Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
British Empire
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by bigapejoe (U1704236) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Why is it that so many people are anit Britsh Empire? Am i the only person to feel extremely proud of what we achieved.
-
Message 2
Posted by bigapejoe (U1704236) on Friday, 12th August 2005
anti**
-
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Why is it so strange for you? British was until recently an empire with all things that may involve. When a state travels around the world trying to impose its force by 'dividing and conquering' is it all natural that it is this imperial state that creates resentment.
Britain in particular is co-responsible for 2 World Wars (arguments of the style 'if it was not for brits the world would be nazi' are laughable: the Brits knew the beggining and the end of the war - go and read about the Mortgnehau plans and the rest and then we open a knew discussion on that as well as other interesting stuff such as on why German-Jewish refugees were not accepted in UK/US thus contributing to the genocide) for a particularly large number of civil wars and for numerous violent campaigns all over the world creating indirectly mass killings and genocides - even in a direct way, even using chemicals, - not to mention that they were hanging 15 year old boys for ...stone throwing at tanks in till the 60s (perhaps they still do it) ... and the story goes on all along with ex-colony US!
Now I am not that much anti-UK or anti-US... the one was the recent and the other the modern empire. An empire acts like an empire and if it does not somebody else will take over and things could be better or even worse for the world. It just amazes me that quite a large part of the population in these countries cannot understand why people all over the world have negative feelings for these two countries (as well as for others). -
Message 4
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Why is it so strange for you? British was until recently an empire with all things that may involve. When a state travels around the world trying to impose its force by 'dividing and conquering' is it all natural that it is this imperial state that creates resentment.
Britain in particular is co-responsible for 2 World Wars (arguments of the style 'if it was not for brits the world would be nazi' are laughable: the Brits knew the beggining and the end of the war - go and read about the Mortgnehau plans and the rest and then we open a knew discussion on that as well as other interesting stuff such as on why German-Jewish refugees were not accepted in UK/US thus contributing to the genocide) for a particularly large number of civil wars and for numerous violent campaigns all over the world creating indirectly mass killings and genocides - even in a direct way, even using chemicals, - not to mention that they were hanging 15 year old boys for ...stone throwing at tanks in till the 60s (perhaps they still do it) ... and the story goes on all along with ex-colony US!
Now I am not that much anti-UK or anti-US... the one was the recent and the other the modern empire. An empire acts like an empire and if it does not somebody else will take over and things could be better or even worse for the world. It just amazes me that quite a large part of the population in these countries cannot understand why people all over the world have negative feelings for these two countries (as well as for others).Ìý
E_Nikolaos_E
There is so much of this that I disagree with but I will start with a tacit agreement. The British Empire was indeed brutal on occasions (some extremeley so) and it was without doubt imperialistic.
A small glance at the history books will show that this behaviour was universally acknowledged from the begining of our so called civilisation. Alexander The Imperialistic War monger is rightly hailed as a great man of his age and deserves to be called The Great. We owe much of our heretage and traditions to the Roman Empire. Should we throw all of that out because they committed genocide here in East Anglia.
I agree that WWI was an imperial bunfight but one that the British had not wanted as it interupted our activities in the rest of the world. It was Cousin Willi's insecurities that got us enmeshed in a silly family fued that cost so many lives. As for WWII we most definately did not wish to fight that at all. Memories of WWI were too fresh, why else did Chamberlain, both valiantly and foolishly at the same time, try to apease the madman.
Had we not stood up to Hitler then no one else would have done and he and he alone was intent on war at that time. Agreed we declared WWII as such but that was in defense of another nation. We may have ultimatel let Poland down but in 1939 the alternative was yet more appeasment.
The British Empire and the Roman Empire both committed genocide but both created a great deal and the world owes a lot to our influence on certain countries.
I am proud that in the 1000's of years of imperialism we were the biggest, we were not by any means the most brutal and when the time had come for the world to turn its back on such nonsense we withdrew with more grace than any other.
The world turned and left us behind with an empire that no one aproved of, when years before everybody wanted one.
-
Message 5
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Why is it that so many people are anit Britsh Empire? Am i the only person to feel extremely proud of what we achieved.Ìý
bigapejoe
The simple answeris - no. See my reply above!!
Cheers -
Message 6
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 12th August 2005
Hi, I am with you 100% on this one. I think you should not be surprised to know that there are a lot more people who are proud of our (British Empire) history and no matter how much the PC lovlies wring their hands and apologise and that pride will not go away. It will always be there, just under the suface and every now and then it breaks out. Be it a royal aniversary, An attack on our people or a sporting event.
