Any Historians Out There ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fritz

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

---

Such a luvverly chappie, innee

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
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

---

In that case, Mick, you must believe that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were highly advanced civilsations?

Paul

Paul

I believe that during the 1800's we civilised most of those nations we colonised.

We brought God, the Queen and industrial wealth to them.

Many people in the former colonies still regard us with some affection. Such is the strength of our ties with them.

Regards

Mick

Whilst it would have been easy I didn't actually condemn the area bombing. What I said was that one must not fall into the trap of thinking that the British gave as good as they got. The difference in scale and ferocity is breathtaking, akin to repaying someone who throws a stone through your window by calling in an F16 strike on his family home. The rights and wrongs of these firestorm attacks on specifically urban civilian centres have been argued by historians, politicians and military figures for years. Indeed, even planners and flight crews have since conceded that in the targetting and weaponery they may have gone too far. Churchill himself doubted the wisdom of continuing the campaign simply for the sake of increasing the terror on German civilians. There is no easy judgement here one way or another and I reiterate, I merely pointed out that the RAF's response was was not the retaliation in kind that is frequently thought.

If commerce and industry are the only true indicator of civilisation I hope that you stick around to witness China becoming a lot more civilised whilst Western Europe and the US rapidly regresses.

I think wheeling out dental treatment as a benefit of a fairly bloody empire expansion is a bit of a reach. Also last time I heard a dental appointment for the masses wasn't so much a drive up the road as a ferry to France or a flight to Krakow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Paul

I believe that during the 1800's we civilised most of those nations we colonised.

We brought God, the Queen and industrial wealth to them.

Many people in the former colonies still regard us with some affection. Such is the strength of our ties with them.

Regards

Mick

---

Our god, our queen and our wealth for the most part. You make it sound like they were starving, had no relegion and had no system of rule or government.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
....I merely pointed out that the RAF's response was was not the retaliation in kind that is frequently thought.

---

Does anyone seriously believe that? I know that history is often written by the winning side but surely nobody believes that what we did was tit for tat? Your stone through the window and F16 analogy doesn't even begin to get close enough!

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Paul

I believe that during the 1800's we civilised most of those nations we colonised.

We brought God, the Queen and industrial wealth to them.

Many people in the former colonies still regard us with some affection. Such is the strength of our ties with them.

Regards

Mick

---

We imposed our values on them. Initially down the barrel of a gun, then later through indoctrination by religion.

This was subjugation, pure and simple. Oh, and you seem to have forgotten, Mick, the decisive role that the slave trade played in all this.

The imperialism of European nations between the 15 & 20 centuries represents, I believe, perhaps the greatest crime ever committed by human beings against one another.

Paul

It's not a topic I've discussed often Harry, but yes, people who don't know the facts believe that they hit Britain so Britain just hit back.

In this instance harry, I was just commenting on camlan's response to JonR

quote:

---

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.

---

which I read as expressing just this view.

Bloody hell Mick! - I see what you mean. It's all a bit upsetting. Think I'll retire from this thread. Someone will doubtless need to get the last word in but I don't need to see any more.

Cheers

Harry

Sorry Bigmick but 'don't know the facts' is in my view going a bit strong as is the analogy about the throwing of a stone and an F16 strike.

I never said tit for tat, I said 'sow the wind and reap the whirlwind' which I think as you accept in your comments above is what happened. In my previous comments I didnt even touch on Rotterdam, the total destruction of the centre of an undefended city in a Neutral country invaded without provocation in 1940 or the fact that when the bomber offensive was at it's height the Nazis were raining V1 and V2 rockets on London at considerable loss of life. I suppose your view would be that if we had stopped then so would they.

As other people on this thread have said it is all well and good to make moral judgements from a position of hindsight 60 years after the event. During the Second World War I doubt that there would have been more than a very small minority of the British people who would for a minute have questioned the morality or the raison d'etre behind the bomber offensive. Tends to be like that when you are fighting for your very existence.

I do agree with you that the arguments about the rights and wrongs of the Bomber Offensive have been debated at length since the end of the war and are too detailed for an internet forum of this nature. It is therefore important not to debate the issue on a soundbite basis which I guess I am guilty of. My apologies for that.

Turning to the concentration camps in the Boer War, I suggest you buy or borrow The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham and read Chapter 39. Then perhaps you will know the 'facts' about this particular episode.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fritz

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

Regards

Mick

---

I bet you say that to all the boys sweetie pie ?

Fritz Von Frustratedinvertgaywilliesabound

NoB. I've always wondered why after we'd 'Civilised' China by selling them their
own opium they don't like us any more, and prefer to do the serious business
stuff today only with the Germans ?

They dropped bombs on Shanghai too apparently, naughty little sweet & Sour
noshers, innit.

Fritz

I suspect Matthew would also like to lock you up as well.

Regards

Mick

The British did not invent the ifdea of Concentration Camps. Kitchener borrwed it from the Spanish in Cuba: they set up "Reconcentrado" to house/imprison the local population.

