Any Historians Out There ?

I’m no great fan of what the Boers contribution to history, but the actions of the British in the Boer war were, in all but scale, the moral and barbaric equivalence of the Nazis. The systematic destruction of homes, farms and livelihoods and the subsequent corralling of predominantly women, children and elders into these tented concentration camps, was an act of attempted and almost successful genocide by a brutal and aggressive occupying British force. They had already pushed the Boers inland from their coastal lands and occupied those, when it transpired that the Transvaal, where the Boers had resettled, was rich in gold and diamonds.

The British engineered the conflict with the intention of seizing control of the wealth and moving further up through the continent. Be very clear; the British troops were no more under threat from the detainees of the camp than were the Nazis from the detainees of their camps. Anyone remotely threatening was shot on sight, not led to camp; the function was of the camp was twofold in wiping out the Boer bloodline and breaking the will of the resistance. To use the notion that the camps were there to save the lives of British troops engaged in some honourable and valiant struggle is patently nonsensical and you’re either ignorant of the fact or endeavouring to mislead. Either way you’re clearly wrong and an apology to justiceklopper, though unexpected, would thus appear to be in order.

Like the Nazis the British would claim that the detainees were providing intelligence and food to the fighters and that they were being detained for everyone’s protection and indeed their own well-being. Now and again, we have the chilling, stomach churning spectacle of SS officers and camp guards defending the concentration camps for reasons outlined above, indeed this coming Tuesday evening on BBC2 you can see just that. Few people with any morals or historical awareness would have the effrontery or sheer lack of perspicacity to defend the concentration camp in either situation; just former SS officers, prison guards and the hobbit. Disgraceful.

Any commentator with an ounce of wit or humanity has viewed this episode it as an indefensible moral nadir in British history and it was undoubtedly a turning point in the designs of Empire.

As wonderfully interesting as this all is (Andy C, I feel you could be treading
on dangerous virtual waters with some folks, re your last comments there mate ?)
I still don't have an answer to my original question ? Strangely enough the guy
in question is also a Jew, but that has absolutely no relevance to who & when
first bombed civilians (with aircraft) in a time of so-called conflict, either
Iraq 1920 ? or Spain early 30's ? now, I'm off down the pub.


Fritz Von Thisrtyworkthishistorylarkinnit

N.B. From a personal contemporary point of view I've witnessed far more racism,
anti-semitism, etc, etc, either at football, school, on the streets of London,
and in pubs etc, than I've ever encountered in nearly 25 years of Germany, just
for the record (as a young child, up to 10 ish I lived in East London, East
Ham., Plaistow etc, though Islington born (God help me) and had a free reign of
the gang mentality and street survival methods from an early age, so I do
actually know a little bit about which I speak, in contrast to our Mattt's
mates in that other part of London he so aptly described recently ! In my
parents wisdom after that period we moved to a more middle class area, where for
two years and a bit my siblings and I attended a 95% Jewish school, where we
soon learned that there are other aspects to life we'd not yet learned, like
colour and race is only skin deep, even though we were seperated by table at
lunchtimes for non kosher grub. Next schools (approved) mega State
Comprehensives, catering for every cultural taste under the sun, and bloody good
they are too (the concept I mean) Morning totally mixed general assembleys, boys
and girls, uniform, no favouritism (except hammers supporters naturally) we got
the first canings when things went astray etc, irrespective of being turban
wearing, muslim, jewish, catholic, or bloody whatever else you may fancy ! I
consider these times for me as an invaluable 'fair' education in life, and would
wish the same upon any child I could, (education quality is obviously variable)
I refer to the Comprehensive system as a whole(so long as the school's not too
big) generally, innit.
History & Religion both compulsory subjects were
interesting to say the least, and I consider myself very lucky to have
experienced such a catlising kick up the arse into a lifetimes love and interest
in both subjects(to name but a few) spelling & grammer ! I now, and have done so
for a long time live a privelaged lifestyle and freedom to comment, but am/are
aware of the fact and never take it for granted, also never keep quiet when I
see/hear bullshit, ignorance, and hatred being spouted, the rest is par for the
course, now I'm really going down the pub, Cheers.