God save the Queen
Regards
Spike -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
Ice Cool,
I did not realise at first we were not talking about the resentment of quite a lot of people around the world against UK, but we were talking about British in UK having 'guilty-feelings' about things carried out by their country in the near (very near) past.
Well, of course, British should be proud of their imperial past, I am a believer on the pride on one's country and to be honest I do not trust people who are not proud in their country (it reveals other emotional/psychological deficiencies as much as over-nationalism or over-ecologism or over-religiousness etc.).
So English should be proud of their country, yes it was a great country and it formed the modern world as no other of the modern countries did.
PS: For the record, the British empire was a short-lived one, it was neither the greatest nor the largest: Either the mongolian was the largest or the Russian - Russia is still an empire despite that parts of it equal to the size of Europe (!) became independent. Also we must no compare the Roman empire with the British - the British empire produced no major cultural civilisation, it excelled only in technology-economy. -
Message 8
Posted by Bishwarrior (U1759943) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
Just because you are not proud of your countries past does not mean you are not proud of your country. If that was the case then no German would be proud of his country.
How can we be proud of haveing an Empire. No matter what we brought to the rest of the world, we subjegated millons of people. And many of those people still suffer today. Was it ok to ship black slaves to America, take away land from native Americans, from Australian Aboriginals. Are you proud of that.
I believe Gandhi said 'it is better to be poor and free than a rich slave' or words to that affect.
And lets not forget that in 1939 we declared war on Germany to prvent them building an Empire. During that war we harped on about freedom and democracy, but we were not very keen on bringing freedom to those who lived under our boot. Even after the war some people had to fight to gain the freedom we were so proud to boast about bringing to Europe.
Empires are Empires. They are nothing to be proud of and nothing to boast about.
Are you proud that in 1919 British troops kille and wounded over 1,700 people in Amritsar. -
Message 9
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
E_Nikolaos_E
The Empire lasted aproximately 250 - 300 years but only remained at its peak for 50 or so years before it collapsed entirely.
Where I may be more in agreement with some in those nations that we did indeed trampled over I will still argue that it should not be judged on attitudes that were developed in the 20th century and rightfully destroyed it.
It was created on the rules of the day and it was dismantled on the rules of the day. I am not in favour of holding empires at all. I believe that we were right to dismantle it when we did, but that is a modern attiteude.
India still operates our system of justice - albeit with a few home grown tweeks to make it acceptable. The English language is now seen as the international language. Funnily enough that is because the colony (or correctly speaking colonies) that tore the then heart out of the empire in the 18th century went on to dominate the world. Britain and the USA have probably ensured that the language will remain extremely powerful for centuries to come.
The difference between the Russian and Mongolian empires is that they remained on the Eurasian continant whereas British influence touched the whole globe. Much of China and South America were reduced to client states of the empire without ever being formerly incorperated. Thus there is not a continant that has not been touched by it. Actually Europe is probably the big exception as we never really set up there at all - Gibralter aside.
Actually the Mongolian Empire imploded very quickly after less then 100 years as did Alexander's!
The Roman Empire is still the gretest on the grounds that it effectively lasted around 1800 years if we take the Byzantian Empire as a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire. It created the Europe that we now know and thus through the power of Britain and the USA it now shapes the world. -
Message 10
Posted by Researcher 227232 (U227232) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
First off I'd just like to ask about which British Empire we're talking about - The Tudor, Georgean or Victorian? I'll assume the question is aimed at the Victorian empire which was in controll of 3/5 of the worlds land mass and 9/10 of the oceans.
Ice Cool,
- the British empire produced no major cultural civilisation, it excelled only in technology-economy.Ìý
So you argue that technology and economy are not culturally important then?
The English Language, Literature and Social Systems? Lets face it more of the World speaks English than Greek or Latin; and you don't hear much about the Rusian film industry. While I'm on a role I'll also ask whether you've ever worn a suit.
Produced no major cultural civilisation?! So the USA, Canada and Australia are UNcultured civilisations? Perhaps you should talk to a few Indians to see if we made any impact on their civilisation. Also ask yourself which empire has done the most to preserve the relics of the best of previous cultures - ancient and modern - rather than destroying.
-
Message 11
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
Hi Researcher,
"...So the USA, Canada and Australia are UNcultured civilisations?".
Watch out for that thin ice.
Cheers, hes -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
Your idea of culture is quite simplistic. Culture has nothing to do with the things you mention - it has only to do with way of thinking and only with that. Of course, down to the basics it depends how you define cultures and civilisations because many people mix up these two terms and I am in position to talk only about what is called civilisation.
