idiot sir!

@ecko5541 2 года назад

@@James-xn1oe LMAO

@das0716 8 лет назад

How did I know that everyone in the comments would call this guy a snob?

@deadmenace3067 8 лет назад

it's the accent xD and he treating the soldier pretty bad, likely because he has less educates

@Problembeing 10 лет назад

Amazing how Belgium's place in the start of WWI is relevent to mention when Tolstoy deems fit for purpose, but after patronising the gentleman speaking for the opposite argument raises a point that Tolstoy was clearly either unaware of, or expectant no one would know about, it suddenly becomes IRRELEVANT, and put down in the casual way he did so before. Be careful of these types of people. They speak with a silver tongue and use a dry humour to endear them to you, but they have had empathy bred out of them.

@gasprovclives4554 8 лет назад

+Problembeing Be careful of your own oversimplifications and ignorances. Tolstoy is referring to Germany's behavior after invading Belgium. Griffin is saying that brutality at the hands of Germans is deserved by the Belgians because of what they did decades earlier under Leopold in the Congo.

@Problembeing 8 лет назад

+Gasprov Clives 'oversimplific' is it...

@Slarti 10 лет назад

Harking back to WWI and WWII simply will not work. As a friend pointed out, there's no fool like an old - well I will let you finish that one.. He comes across as something of a buffoon in my opinion, a term I am sure he would understand.

@MCPaddyB 10 лет назад

Whether you agree or disagree with him, respect where respect is due. I think the Great War and World War II are very important for this point. I understood what he was saying about pre-1945 as they represent truly extraordinary threats to global peace. The thing is the more recent wars (Iraq and Afghanistan for example) are not just or 'truly' a threat to global peace. He draws the distinction at the beginning between militarism and just wars. WWI - just. Iraq - Militarism. World War I and II it is worth fighting for Queen and Country. Iraq, it is not.

@sirwelch9991 3 года назад

Great Praises to His Lordship, Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavsky!

@mansourkuanyshev3022 3 года назад

His Serene Highness, old chap!

@sirwelch9991 3 года назад

@@mansourkuanyshev3022 Thank you. The styles of those who are both Russian nobility and British peers are confused as of late.

@h.r7050 2 года назад

@@sirwelch9991 He is not Russian nobility, far from it.+

@benisturning30 10 лет назад

Is this about Monarchy or about War? I don't understand the topic of this debate.

@dothevideogame9797 10 лет назад

Basically what he's saying about WWII is that when a powerful military group goes to war. Then it is acceptable to go to war... it would be quite easier for the world to destroy its currency and food suply.

@Tripleexel 10 лет назад

World War 2 was also about the main powers fighting for more colonies & taking away the sovereignty.. It wasnt all about fighting for liberty

@ohwellgetoverit7038 5 лет назад

prove it oh you cant because that is not what ww2 was about not sure about where you get your history from but it is complete crap.

@snotrat2 5 лет назад

Tripleexel go fuck off

@achievablelife 11 лет назад

AND the QUEEN 'IS' ultimately responsible for ALL actions done in her name and especially with the forces she IS supreme commander of. REGARDLESS of the LAW stating she cannot be prosecuted, except under WAR CRIMES. Ignorance is STILL no defence. Applied to ALL, and that includes the QUEEN

@monkeyoffunk666 10 лет назад

"If you polled parliament during the great wars, almost everyone would have a relative on the front lines" - Yep, you're absolutely right, and do you know why? Conscription, yep, national conscription. Mr Tolstoy is obviously arguing a point he doesn't understand, wars, as far back as history will go, have always been fought for power, resources, or domination. WWII was arguably about defense for the UK, even though Hitler had said he never wanted to attack England. God, so much to say, so few words. Ugh.

@h.r7050 2 года назад

Bravo, this 'Tolstoy' has no idea.

@Gleifel Год назад

Yes, a conscription that they would have inevitably had to have voted for…

@KuppyleGrand 10 лет назад

Interesting that he appears to have no idea what Ben Griffin refers to when he mentions "Belgium's conduct in Congo" (surely the events preceding and succeeding their granting their ex-colony independence - very dirty stuff - resulted in the assassination of the Secretary General of the UN at the time, who was a pretty good guy). Tolstoy, while I agree with his initial point that, essentially, its a complicated, complicated matter, seems selective in his points...

@MegaWaylander 10 лет назад

That was awesome, made me think.....

@annadziewulska4733 7 лет назад

I consider Nikolai Tolstoy's remarks regarding the grotesque way in which people are often treated in war very flippant. Of course this is important...I can fully understand how Ben feels, the instinct of those who are educated to quieten others who may have valid points by pointing out their ignorance reminds me of many a time where teachers in state schools denigrate pupils who have potential in order to keep them in their place'

@barbarasteward8268 3 года назад

He was sued for a great deal of money..over statements in a book..eventually the guy sueing him died..which saved him from bankruptcy.

@philipnorris6542 7 месяцев назад

Personally, I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I retrospectively still do now.

@TheAhmedMAhmed 11 лет назад

england had an appetite fro war during the last few centuries.

@kokaruda5672 8 лет назад

It is an interesting debate, but they say about the fact that a bunch of politicians can not get along on many issues. And we are fed up with mud such as pride, honor and immortality on the wall of memory

@patriciacalunniato 11 лет назад

COUNT NICOLI I COULD LISTEN TO YOU ALL DAY YOUR SO interesting

@aidansmyth6480 11 лет назад

It would be nice to know someone at the Oxford Union knew how to spell 'argument' correctly. This is not the first time the error has been made.