Morning has broken was a favourite sung by all and sundrie in an almost tunefull
way, Blowin in the wind on occassion too, we were quite advanced in that way I
suppose ?

quote:

---

(Andy C, I feel you could be treading
on dangerous virtual waters with some folks, re your last comments there mate ?)

---

Hey Fritz,
What I was getting at was the question of why it all started, and the impression that the aggressors wanted to get their hands on the money. I meant no offence to anyone reading this thread.
IF I have caused such offence then I deeply apologise.

andy c!

Bigmick

No one is suggesting that the Empire forces were particulary nice guys. They were soldiers doing a job under instruction from the Government and it must be remembered that this was a popular action back in Britain.

Also the Boers have not been paragons of virtue, when men want power and money and decide to take it by force, someone along the way suffers.

In those days, we were seen as bringing civilisation to an unchristian world and even our French and Belgian opponents accepted that.

Building camps may be wrong in todays terms but at the time it was popular because it saved our troops from being kiled. That is the background and you need to remember it.

Regards

Mick

Needs to be made when talking about "concentration camps".

There are concentration camps, first used by the British in the Boer War; and also in the early days of the Nazi regime. These were used
for the containment of POWs (Brits) and/or political dissidents (Nazis). The Nazis later used them for the imprisonment (and low-key murder) of the mentally and/or physically handicapped, opponents of the regime, gypsies, Slavs, Jews and others who did not fit in with the Nazi project.

Then there are death camps, best and most horrifically exemplified by Auschwitz-Birkenau. These existed for one purpose only, which is the mass slaughter of human beings (mostly Jews and Slavs). These were not set up until the War was well underway, and were in essence an "answer' to the "Jewish question".

It sounds like nit-picking, but it's important. A British concentration camp in the Boeer War is in no way comparable to a death camp such as Belsen or Auschwitz.

Kevin

The first known example of areial bombing was in 1911, when the Italians dropped bombs on anti-colonialist fighters in Tripoli, Libya (although I recall that improvised bombs were dropped from hot air balloons early in the 19th century).

Bombing did occur in the First World War, but not the kkind of "strategic" bombing that emmerged in the Second World War.

The incident Fritz described did take place during the British mandate of Iraq in the 1920s. Around the same time (1924 I think?) the Spanish bombed civilians in Chechaouen in Morocco.

Does that answer your question?

Kevin

Kevin,
Never thought about it like that...

andy c!

Bigmick

I have to say that I am with Kevin-W on this one. The concentration camps in the Boer War were exactly what they said they were, a concentration of the population to cut off supply and aid to the Boer commandos active at that time. There is little doubt that because of a lack of proper organisation many innocent people died but this was not a result of policy more incompetence. Compare this with nazi death camps where the raison d'etre was mass extermination and I think you will see that there is little serious comparison.

In any event the Boers are very close to last in line in talking about human rights abuses - see apartheid in all it's forms.

Jon R - We didn't start the mass bombing of German cities - see London, Coventry, Birmingahm, Liverpool, Swansea, Bristol etc, etc. You sow the wind you reap the whirlwind. As an aside the RAF should have bombed the hell out of Auschwitz as well. Churchill wouldnt let them because he just didnt believe what was going on there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camlan:
We didn't start the mass bombing of German cities - see London, Coventry, Birmingahm, Liverpool, Swansea, Bristol etc, etc. You sow the wind you reap the whirlwind. As an aside the RAF should have bombed the hell out of Auschwitz as well. Churchill wouldnt let them because he just didnt believe what was going on there.

---

Maybe not but we responded in kind so there is blood on our hands too. Just because the Nazis did it first doesn't make it right.

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camlan:
As an aside the RAF should have bombed the hell out of Auschwitz as well. Churchill wouldnt let them because he just didnt believe what was going on there.

---

Not quite true, Camlan. This is a point that will be argued over for some time, at least uuntil all official documents relating to the matter of Auschwitz and its bombing are declassified. There is certainly evidence that Churchill and Roosevelt were well appraised of the situation in the eastern death camps
The main reason for not bombing seems to be concern about killing civilians (eh?); and concern over diverting valuable resources from the post-D-Day push into Germany (Poland was at the edge of the range of many planes of the time, especially if they took off from Britain). But wwe may nnever know.