Civilisations on earth were only the Egyptian, the Greek, the Mesopotamian, the Indian and the Chinese and perhaps the American Indian and the Jewish (if seen as completely independent and not classified in the Mesopotamian). The 1000s rest are either derivatives or far too 'fragmented' (I disagree with the trend of naming anything civilisation.
Do you wonder where I classify the great Roman civilisation? Mind you the Roman was merely a continuation of the Greek. Imagine....
Now, where is the English civilisation positioned in all that? What major change in thought did it provide? If it did not exist would we not be in the position we are today? Think it that way.
I am not trying to belittle the history of the British empire; i just remain to the facts: it was not the biggest; it was not the longest; it did not provide with an original way of thinking (modern sciences in western europe originated from Italian states after 1204 AD (guess why).
US can hardly classify for a culture/civilisation - in fact Ford, Boeing and Exxon classify more for a civilisation/culture than US.
PS: For English, even the French sometimes, the study of other civilisations was most times a fashion and a 'hobby' than anything less superficial - what you call preservation others call it hardcore stealing, unimaginable damage, falsification and propaganda. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 13th August 2005
... do not ,misunderstand me - I esteem much the British empire, I would not write at all here if I did not esteem the English; in many terms they proved to be ahead of their time and in no way do I ever doubt that it is the state that influenced most our modern societies. It is just that when it comes to details (how big it was or what was the level of creation of original culture/way of thinking or how long its impact will last - e.g. Egypt lasted some 4000 years)....well then I am obliged to commend.
I think Britain's greatest achievement was its famous politics and diplomacy (created countries and even new nations, it formed modern commerce as well as state organisation and wellfare, it also created 2 World Wars, numerous civil wars, played on multiple sides, employing always others to do the job for them, even helping existing enemies or creating deliberately new enemmies etc.). The complexity of English diplomacy - and I talk of a satanic level of complexity cos for most events we have no full idea why english acted like they did. English diplomacy would make the likes of Roman/Byzantine or Chinese diplomacy seem like childish efforts. -
Message 14
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 14th August 2005
Hmmmh, E_Nikolaos_E, I've refrained from joing in this until now, as I thought your original post was a little too much for me to reply too without playground name calling.
As you've come back to explain, welcome.
I'll try to explain my thoughts with some examples to back them up. (As you may guess I'm no apologist for the Empire, merely try to explain).
The British Empire (for right or wrong) wasn't the biggest or best Empire of the known time. It was I respectfully submit the only Empire that willingly gave it up. Example: Self governance for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India et al. So, I think that there needs to be a grudging respect for that (at least!). I think on this one we agree.
We (the British) are known as Perfidious Albion, not without cause. We are a duplicitous (sic?) nation. Our own self interests should be known by now if you understand history. I'd have it no other way!
Yet, and this is the fatal flaw in the British, we can't help interfering. This is why we got the Empire as (and I hope you agree), it was better for us (the British) to go to other countries / nations and take them over than the alternative! [USA and Liberia, not fared well, Italians in Abysinnia, Dutch in South Africa, Germans in Namibia, French in Algeria). Yes the list is long and you are correct when you say that the British "created" Civil War when troops were withdrawn, sorry but the only reason there wasn't civil war was beacause Empire troops kept the peace!
This bit is true, it's from my own personal recollection. I spoke to a Kashmiri, I asked him what he wanted for Kashmir, his response "Independent Kashmir, then Pakistan rule, then India." I then asked him "So you don't want the British back then?" His response; "Yes, ahead of India."
Now, I don't want to moralise here but (and everything before the but is Bu*%£$it) I was proud to be British at this.
Britain created two World Wars? sorry, can't subscribe to your newsletter on this one, you ignore appeasment prior WW2 and the incompetence of the British Government prior to and leading into WW1. (With the benefit of hindsight, truly shocking, or are you saying the British decided to wreck the Empire?)
As a last point to talk of the British as Satanic level of complexity, well, that is a very emotive phrase, and probably the one I find most offensive. However in your defence, yes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Cheers AA. (And I'm not James Welsh, although it may seem like it at times)
-
Message 15
Posted by Researcher 227232 (U227232) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Benjamin Waldock.
Hmmmh, E_Nikolaos_E, I've refrained from joing in this until now, as I thought your original post was a little too much for me to reply too without playground name calling.
*
As a last point to talk of the British as Satanic level of complexity, well, that is a very emotive phrase, and probably the one I find most offensive. However in your defence, yes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Cheers AA. (And I'm not James Welsh, although it may seem like it at times)Ìý
I agree.
B. -
Message 16
Posted by forestview1 (U1772380) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Got to agree with you there bigapejoe,to tell the truth I could not care less about what we did to other people or countries,it was what was good for us at the time that was important,what an empire,wow.