@Bloomazz 10 лет назад

He didn't really advance the argument very well. He should have started with dispelling the myth that being born somewhere is an 'accident'. Sure, it may well be lucky you are born somewhere but your parents did not trip up and drop you out where you're born. Your parents and forefathers (for the majority) moulded the country into a land fit to be born in. If there wasn't people prepared to stand up and make their country great, I assure you that's a reason your birthplace is unlucky, as well as not an accident.

@MrWolfsangel9 4 года назад

Given Count Tolstoy's indefatigable courage in exposing the facts about WWII Allied and Soviet war crimes such as Operation Keelhaul, I'm surprised to see him taking the standard Anglo establishment view of WWI being due to "German aggression". Germany began to militarize on account of the British denying them access to markets and resources.

@SriLankanSuda 11 лет назад

War is still hell, but now it's lacks honour. We don't fight against the yoke fascism but for resources to sustain our societies and as a by product our belief systems. This of course is not as honourable as the wars that Tolstoy speaks of

@rscoops3986 Год назад

Common fallacy. War has never been honourable. Moments of such were more of the exception proving the rule eg. Christmas Day truce WW1. Before WWII Britain has invaded plenty of countries in a rather dishonourably way to take advantage of, you guess it, resources. Even the 'honourable' WWII included many atrocities by the allies (not including the Soviets, that's too easy eg invading Finland and forcing Finland to fight for the Nazis) like Churchill's carpet bombing of Dresden when the war was effectively won killing 100,000 people. British raping German women in their thousands (unfortunately a common appalling feature of war), Malay and North Africa etc... the list goes on. The only place you'll find this romanticise war is in propaganda films made by despots and Hollywood (albeit there's some amazing films showing war for what it is)

@philipnorris6542 7 месяцев назад

@@rscoops3986 Actually, the number of dead in Dresden is reckoned to have been about 25,000, though no-one really knows for sure.

@commiesquid4620 6 лет назад

The great war had nothing to do with belgian colonies in the congo, which made the most rubber production, which was a very rare and valuable resource? That these colonies had not come into the minds of Imperialist planners and the High Commands of the imperialist nations is false; the war was about imperialist plunder and the re-division of the world economy in favour of one side of the great imperialist powers or the other.

@fish5133 10 лет назад

At least he was a bit more interesting to listen to than Rory Stewart. Does Ben think that we shouldnt have a military? It would be nice to think that every soldier of every nation globally would say s-d this i am not gonna kill another human --but if you cant get a Man Utd fan to hug a scouser what chance is there

@dothevideogame9797 10 лет назад

You have to imagine a more intelligent humanity that is responsible enough to know that fighting will never achieve peace it will create martyrs and hatred. The entire species must take responsibility for the evils that are created and allowed to be successful in our society, when you find the evils that rise you must reverse engineer the creation of that evil and remove that aspect from your society or teach it to resist. Societies are meant to evolve and one who is unwilling to evolve peacfully has no place on this planet.

@jellosquishier 10 лет назад

Take a fucking breath, man.

@chestypants78 10 лет назад

This uptight snob talking about 'bravery', as if it's something romantic, something to aspire to. Bollix. I suspect he took a trip here (2013) in a time machine from the 19th century. He's doing more favours for his opposition.

@saviorcinco 10 лет назад

How this clown can 'know history' and tell us that the current Queen's ancestors go back to Alfred the Great is astonishing. A good question would be, 'When did the first member of the (now called) Windsor family set foot in Britain?'

@thomasfoster259 6 лет назад

Any comparison of the current royals to the likes of Alfred and Aethelstan is puerile and ridiculous anyway. We are comparing tabloid celebrities to genuine warrior and scholar Kings who actually forged the nation in the bloody Dark Ages. I mean give me a break. I've nothing against Elizabeth II but she is an ant in the afterbirth of Alfred's house. Poor beheaded Charles I might have been the last genuine monarch of substance.

@thomasfoster259 6 лет назад

There is nothing like the remnants of Alfred speaking from the fighting, gory Dark Ages. He is the pattern and measure of all English leaders. 'I desired to live worthily as long as I lived, and to leave after my life, to the men who should come after me, the memory of me in good works.' 'Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe!' 'He seems to me a very foolish man, and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is in the world, and ever wish and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear.'

@allanmacbadger5692 6 лет назад

I fear to mention her name, but Diana Spencer had far more of a noble blood line than our present royal family and her family could go back to Henry VIII. I would have thought that the present monarchy can only trace their UK soverienty back to the House of Hanover, and that was interupted by Queen Anne who was most definitely English / Scottish decent.

@aaronaustin225 3 года назад

What an ignorant comment, I hope you grew up since you posted this. The hannovers were related to the Stuarts, who were all related to previous Monarchs back to Alfred the Great.

@viewtheworld6851 10 лет назад

We all know by now that the British Monarchy is an outdated idea that really should be consigned to the history books, but it's presence and it's authority in Britain and the commonwealth does offer us protection. Imagine if a country said they were going to invaded Britain and the Queen fucked off to Canada, I bet a lot of people would want her back, at the end of the day when push comes to shove, we require leaders, and the Queen is a good leader. I am a Scottish nationalist by the way and I would happily die for my beautiful country Scotland, so would most Scots lol.