Kevin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
There is certainly evidence that Churchill and Roosevelt were well appraised of the situation in the eastern death camps

---

There's a big difference between being 'appraised of the situation' and viewing the camps first hand or seeing actual photographs or film footage. The true horror of the death camps was almost beyond belief or comprehension.

I believe that if Churchill really knew what was happening, he would have bombed hell out of the camps.

Steve M

Mick
Your first paragraph could be said of the Nazis or any forces. I don't think that the actions of the soldiers are the issue here. What you are defending is righteousness of the decision to construct these camps, the driving of women and children from their ravaged homes and into the camps where the British contained until they perished from malnutrition and disease. That decision undoubtedly came from beyond the battlefield, maybe Kitchener or ministerial level. It's the decision and any attempted justification for it which is indefensible.

Mick and Camlan, you may have noted that in the first sentence of my post I state that I’m no fan of the Boers and I don’t see any of them here making any complaints. I am really quite familiar with the history of SA and have personal experience of the Nats. I fail to see how any of this makes actions of the British in this respect any more defensible. This is as ludicrous as stating that the actions of modern-day Israel nullifies the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust – see the occupied territories.

The Boers, were predominantly Calvinist farmers and were certainly in no need of the rather odd demonstration of civilisation that the British exhibited when they proceeded to wipe them out.

You’re still not getting it. Building such camps and sticking the weak frail into them to die was not a common practice in war. This isn’t ancient history; society already had a fairly well developed notion of right and wrong and remember this was only 30 odd years before the Nazis opened up their facilities. The British knew that what they were doing was wrong, but the lack of success in conventional warfare drove them to desperate measures. The could have withdrawn, moved on and protected the lives of their troops, but the hunger for someone else’s wealth drove them to such desperate measures. Spin was alive and well even then and the public of the day knew nothing more than the government allowed to be reported. The camps were reported by the British forces as being populated by “voluntary refugees” who sought and received succour and care from the troops. Having said that where the truth was known there was in fact considerable outrage, even from Lloyd George who commented “When is a war not a war? When it is carried on by methods of barbarism.”

Kevin, of course, on grounds of scale, the rationalisation of death and process, there is a distinction between the concentration camps operated by the British, the Nazis, the Serbs and the extermination camps. For me, the differentiation doesn’t make the defence of either one any less reprehensible. I object to the defence of the corralling, containment and death of civilian women and children in a concentration camp on the spurious basis that this measure saved the lives of heroic English soldiers who were the aggressors seeking to occupy and control the South African Republic and strip it of it’s resources. The British troops were under no more threat from the women, children in the camps than the Nazis were from the detainees in their camps. These people were not forced into camps to protect British troops, they were forced there to stay there, to be seen to suffer and die. 27000 people didn’t die because of simple incompetence they died because of a malevolence, an inhumane detention and the willingness of their captors to stand by, watch them die before disseminating the news. Whether or not we are somehow benefiting from these plundered riches today doesn’t make the action any less repugnant.

I recall reading that Churchill gave the go ahead to bomb Auschwitz but that it was FDR and his defence secretary that had stalled it.

Camlan, Whilst the defeat of Nazis was the greatest military triumph of the last century, and no right minded person would wish them anything less than a sweltering eternity down below, please don’t make the mistake of thinking that the Allied air attacks on Germany cities were a tit for tat, like for like with the Luftwaffe raids on British targets. On a multitude of levels there’s really no comparison.

Bigmick

No one can justify war and both sides committed some fairly unpleasant acts.

My annoyance with justiceklopper was when he called me a prick for stating that the BEF build camps as a means to reduce English casualties, which it was.

Also the Empire served its purpose in the overall historical sense. We went in and conquered and did very well out of it. However, it did speed up the process of civilising an hitherto uncivilised continent, so once again, it is easy to slag it off in 2005 but it was doing a damn good job in 1900.