-
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Forestview has expressed in the best possible way .... He is proud of his country and does not care at all about what others say. Correct. I like this way of thinking.
Convince yourselves that you have been 'better' than everyone else is understandable and you should do so, but trying to convince others is little bit more difficult.
To give you a fine example:
The famous battle of Waterloo is said to be the genious of Wellington and the bravery and capability of English army. That is good for english history books but why should a non-english like me believe it? The boring truth is that Napoleon would have won the battle had it not been for treason from a number of his high ranking officers...see... some had made money out of Napoleon's campaigns but that went too much... then Napoleon had to be taken out ... you will be suprprised to find who were financially supporting him!!! It was all a change of financial interests. The other amazing thing is that in this battle took part only 9.000 english and some 50.000 Prussians. English are said to have nearly not participated at all - it was mostly Prussians that took part actively in the battle. Wellington, as the leader of the alliance, pressured all historians that wrote the history of battle to change the numbers and facts and rename Prussian army units with their english equivalents.
I understand that English need to emphasize on their battle/courage etc. achievements. However why should we, the 'rest', do the same? For me England was indeed great in that period but due to its 'indeed satanic' diplomacy (and satanic is no emotionally negative, I use it as a compliment)
Sorry for being provocative... one needs to be to make people think it for a second on other terms. -
Message 18
Posted by John Heseltine (U1755615) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Why is it that so many people are anit Britsh Empire? Am i the only person to feel extremely proud of what we achieved.Ìý
Perhaps that you have answered the question yourself, by posting it in the "War and CONFLICT" category, rather in the "Hub". You obviously view the Bitish Empire from a military point of view as opposed to a social/commercial/institutional stance.
Cheers, hes -
Message 19
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Nikolaos, I have to take exception to your very narrow definition of "culture". While I appreciate your pride in all things Greek, amending definitions of English words to suit your belief that civilisations later than classical Greece do not qualify as having their own cultures is not on. You can check out Dictionary.com yourself for the following definitions of "culture":-
1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
5. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
6. Development of the intellect through training or education.
7. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
8. A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Ok, then according to your definition, 'English culture' must have had an insignificant impact in terms of originality to the world apart from the spread of 'capitalist' economic systems which was pre-existing anyway.
-
Message 21
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 15th August 2005
Forestview has expressed in the best possible way .... He is proud of his country and does not care at all about what others say. Correct. I like this way of thinking.
Convince yourselves that you have been 'better' than everyone else is understandable and you should do so, but trying to convince others is little bit more difficult.Ìý
Okay E_Nikolaos_E, on this I'll agree.
To give you a fine example:
The famous battle of Waterloo is said to be the genious of Wellington and the bravery and capability of English army. That is good for english history books but why should a non-english like me believe it? The boring truth is that Napoleon would have won the battle had it not been for treason from a number of his high ranking officers...see... some had made money out of Napoleon's campaigns but that went too much... then Napoleon had to be taken out ... you will be suprprised to find who were financially supporting him!!! It was all a change of financial interests. The other amazing thing is that in this battle took part only 9.000 english and some 50.000 Prussians. English are said to have nearly not participated at all - it was mostly Prussians that took part actively in the battle. Wellington, as the leader of the alliance, pressured all historians that wrote the history of battle to change the numbers and facts and rename Prussian army units with their english equivalents.Ìý
This may seem to you a fine example, and it probably is if you weren't on a History board. However, you are. So, to pick holes in your example, when Peter Hofshroers book on Waterloo came out there was a certain commotion in the media about how it claimed that Waterloo was a Prussian victory and the part the British played was minor. Everyone I know who knows anything about Waterloo knows that the only reason Wellington and the ALLIED army stood at Waterloo was because he had been promised by Blucher that the Prussians would march to his aid. Anyone who has studied Waterloo even briefly will know that the Dutch and Belgian troops fought there and bravely depsite them having been under French command 12 months before.
You must also admit that for the Allied Army under Wellington did perform very well for them to withstand the French assault until Blucher arrived. If you study Wellingtons career then you'll also understand that his victories in the Penninsula were only possible due to the Portugese and Spanish. The Portugese providing up to 50% of his army, and the Spanish (as well as providing Morells? division) effectively immobilised the French through guerilla action. Please don't assume that the British are all the same based upon one Briton you've met, especially on a History Board. As a side note on Waterloo, I've read that the French were upset that the Chunnel link will end at Waterloo. Oh dear, well just rename the French station after a battle the British lost, it won't upset me.
