Remembering the Battle Of Britain

quote:

There was no Allied equivalent of the Ghettos, of the death and Labour camps, of the murder of civilans

We had already done that in South Africa.

Wrong! Not Ghettos. Nor Death Camps, and certainly not the [Nazi] Final Solution, but certainly we can claim the ignominious credit for inventing the Concentration Camp in South Africa during the Boer War.

But certainly not the "Industrial" massacre of Jews, Poles [and other minorities though in nothing like the numbers - in round terms 6 million Poles and 6 million Jews], Intellecdtuals, Priest, and other fine people remains the particular invention of the Nazis. The defeat of this aim seems reasonable to me, and worth remembering.

George

Indeed George; the camps set up in the Boer War where not extermination or labour camps. That they have the same name does confuse.

Sorry the Ghettos and Jewish removal was 14/15th Century I think. Along with most of Europe we had our own "final solution" for the Jews. See time line in the anti semetic museum in Anne Franks house for full details.
This is no way any support for the Nazi regime just looking both ways.

Re Boer war camps not providing fresh water and food had much the same effect as extermination camps, even if it wasn't the title.

Dear Mike,

We invented the method of housing enemy elements, but the Nazis found a terible way to use such a situation. There the parallele ends, I quite agree.

George

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Sorry the Ghettos and Jewish removal was 14/15th Century I think. Along with most of Europe we had our own "final solution" for the Jews. See time line in the anti semetic museum in Anne Franks house for full details.
This is no way any support for the Nazi regime just looking both ways.

Re Boer war camps not providing fresh water and food had much the same effect as extermination camps, even if it wasn't the title.

Google the Warsaw Ghettos.

As George says tne end result was accidental, and not industrial. I don't really see the point in going back 600 years to be honest. Its not relevent.

quote:

WW2 was fought to stop a vile evil.

Mike,
WW2 was started to defend Polish neutrality. We were unaware of the evils of Nazism until some time much later. At he time of the Battle of Britain it was fought for survival. It was only later that the full reality of Nazism became known in England. Until then, those best informed were its victims whose voices were stilled. Later we realised that we had been fighting for a strong moral cause, probably the strongest cause in the whole history of war.
It may be that governments knew what the Nazis were doing long before the general public and the armed forces. We only knew what we were permitted to know. The 1944 newsreel revelations of the horrors of the concentration camps came as an enormous shock. I'm old enough to remember it and it had a profound effect on me at the time and indeed, ever since.
Regards,
Ken

Sorry the Ghettos and Jewish removal was 14/15th Century I think. Along with most of Europe we had our own "final solution" for the Jews. See time line in the anti semetic museum in Anne Franks house for full details.
This is no way any support for the Nazi regime just looking both ways.

Re Boer war camps not providing fresh water and food had much the same effect as extermination camps, even if it wasn't the title.

Dear Howard,

To look at the Nazi solution in any other way than we the British, especially politically Churchill did, is an abomination, and not really ...

Shame to suppose that balance really need be thought of in the case of Medieval Tyranny. I think you will find that phrase mentioned in my earlier posts on the subject and not only in this thread.

The Nazis merely applied "Industrial" processes to what was widespread in the Medieval European and Russian World. That does not make anything about the Nazis respectable.

George

Dear Ken.

What the public in GB knew and what Churchill knew were indeed two different things till 1944. If it had been casts as a War against Jewish oppressors, then it might have been less supported by the public in UK than it was - possibly. The Jews were not so popular before 1939 in the UK, if I am not wrong.

At least we did not murder them during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but mostly there was no love lost over them. Churchill deliberatly made it a British cause, rather than a Jewish one.

If the Nazis had landed in GB the history would have been very differnt, and those territories that were oocupied showed that anti-Jewish sentiment was prevalent throught every country which was over-run. Had we beeen over-run, I see no reason to believe that the great British Population would not have complied with the Naizs in significant portion.