Regards

Mick

The point has been made above, but seems to be getting left behind: the British "Concentration Camps" where set up as a means of controlling the population - concentrating them in one place. The Nazi "Concentration Camps" where part of a deliberate and horrendous attempt at killing an entire people - circa 4 million Jews, plus a couple of million other undesirable Untermensche such as gays, communists, union activists, Slavs, Russians, the disabled etc.

The comparison is inaccurate and to me, somewhat odious.

As for the bombing of Dresden, Kold etc then if we had lost the War then Harris, Churchill et al would almost certainly been tried for war Crimes ( or most likely just strung up with piano wire. ) I am pretty uncomfortable with the deliberate targetting of civilians as a means of waging war, but we must remember the alternative should we have lost.

A thought that has by coincidence been on my mind of late:

"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier."

Regards

Mike

And of course the US had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

The papers are currently reviewing a couple of books covering the British suppression of the Mau-mau in Kenya. Disturbing enough just from the synopses. OTOH the eventual disengagement and independence worked relatively well.

On topic I think there was a great paranoia about bombing between the world wars, and much wasted effort. The aircraft that first flew the Atlantic non-stop in 1919 was a bomber.

Paul

Mike, the point was not only not being “left behind” but was dealt with in the preceding post but one:

quote:

---

of course, on grounds of scale, the rationalisation of death and process, there is a distinction between the concentration camps operated by the British, the Nazis, the Serbs and the extermination camps. For me, the differentiation doesn’t make the defence of either one any less reprehensible. I object to the defence of the corralling, containment and death of civilian women and children in a concentration camp on the spurious basis that this measure saved the lives of heroic English soldiers who were the aggressors seeking to occupy and control the South African Republic and strip it of it’s resources.

---

It’s not a competition between concentration camps, which is more brutal or effective killing machine and TBH I can’t see where any comparison has been made between the death camps you describe and the British camps. When people of particular class, religion or nationality are corralled into camps, particularly in times of war, it is almost always part of a vile plan which isn’t concerned with improving the welfare of the detainees. When the British burned out the Boer farmsteads, destroyed their crops and livestock and concentrated the now homeless and destitute women and children in one place, it wasn’t for a whist drive, barn dance or a casting session. The entire operation was deliberate and horrendous and the death toll speaks to its efficacy. For the last time, it was and is indefensible and the justification simply untrue.

"If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier."

Certainly true if you were English. Maybe not so grateful if the soldier was part of a force which had invaded, occupied and colonized your country.

Using contemporary ideas and ideals to comment on times long ago is of dubious effectiveness historically.

Take the mongol empire, the largest ever built.

No roads
No fax
No phone
No text
No Naim Forum (gad!)

So how to keep the punters in line?
Be the nastiest, most ruthless SOBs out there and have such a scary reputation that everyone stays in line for fear of mass slaughter.

Entire cities would surrender just at the approach of the mongol armies.

Now we think, by our standards that's pretty harsh, disgusting and obviously a violation of human rights. i'm not saying it was right, because I'm damned sure the Mongols knew it wasn't on, but that's what had to be done to keep everyone in line.

Today it's done thru the monetary system - which, whilst not in your face like a battle axe, is still pretty fucking scary when you're on the wrong end of it, like someone I know who is getting investigated by the IRS for things he was told 10 years ago are ok.

Now in 500 years time when the aliens look back on our sad little world's history, could you blame them for thinking that was just as bad as shooting someone?

History's job is not to say whther things were right or wrong - most of the time that's blurred by political circumstance.

Take the Nuremburg trials. All those Nazis got the long drop and the short stop.
But do you reckon if they'd won that Tedder and Spaatz and Rokossovsky and Zukhov wouldn't have been shot real quick for the bombings of Hamburg (150000 dead and homeless) Dresden (almost 500000 dead and homeless) and the rape and murder accompanying the Red Army's advance into Eastern Europe? You bet your life.

We won so we dished it out. That's normally the rule.

The trick is to try and learn something from all the killing that is Humanity's past-time of choice for the last 5000 years.

Bet we won't.

God has the whole sordid little mess nailed.

'All tables are full of vomit. No where is clean'

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe90:
Take the mongol empire, the largest ever built.