I understand that English need to emphasize on their battle/courage etc. achievements. However why should we, the 'rest', do the same? For me England was indeed great in that period but due to its 'indeed satanic' diplomacy (and satanic is no emotionally negative, I use it as a compliment)
Sorry for being provocative... one needs to be to make people think it for a second on other terms.Ìý
Okay, I apologise for being offended now you've explained your context. Feel free to be provocative, please though (as you have done in this thread) come back to explain further. I, along with Forestview am proud of my country and can recognise that others may have a different view. I believe that everyones view is important, its just that when they are different to mine they're wrong
(Please dont treat that seriously).
I'm not sure if you are new to the board or not, if you are, I repeat welcome. I'll look forward to some more exchange of views.
Cheers AA. -
Message 22
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 15th August 2005
To give you a fine example:
The famous battle of Waterloo is said to be the genious of Wellington and the bravery and capability of English army. That is good for english history books but why should a non-english like me believe it? The boring truth is that Napoleon would have won the battle had it not been for treason from a number of his high ranking officers...see... some had made money out of Napoleon's campaigns but that went too much... then Napoleon had to be taken out ... you will be suprprised to find who were financially supporting him!!! It was all a change of financial interests.Ìý
Sorry, didn't address this bit. Would you like to back this up with a source? I will be interested.
Honestly and cheers AA. -
Message 23
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
Dear E-Nikolaos_E,
I am amazed at your comments on Wellington. The British are notorious for always trying to denigrate their heroes and, while criticism of Wellington's later political life abounds, his military genius has, as far as I know, never been called into such question. What are your sources? I would really like to read a different version of events to all the others I have read about Wellington.
I have to agree that Waterloo was not Welington's greatest tactical battle. His victories at Assaye, Salamanca and Vittoria are, of course, much better known for their brilliance. It is equally true that he did not wish to fight unless he knew that the Prussians would come to help him, principally because a large part of his army was of doubtful quality and / or very inexperienced.
However, according to my sources, there were 15,000 British (not English) infantry, 5,840 cavalry and 2,967 Royal Ordnance personnel in the batttle line on th emorning of 18th June 1815. Where does your figure of 9,000 come from? Or do you genuinely mean English - which is quite possible given the number of Irish and Scottish regiments present?
I am also astonished that 50,000 Prussians were present. Why were they not with Blucher at Wavre? It seems strange that the Prussians would hand over command of a huge portion of their army and then delay marching to Waterloo to help them until they knew they were committed to battle. It is even more astonishing that they kept quiet about this. Again, I would love to know your sources for this astounding revelation. I am sure you cannot have confused the other German troops which Wellington commanded, as there were only around 25,000 assorted KGL, Brunswickers and Hanoverians (courtesy of Britain having a Hanoverian king).
Finally, which of Napoleon's generals betrayed him? I can only think you are referring to Grouchy who may have been less than enthusiastic about fighting. Most accounts accuse him of incompetence at worst, although it may be possible that his actions were deliberate policy.
Please do share your sources. -
Message 24
Posted by Lindau (U709807) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
A little off topic. Were the British camps in South Africa in the Boer War, where inmates were fed goat dung tea, the basis of Hitlers camps.
-
Message 25
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
A little off topic. Were the British camps in South Africa in the Boer War, where inmates were fed goat dung tea, the basis of Hitlers camps.Ìý
Lindau
There was a key difference - that is the British had not intentended to wipe out a 1/4 of the Boer population. They did so through utter incompitance and not malicious intent.
I will start a new thread on the topic of nations facing unpalitable pasts but for now I will only say that the British did get into Empire with the best of intent but we lost our original vision and in doing so we committed awful "crimes" in modern eyes.
The fact that 1000 years ago our "crimes" would ghave utterly within keeping of the times - 500 years ago they may have been seen as a bit harsh and no more. Whilst we were doing those things there was no great moral indignation against us. (other than by the victims). Yet now we see those acts and cringe.
Of course Britian should never contemplate such absenities agian - then neither should we feel the need to apologise for playing game of the day better than anyone else on that day.
Cheers -
Message 26
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
A little off topic. Were the British camps in South Africa in the Boer War, where inmates were fed goat dung tea, the basis of Hitlers camps.Ìý
Oh, please. In short No. (And very off topic).
In long, no. The phrase "Concentration Camp" was indeed the same. However you have to look at the purpose of the Boer War camps and Hitlers WW2 camps. In the Boer War, the purpose was to deny the Freedom Fighters/Terorists/Partisans/Guerillas (strike out whichever floats your boat, the support of the civilian population.
