Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Our Countrys Past
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Rule_Britannia (U2429840) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
Recently i'v been hearing alot about how we should be sorry, not proud of our history, i will admit that we did some terrible things during our time as a world superpower, but the good things that came out of it outway the bad points with ease. i believe we should be proud of our past like other nation are of theres, what do you lot think?
-
Message 2
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
I agree. We're too apologetic. You don't hear the French, Belgians and Germans apologising for their colonial atrocities when there's where far worse than our own. Although we should be regretful of some of the things our ancestors did, we should be proud of more.
-
Message 3
Posted by U1645144 (U1645144) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
Recently i'v been hearing alot about how we should be sorry, not proud of our history, i will admit that we did some terrible things during our time as a world superpower, but the good things that came out of it outway the bad points with ease. i believe we should be proud of our past like other nation are of theres, what do you lot think?Β
Just look at the Eastern ,Western , Central and Southern African countries as an example when the responsible Colonial powers left.
Absolute chaos , mass murder ,mass starvation ,corruption ,as a matter of fact you name irresponsible governments and you find it all in the countries mentioned. -
Message 4
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
Possibly the biggest disgrace in history, i.m.o, is the way the conquistadores totally wiped out the lifestyle and beliefs of the indigenous Central and South American people with virtually no attempt to record the knowledge which they so obviously had. Absolutely astonishing ignorance and stupidity, driven purely by greed. Britain (UK) has made some very questionable "foreign policy" decisions in the past, South Africa springs to mind, but as you say the good points surely outweigh the bad. We seriously misjudged our American cousins in the mid-late 18th century, and in some ways we deserved the retaliation that followed. But overall, Britain has a unique, distinguished history, and something to be VERY proud of.
-
Message 5
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
It is perhaps not surprising that some of the least creditable activities in British colonials occured during the late 19th century (Africa primarily) when Colonialism had lost much of its strategic and economic value to the Imperial countries and it had become mainly a sort of international one-upmanship, having colonies for the sake of having colonies.
I think Britain's behaviour in America has been over-egged (history is, of course, told by the winners), but all in all, Britain could have behaved a lot worse. But it isn't just the Imperial History we're supposed to not be proud of - it's a lot of our own internal national heritage and traditions. I'm surprised the Trafalgar celebrations were so big (but they did keep emphasing that it was a commemoration, not a celebration). Incidetally, I think people have got the wrong end of the stick over the 'Blue' and 'Red' fleets in the battle re-enactment, misinterpreting conventional War Games terminology for political correctness. I hate to get political, but I do feel it partly has to do with the present Government's apparebt dislike of history, assuming anything that is old is bad, and anything new is good. -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
Re message 4, Plancenoit, I agree about the conquistadors. Having read a couple of books about the conquest of Mexico and Peru, I still have a strong anti-Spanish feeling. Silly, I know, given the time that has passed, but the behaviour of the conquistadors was appalling.
I was watching a TV documentary on the conquest of Peru the other day and it occurred ot me that, although history is usually perceived as being written by the winners, the history of the conquest of South America seems nowadays almost to have been written by the losers as very few authors or TV producres find anything good to say about the conquistadors. -
Message 7
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
Slavery
The Opium wars
Stripping the wealth out of the colonies
Meddling with poor countries' domestic policies
Africa
The middle east (look up Mesopatamia)
Britain's record as a superpower in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries is as bad if not worse than Spain's. -
Message 8
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
A more efficient and productive way of administration
Industrialisation of colonies
Railway and road networks
Education of natives
Moreover increasing the economic development of the world.
You will also find that there was famine, civil war and slavery before any colonial involvement.
Yes, we should be very proud of our past. -
Message 9
Posted by steveP (U1775134) on Sunday, 27th November 2005
Slavery
The Opium wars
Stripping the wealth out of the colonies
Meddling with poor countries' domestic policies
Africa
The middle east (look up Mesopatamia)
Britain's record as a superpower in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries is as bad if not worse than Spain's.Β
George
Slavery - a tradition in most countries. Britain was briefly the most successful slave trader but again the power that did most to stamp out the trade and also much of its origins.