George

quote:

WW2 was started to defend Polish neutrality

Well on that day's radio and in the storybooks that does come across, shame for the poor old Sudetenland Czechs which we 'agreed to let them have' because the French & British couldn't yet fight a war (well the French never could I suppose) and the political alliance thingy with Stalin could have been a bit tricky too, then the rest of the Czechs as well, I guess (the Austrians too perhaps but they didn't seem quite so unhappy as Herr Von Trapp made out to the kids). And neutral or not let's not forget that the Poles were running around 'sorting out' just as many Jews and with as much pleasure and vindictiveness as the Brown Shirts in Germany ...While we're about it, not so much heard about the other Nazi allies; Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania. Then there was Finland who never knew what side they were on but I believe plucky Andorra managed to remain neutral. I believe El Salvador eventually came in on 'our' side though, so not all bad.

So perhaps Churchill's implacable leadership was right after all, James?

Anti-Jewish sentiment was rife throughout Europe, especially I might note in Austria, where Corp Hitler was born and brought up, but also apparent in Britain. Churchill understood this, and whatever weakness he may have displayed up to his assumption of leadership in GB, his vision saw through the lesser issues, to the big picture.

George

It was right. 'cos we won.

No! It was right because it was, as Churchill saw in a strangely prescient way, true that genocide is not the way to go on. In Europe it has stopped except for in Yogoslavia within the last two decades, and the EU is working to bring this to a halt through diplomacy rather than War, which I why I am pro-Euopean Union.

Churchill's comment," Better, Jaw-jaw than War- war!" was entirley correct. Think Karadic.

George.

George

Mike Lacey

I missed your post, sorry not to reply. Sorry also you seem offended by my ideas too.

I think you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make about the the people of West Germany in the 1930's. The key phrase I used was 'intrinsically evil'. I genuinely do not believe we should categorise an entire nation (in and out of uniform) as simply 'evil'. I see no differences between them and us at a basic level. I tried to seperate that from the evil actions of the Nazis, and I accept that those actions were carried out by many with implacable acceptance, even enthusiasm. However I would ask why that was-and if what they did is in fact potentially within all of us, the lesson of history suggest it is.

You point out I'm free to make these comments because of the sacrifices of those who won WWII. With respect you will not see anywhere in my posts any suggestion that I believe otherwise, or that I do not honour their loss. However if I were born in Germany 42 years ago instead of Essex I would also honour the dead on my own side who died believing they were defending their homes and families too, whatever ideology they may have subscrbed to.

My family have fought at 2 world wars, (and Korea incidentally). Some have been killed or wounded. My wife's family are european Jews-I'll leave the rest of their story to your imagination.

I sincerely believe the idea of a moral war is impossible. I have thought about this long and hard and I do not think I could take up arms against another. Who knows what scenario might occurr, how I might act when faced by a direct threat to me or my loved ones but I do not think I could. That makes my respect for those that did all the greater.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
I sincerely believe the idea of a moral war is impossible. I have thought about this long and hard and I do not think I could take up arms against another. Who knows what scenario might occur, how I might act when faced by a direct threat to me or my loved ones but I do not think I could. That makes my respect for those that did all the greater.

I cannot see any moral consistency in these two positions.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
I sincerely believe the idea of a moral war is impossible. I have thought about this long and hard and I do not think I could take up arms against another. Who knows what scenario might occur, how I might act when faced by a direct threat to me or my loved ones but I do not think I could. That makes my respect for those that did all the greater.

I cannot see any moral consistency in these two positions.

I guess I see what you mean, but I don't think I agree. I think it is possible to respect and mourn those who have died, and perhaps even admire their bravery without always agreeing with the principles of warfare itself; again I try to seperate individual sacrifice from military policy.

My pacifism is probably as much cowardice as a moral position.


Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
My pacifism is probably as much cowardice as a moral position.


Bruce

Bruce

Your pacifism is your intelligence telling you this is the best option. The ideal option.
However, if you get into a position where your tribal instincts kick in, you will fight. I guarantee it.