Yes, the conditions in the Boer War camps were terrible, many died of disease and because of poor sanitation. I won't attempt to cover it up, it happened. Many also died beacuse the military authority attempted to feed the soldiers first, free civilian population second, and those in the camps third. (Yes the miltary authority (Kitchener) chose this route and increased the problem by imprisoning Boer women who could have worked the farms to provide food, but to who?, but hey, what would you do?). I know the route I'd have chosen if I was in charge or a soldier.
The difference is in intent and also that during the Boer War, the British didn't ask the internees to work or produce war material or indeed later as the Nazis in WW2 build crematorium to "dispose" of the "material" that was not fit for use. [You may regard this as provocative, and indeed, make a point that it would have been better for the British too have built crematoria on site in order to dispose of the "waste" they'd created so as to improve conditions]. Sorry, this one won't wash. It's the defence the Nazis used.
These may seem subtle differences as the effects of the camps may have been the "same" in the end. However I'll defend the intent.
I'l leave you with the thoughts that after the Boer War (2nd), General (later Field Marshall) Jan Smuts (a celebrated leader of South Africa during and after the 2nd Boer War) put the full weight of South Africa behind the UK in the 1st and 2nd World War. (According to my sources).
I'd also recommend that you discover the first use of concentration camps, I believe it was the Spanish in 1898.
By my last paragraph, I don't mean to spread the blame, the 2nd Boer Camps weren't a paradise, however on a rank of horror I know where I'd prefer to be.
Lindau, please don't take my post as being aggressive or indeed right or correct. I have strong views on this subject, and I am prepared to back it up with accounts, sources and references. If you disagree, fair enough. I'll try to counter. Debate on this board is fair game.
I'm cool about this one.
Cheers AA. -
Message 27
Posted by Lindau (U709807) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
I don't take it as an agressive thread. I know fairly little about the Boer War in comparison to the second. I didn't know if this was true or not. Thats why i asked, so thanks for answering.
-
Message 28
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 16th August 2005
I don't take it as an agressive thread. I know fairly little about the Boer War in comparison to the second. I didn't know if this was true or not. Thats why i asked, so thanks for answering.Ìý
Lindau, thank you, anyone who has seen my posts on this board (I hope) knows that if I disagree, or, can provide an answer I'll try to help. I'll alwys try to qualify my posts with (as far as I know, or with what I remember, or according to the sources I have).
Oddly enough I wasn't alive during the 2nd Boer War, or indeed WW2. I'm always open to new ideas and opinions. (At least I hope I am).
Ask away, there isn't a stupid question, only a stupid answer.
Cheers AA. -
Message 29
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005
"Britain in particular is co-responsible for 2 World Wars"
WW1 GB declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914 by which time Gernmany had declared war on Russia and France and had invaded Belgium. AH had declared war on Serbia. the only way that GB can be at all responsible is that if they had stayed out then Germany would have won a short European war.
I am not at all proud about the way that Gb behaved in 1938 but WW" was caused by German, Japanese and Italian military aggression, as simple as that. -
Message 30
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005
Tony G
I was also going to post to E-N about where the figure of 9,000 came from and entirely agree with you figure for the Bristsish army. I suspect there would have been slightly more than 9,000 English.
A point on the much maligned Grouchy. His retreat after he had heard of the disaster of Waterloo was handled very competantly. Far more imcompetant was Ney at Quartre Bras and Ligney where his counter orders kept one French Corps out of the battle which is it had have been involved at Ligney would probably had lead to the Prussian army being defeated beyond recovery. -
Message 31
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005
"The Roman Empire is still the gretest on the grounds that it effectively lasted around 1800 years if we take the Byzantian Empire as a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire"
Given that the Constantinople fell in 1453AD tyou have to start the Roman empire in 350 BC at which time it only controlled a small part of Italy. On that basis the Englsih controlled a fair bit of England by 577 AD, certianly more land than the Romans controlled in 350 BC and as of now Great Britain and its remaining bits and pieces are still going strong and so we have 1228 years and are still going. We have given the world the world language (English) the world sport (football) and the mother of parliaments. Latin is a dead language, chariot racing is not that popular and Emperors are out of fashion. -
Message 32
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Wednesday, 17th August 2005
"The Roman Empire is still the gretest on the grounds that it effectively lasted around 1800 years if we take the Byzantian Empire as a continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire"
Given that the Constantinople fell in 1453AD tyou have to start the Roman empire in 350 BC at which time it only controlled a small part of Italy. On that basis the Englsih controlled a fair bit of England by 577 AD, certianly more land than the Romans controlled in 350 BC and as of now Great Britain and its remaining bits and pieces are still going strong and so we have 1228 years and are still going. We have given the world the world language (English) the world sport (football) and the mother of parliaments. Latin is a dead language, chariot racing is not that popular and Emperors are out of fashion.