The Opium wars - by modern standards your right. Very little to redeem British policy there.
Stripping colonies - Britain was generally far less exploitive than most other colonial powers, either in the period of European domination or other periods. One of the reasons colonies were unpopular in Britain in much of the 19C was because they were seen as expensive partly because Britain was far less committed to their exploitation.
Meddling with other countries. - Every great power does that. It all depends on what they do when and for why. Generally a wide range of people do different things for different reasons.
Africa - There were excesses in southern Africa especially but again much of the time Britain, i.e. the government and people involved in debating policy, were seeking to moderate the greater excesses of the colonists, not always successfully. However there were rarely the sort of excesses other colonial powers of the period committed.
ME - what in particular?
All-in-all, much to be ashamed of but also much to be proud of. Generally we behaved better than other powers in similar positions.
Steve -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 28th November 2005
Steve,
Just to add to your post-
Middle East, the Sykes-Picot agreement. I fine bit of Imperialist back-stabbing and betrayal, and IMO the source of the mistrust towards the West in the region. Basically, the British Army put propaganda all over the region to the effect that if the Arab tribes fought against Turkey with the British then they would have independence as their reward. The Arabs rose up, Lawrence and co had their guerrilla campaign, the Turks lost. Meanwhile, back in Europe, the British and French decide that it would be much better to replace Turkish rule with British and French colonial rule, Sykes and Picot draw up a map carving up the region, and the Arabs don;t get their promised independence (and Lawrence chucks his DSO in the Thames in a strop).
Not really massively significant at the time, just another Imperialist betrayal, nothing new, but its consequences are still being felt today.
DL -
Message 11
Posted by fozwold1 (U2441198) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Every country has good and bad things in their history, and it's important to remember both. It is also important not to abticate responsibility. Yes, colonialism had a detremental effect on those countries occupied, but in most cases there has been ample time to make some headway since. Those countries that are no better off, or indeeed worse off, need to look to themselves for the ongoing reasons for their poverty. South America is getting past the 'evil dictator' period and begining to compete effectively. The sub-continent and SE Asia are forging ahead. The main area where little positive has happend is Africa - and that has to be because of what Africans are doing to each other.
-
Message 12
Posted by Estermbengoa (U2472911) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Well it's true that the Spaniards in America didn't do it too well, we must check facts, The natives were, by law, reconaiced as Spanish citicens, with the same rights. It's true that no always was like that, but the truth is that most of the damage was caused by normal europea diseses unknown by the natives and for the wildly spread of STDs. What you said about the respect about other cultures, I'm afraid, that's relative new in history. Think about what has happen in North America, no too many natives now and all there were left were put in concentration camps or reserves. History is something you should feel proud of because what our ancestrors did was follow what it was right at the time. We should learn and apoligize if needed, but not to feel ashamed.
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
-
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Steve,
...Middle East, the Sykes-Picot agreement. I fine bit of Imperialist back-stabbing and betrayal, and IMO the source of the mistrust towards the West in the region. Basically, the British Army put propaganda all over the region to the effect that if the Arab tribes fought against Turkey with the British then they would have independence as their reward. The Arabs rose up, Lawrence and co had their guerrilla campaign, the Turks lost. Meanwhile, back in Europe, the British and French decide that it would be much better to replace Turkish rule with British and French colonial rule, Sykes and Picot draw up a map carving up the region, and the Arabs don;t get their promised independence (and Lawrence chucks his DSO in the Thames in a strop)....
¶Ω³ΆΜύ
Just to add many more details in your post and finally get the whole picture. The Arab rebellion was just one small part of the whole picture. English secured the oil by other means. Normally Turkish would have defended better these lands especially when they have learned that there is half the earth's oil in the area (probably send their Kurdish militia - then Kurdish were their militia like Albanians in the west) to slaughter any Arab and things would be over.
What happened though was that English invited their best east Mediterranean allies and worst enemies of the Turks, the Greeks to bring armies in Western Thrace (up to outside Konstantinoupolis, the city had a greek mayor but under the control of the allied army) and in Minor Asia, concentrated in the area around Smyrna (were the bulk of Greeks lived). Now from there one what we know is that the then prime minister Benizelos strangely goes for elections, he loses, the philo-royal (the 'royals' in Greece were of north european origins) political party managed to win with the slogan "WE WILL BRING BACK YOUR CHILDREN".. and all Greeks voted for the war to stop.