---

It is estimated that approximately 16 million men are directly descended from Genghis Khan himself and, presumably, the same number of women. Who said "War crime doesn't pay"?

The Mongol armies were primitive, uncultured people who managed to overcome vast, advanced civilizations such as China simply by being ruthless and efficient fighters. At the same time, China, although an advanced, powerful and civilized culture, was not sufficiently awake to their threat.

Is there a lesson there?

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

Also the Empire served its purpose in the overall historical sense. We went in and conquered and did very well out of it. However, it did speed up the process of civilising an hitherto uncivilised continent, so once again, it is easy to slag it off in 2005 but it was doing a damn good job in 1900.

Regards

Mick

---

Doing a damn good job of turning everyone into a british subject? Certainly. But that's not everyone's defenition of civilisation. It's a circular argument on which I think those of opposing views can only agree to disagree.

Leaping forward to WW2, the justification for blanket bombing german cities was that we had a war to win. That doesn't make it right (it was barbaric) but what were the practical alternatives? Having come out on top we now have the luxury of questioning the people who at the time, were doing what they considered necessary to ensure our ultimate freedom.

I think there's some faulty logic in the suggestion that 'their crimes were worse than ours' We should all be ashamed for what we were capable of and willing to do - however desperate we were and however nastier the opposttion. Wasn't this one of the reasons why the UN was set up?

There's no resolution here. You can't put the shit back in the donky. What you can only do is learn and move forward. Or backwards - as we now seem to be doing in the Middle East. What gives America the right to say who's nasty enough to invade and who isn't quite nasty enough, so will be left alone? Or the right to descide when the UN should be employed and when not? Truth? Justice? Democracy? The greater good of humanity? Or perhaps that they vaporised two Japanese cities in 1945 and are now in charge? If the Japanese had dropped a couple of atom bombs on American cities would that have been acceptable - given that there was a war on at the time?

Cheers

Harry

"Also the Empire served its purpose in the overall historical sense. We went in and conquered and did very well out of it. However, it did speed up the process of civilising an hitherto uncivilised continent, so once again, it is easy to slag it off in 2005 but it was doing a damn good job in 1900."

That's not altogether true, Mick. Many of the regions that the British and other European powers invaded had advanced cultures - India and Latin America, for instance.

They weren't commercial or industrial nations, however, but are we saying that commerce and industry are the only true measure of civilisation?

When the first European nations invaded North America in the 15 & 16 Centuries there were, according to the most reliable estimates, about 20 million indigenous tribal people living there. By the end of the 19 Century only about 200,000 were left. Around 19,800,000 had been killed in 400 years or less, making this the worst genocide in history. Is this what 'civilising an hitherto uncivilised continent' actually means?

Also, it is not true to say that 100 years ago everyone believed in the British Empire. Nearly all socialist parties of the period opposed imperialism (although, as now, some abandoned their principles when elected to power).

Paul

Bigmick

It is very easy for you to condem blanket bombing etc but we had to enter WW2 whether we wanted to or not.

All everyone wanted was to end it as quickly as possible with little loss of life on our side. There was little sympathy for the enemy. If killing 10,000 Germans saved one British life, then so be it, that was how they felt at the time.

The driving force was to return to a normal existance and any tactic that speeded the process up was more than popular. That why things happened and you cannot blame them for that.

Regards

Mick

Paul

You asked

"They weren't commercial or industrial nations, however, but are we saying that commerce and industry are the only true measure of civilisation?

In my opinion the answer to that is yes.

We needed minerals, raw materials and fruit etc and you need an infrastructure to get those things off the ground.

When you have a toothache, you need to drive up the road to find a dentist and thats what the Empire provided. I accept it was all one way in the begining, but most nations benefitted in the longer term.

Regards

Mick

It looks like I lost the bet then !(there goes another bottle of malt) but at least you chaps all seem to have had a lovely time chatting about how you're all gonna change things in the future, innit.


Fritz Von Wannadoptanaboriginiekidmate ?

Fritz

I would like to conquer you and stick you in a camp just to shut you up.

Regards

Mick