Ìý
Tim
I stand corrected - I was not sure when it started or ended and got a bit carried away!
Though the point that it did indeed last longer than most if not all others still remains - even at 1600 or so years.
Cheers for the correction -
Message 33
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
"PS: For the record, the British empire was a short-lived one, it was neither the greatest nor the largest:"
If you include control of the seas, which neither the Russian nor Mongolian empire did.
As per another of my postings, giving the time an empire lasted for can be open to debate. -
Message 34
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Ice Cool
I have not got used to posts not appearing next to the one it is replying to.
Firstly there was a two hundred year error in my dating for the "English/British" empire, it should be 1428 years.
Secondly although there is a lot of validity in counting the Byzantine Empire as an extension of the Roman Empire, one could perhaps in the same way consider the "US empire" as an extension of the British Empire!
regards -
Message 35
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Tony G
I was also going to post to E-N about where the figure of 9,000 came from and entirely agree with you figure for the Bristsish army. I suspect there would have been slightly more than 9,000 English.
A point on the much maligned Grouchy. His retreat after he had heard of the disaster of Waterloo was handled very competantly. Far more imcompetant was Ney at Quartre Bras and Ligney where his counter orders kept one French Corps out of the battle which is it had have been involved at Ligney would probably had lead to the Prussian army being defeated beyond recovery.
Ìý
Tim,
Thanks for the info on Grouchy. I must admit I have never paid much attention to the aftermath of the battle. I must admit I am struggling to believe that Grouchy's actions were deliberately aimed at causing Napoleon's defeat as claimed by E-N.
A little web research has revealed that accusations of treason were made against Ney after the battle, presumably centred on the very valid points you have made. I suspect that E-N's claims are based on these accusations, although accusations are not, of course, proof. Ney himself published a written refutation. No doubt many people in France wanted to preserve th emyth of Napoleon's invincibilty and were looking for a scapegoat.
Personally, I suspect that the mistakes Ney made were due more to recklessness and unclear thinking on his part rather than treason. From the various accounts I have read over the years, one gets the distinct impression that Ney's cavalry attacks during the afternoon of Waterloo were of such a scale that most European armies would have broken and run. Indeed, many allied soldiers did leave the battlefield and, in my opinion, Ney probably expected the rest to do the same. But he should certainly have recognised the futility of constantly attacking unbroken squares sooner than he did, although it is interesting that few accounts of the battle agree on just how many attacks Ney made. It may well be that there was some exaggeration on the part of the British.
At the end of all this, though, if Ney was trying to get Napoleon beaten, he wasn't well rewarded, was he? (Unless, of course, you believe the claims that his execution was faked and he lived out his life as a teacher in America). -
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 18th August 2005
Dear Arnald,
I did not read this messages till now, Anyway I am happy that you caught the 'spirit' I write things.
My point is exactly that: the greatness of the English empire was largely based on the fact that the English were the most able of all in making other nations, people, leaders, armies etc. working for them. And they did it in such ways that others would even understand what was going on! The British diplomacy is still perceived as the best - I have been following US diplomacy (as it is our modern empire) and I can tell you, it is not up to the english level of the 19th century, that is why US has always to 'be-friend' UK to take help (not referring necessarily to army), for example in the middle east. The recent blatant US failure in Benezuela (trying to bring down Chavez in exactly the same way - national stikes and chaos in the streets - they brought Alientes in CHile in 1973) proves that.
We all like to think that empires are built by the sword and the shield, but the more mundane reality is that such empires would be of the likes of the Mongol one, Roman and English were built mainly due to successful policies. As Sun Tzu was saying, the wars are almost always pre-defined, and there is little one can change during it - all it matters is what you do before. -
Message 37
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 21st August 2005
Tony
I entirely agree with you that Ney was not a traitor, and I notice Nick has provided no information to support his original claim, just not a particularly good general, though undoubtedly the 'bravest of the brave'. Napoleon really needs to take the main blame, he should have brought Davout, who after Napoleon and Wellington was undoubtedly the best general of the wars, instead of leaving him in Paris. -
Message 38
Posted by SmegheadRed (U1879559) on Tuesday, 23rd August 2005
The answer to that is like saying why are some people not very fond of the US at the moment. Britain were the Superpower of their time. Its a memory of when the British flag was flown over a quarter of the world and British Imperial interests usually overrode everything else. Its a pity it still the anti-British sentiment still exists.
-
Message 39
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 26th August 2005
Look at the world today. Look at the strife caused by nations that were once under our rule. I wonder if they still were, would they cause that trouble? No. In many ways, the world would be better off with the British Empire now or a much stronger Commonwealth.