- That is a lesson to modern Turkish that the majority of the Greek people voted for a party normally unpopular only to stop the war against the Turkish (and not like the Turkish are taught today in schools that 'Greeks had once chance to do us harm and they tried it so they deserved the mass killing').
Now, when the royalist party rose to power, instead of "bringing back the children" ordered a mysterious march till... Anchara, where nobody understood the objective. The Greek army provided amply with all the rusty WWI staff (additional benefits for England!) had initially the upper hand and invaded deep in Minor Asia into largely turkish habitated areas (thus hurting the strong turkish national feeling),however its numbers were restricted to 100,000 men while the required number to control the area would be at least 500,000 men thus then the 'smart' turkish leader Kemal and his 'brave' guerillas counter-attacked and Greeks lost... and they were cleansed from Minor Asia once and for all.
... well till relatively recently I also believed that the loss came like this but the story is not exactly like this.
I have read facts and points in the official "Military History" journal (published in many languages) that is written by a large number of historians who provide for each article some 50-80 references coming from various sources from all sides, thus taking no subjective position...
Now, the Greek army with 100,000 soldiers and ample support proceeds in a mysterious march till Anchara, as if to disolve once and for all the turkish 'danger' (what danger?). Then in early 1921, finding no resistance at all and despite Anchara was 100 kilometers away virtually unprotected the army is ordered to stop :
The army stopped but not to consolidate control!:, NO NEW ORDER is given by anyone FOR ONE YEAR!!!, suddenly there is chaos back in Athens, all generals are called back and retired, the new generals are most if not all retired generals - some were actually retired before the Balcan Wars years before the WWI!!! Since no order was give there was no system for provisions, provisions stopped, the army initially 'bored' of all that useless campaign passed on from being 'bored' to bored and tired then to toried and ill-equiped (their shoes started wearing off so half of them started being shoeless... resentment against higher officers led to mini-rebelions, then food rations started getting poorer, horses were already dying and the occasional vehicles had virtually no fuel to move.
At the same time Kemal had all the time to prepare a nice counter attack using to maximum the hurt national pride of turkish people seeing the 1-year presence of the Greek army outside their capital. Kemal who had been always turning the Turkish attention to the west and not the east he had gathered the totality of the turkish army in the western front... So in 1922, Turkish counterattack, they easily break the Greek lines and then comes the first Greek order: retreat... The rest is history (more than a 1,000,000 slaughtered, 800,000 Greeks of Smyrna only in a few days), 2,000,000 Greeks were cleansed once and for all from Minor Asia.
... at exactly the same time a small English army of 500 men was securing Vasora in Iraq... while english navy in the port of Smyrna not only denied the slightest intervention to stop the massacre (as the american ambassador said, one canon fire would be enough to stop it) but they celebratred the event as the massacre was going on (that would be a good scene for a movie!!! it hapened in reality!!!!).
Now, DL thanks for giving me the chance to talk on all. Now despite the lyriscism of the above description (trust me this history deserves normally much more lyricism), I am not saying that to throw accusations and such. That is the way it always happened, there is nothing strange.
The strange thing is that Greeks and Turkish all along though that they were fighting for their 'existence' while somebody else was the real winner. The Turkish were happy to come back to 'Europe' for reasons that they did not exactly understood (people of Anatolia never saw Instabul as their (not to mention the turkish rebelions in the east against the Othomans). In fact, if there was not the english 'telecommanded' greek politicians and 'westerner' Kemal, then Greeks would have simply secured the City plus the west Minor Asian coast, while Turkish would have kept under their control the middle east and its oil.
I do not know, if I was Turkish I would much rather control the middle east and its oil ratherh than the agricultural fields of western Minor Asia.
English diplomacy is one that we should admire and personally I find it 10times more effective than the current US one that often is very blatant, thus less effective. I have yet to find big-time English diplomatic failures.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.