-
Message 40
Posted by lambertsimnel (U1940926) on Sunday, 28th August 2005
I'm afraid that there are just some subjects in history where it is just about impossible to have a rational discussion free of personal biase and prejudice and a hard-headed assessment of the facts.
The British Empire sadly is one of these.
Somehow historians, both informed and often uninformed ones, seem to want to become moral philisophers when it comes to this subject.
Do we get outraged about the Roman Empire when discussing our history? Does the Norman Conquest, its ruthless destruction of Anglo-Saxon culture and its atrocities in the North of England prevent us from a rational assessment and appreciation of this period of our history? Of course not.
My suggestion is that the subject of the British Empire is parked for at least another four hundred years then at last we might at last get some rational engagement and assessment of this period of our history and the massive impact that this had in shaping our modern world. -
Message 41
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
you cant understand it while you are staying in UK.to find out the answer of this question you should wear my and the other countries people's shoeses. the answer is quiet simple from here but i suppose it looks foggy from there. Why is it that so many people are anit Britsh Empire? Am i the only person to feel extremely proud of what we achieved.Ìý
-
Message 42
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
If you put the rest of the Great Empires up against Britain's, we look rather meek and mild compared to the way the French, the Belgians, the Portugese and the Germans treated their Imperial subjects.
-
Message 43
Posted by ozantugrul (U1780568) on Tuesday, 30th August 2005
it is the simplest answer to cover your mistakes with the other empire's mistakes. what is british empire. it's all territories contains innocent africans, poor indians, miserable aborgines,weak red indian. is it a empire or a simple colonist country. you must understand that the british empire's strategies and ideologies are based on colonisation.
-
Message 44
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005
Well I put it to you again then, with our ethical beleifs these days, would the world not be better with a stronger Commonwealth or British Empire?
-
Message 45
Posted by Ice Cool (U1524764) on Wednesday, 31st August 2005
ozantugrul
it is the simplest answer to cover your mistakes with the other empire's mistakes. what is british empire. it's all territories contains innocent africans, poor indians, miserable aborgines,weak red indian. is it a empire or a simple colonist country. you must understand that the british empire's strategies and ideologies are based on colonisation. Ìý
That is not all strictly speaking true. The British East India Company had no backing from government to act in India. It would have remained a trading company had the Persians not sacked Delhi. As it was being squeezed by the newly powerful mini states it acted by using force to overthrow a state or two. However only when the French started taking control of certain regions did the BEIC act to curtail them. The Govermnet then stepped in and the rest is history.
In the beginning many believed we could enhance the Indians and that drove the first attempt at Empire. The "We big white man" attitude came later. In addition we were assisted by the Indian ruling class who wanted to replace the very Asian Mughal Emporors with new bosses for the sake of stability and money. We did nothing new at all.
The USA was colonised on the whole by the Americans - post independance and not Britain or France. We only occupied 13 colonies (these make up 14 modern states in the North Eastern Corner of nation. The other 36 modern states were colonised later. Many of the original states are some of the smallest!)
Vast areas of Australia that had been left to the abhoiginies were subsequently cleared after effective independance was granted under the Dominion. Ditto New Zealand and the Maoris.
I am not saying that we were saints but please do not make the mistake of believing that the empire was born as it ended or that the British went out of way to slaughter the defensless.
Again Africa was colonised in the most part by the 19c equivalent of privateers, such as Cecil Rhodes. As for the 2 main slaughters comitted by the British, you have missed completely in your rundown of the downtrodden. The Peaceful Tibetans and the white Bors of S Africa were the subject of the worst British atrocities. We could not have been so distgustingly successfull in the Slavetrade had it not been for independant black tribes gathering the slaves for us. These people were almost always from enemy tribes of the slave gatherers - this had been going ever since Roman times. We did nothing new in Africa either.
Was the British Empire a magnificent form of the contempory world order - yes it was.
Would recreating the Empire be an obsenity under modern attitudes and internation law - Yes it would.
The difference is the age in which the actions took place - nothing else. If that were not the case then I demand reparation from the Irish as they smashed the ancient land of my birth using terrible force and masacing many. The lowland Caladonians went first and the our own Highland Picts fell to the Scots from Ireland.
Both my parents are from Great Yarmouth. Iceni territory until the Romans committed genocide there. Maybe an apology from Rome is in order.
I will not hate the USA for being bigger and better than us - or for their occasional atrocities - all nations have their moments. Ask the genuinely warm and usually friendly Germans.
PS no offense meant to any German contributors
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 Ìýto 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
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ 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.