To compare the British, or even Spanish versions with the Nazi horror is wrong because the Nazis set out systematically to destroy an entire people. Without condoning the Boer losses, the deaths where by negligence not design.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fritz

I suspect Matthew would also like to lock you up as well.

Regards

Mick

---

It's nice to see that you 'unsuprisingly' speak for our Mat, though I'm sure you'd both like to lock a lot of people up, legally or not ! i nnit

Fritz Von Minus a bottle

The winner of the bottle was most amused when I told him about this forum and the wasps nest of indignation it seemingly produced. I considered printing out a page or two, but decided against it feeling that it wasn't quite cricket to do so. In my original question I emphased (aircraft) rather than balloons etc, just to put the record straight, though thanks to everyone who put in their two-pennyworth as I for one certainly learnt a lot of new facts and figures that I'd really never considered afore.

Fritz Von Humbled as per usual

I was thinking that perhaps if HRH The Prince of Wales had a word with our Mat,
who could perhaps get on to a couple of his 'Journo' matey's, and they could in
turn get a line to the Barclay twins who would 'most likely' 'most possibly' do
what they're told/asked, sorry; I mean give our Harry a guided tour of the Nazi
(slave-built) underground 'hospital', paradoxically the death arena for the many
poor souls forced to create it on the beautiful Channel Island of Jersey, (as
it's in their manor so to speak (but don't tell anybody )) & helping our Arry
furver with his istory afore entrin Sanhurst like, innit ?



A Seabird on a cliff

Graham,

The facts are the allied (in WW 2) forces have dropped bombs on Dresden,Hamburg,leipzig etc.
which caused fire storms. They knew the results of these fire storms would cause many deaths among innocent citizens.
As a result 300.000 innocent civilians died. But compared to 6 million jews slaughtered by the Nazi-regime it sets all in perspective don't you think ?

Rob.

I take your point but I think it's faulty logic. At the end of the day there are no winners and losers, just the living and the dead. Justifing one body count with another is one way of arguing it - but simplistic IMO. The only thing it puts into perspective is our ability and willingness to kill each other. But as already said, it's a luxury to be able to debate it from the future, we shouldn't lose sight of what we were up against - regardless of if we think the fire storms were right or wrong. Too late now anyway.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robbie:
The facts are the allied (in WW 2) forces have dropped bombs on Dresden,Hamburg,leipzig etc.
which caused fire storms. They knew the results of these fire storms would cause many deaths among innocent citizens.
As a result 300.000 innocent civilians died. But compared to 6 million jews slaughtered by the Nazi-regime it sets all in perspective don't you think ?

---

I've never known the horrors of war. Most of us haven't, thank God.

So I certainly wouldn't judge the actions taken by military leaders at a time when our country was fighting for its freedom and survival.

However, in fairness I don't think that the Nazi massacre of 6 million Jews had much to do with the bombing of Dresden, etc.

Of course we were basically the 'good guys' and they were the 'bad guys' but in WW2, as in most wars, attrocities were committed by both sides.

Steve M

HTK and Steve,

My point was never intended to jusify war, one way or the other. It's just ironic that we (as western world) can live with a 1.000.000 dead Huti's and Tutsi's and cry about the few we've lost in the Iraqi conflict.

Rob.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robbie:
...It's just ironic that we (as western world) can live with a 1.000.000 dead Huti's and Tutsi's and cry about the few we've lost in the Iraqi conflict.

---

That is true, although we probably cry more or at least as much for Iraqi civilian's killed as for the few we've lost or for the Huti's and Tutsi's.

I believe that this is due to the collision of three elements:

1. We are responsible for many of the Iraqi civilian deaths. Therefore we quite rightly deplore these deaths and perhaps our attitudes help to make our own troops even more cogniscent of their responsibilities in this area.

2. Some of those who were against the Iraq war at the start would rather that they are proved right than the Iraqis gain their freedom. Thus casualties in the Iraq war are given maximum exposure.

3. Huti's and Tutsi's were not on either left wing or right wing agendas. Neither to a large extent was the Congo, Dafur or even Afghanistan. Iraq and Israel/Palestine is where the left/right political battle lines are drawn and these are the areas that attract our attention.

In summary, it's not about numbers, ethics or morals. It's about politics.

Steve M

Dear Mr 7V,
I'll not waste your precious time by discussion and my obvious
drivel, though find it sad that a man as naturally talented at writing as
yourself deems it fit to lower himself to my own base level by chucking in cheap
shot expletives wether you like Mr(/s Mushroom and my opinions or not `?

All der Best, Fritz Von All your posts smack the same eventually mate!

N-B. I assume when you refer to suchlike people as yourself you refer to folk
living in Surrey, innit ? I didn't know Harry was a Hammers man ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
N-B. I assume when you refer to suchlike people as yourself you refer to folk
living in Surrey, innit ?

---

Dear Mr. Fritz Von ...

When have I referred to suchlike people as myself? I'm not sure there are any. Do you mean my use of the word 'we' in the post above?

quote:

---

I didn't know Harry was a Hammers man ?

---

Now you've lost me again. Hammers are West Ham, no? I'm guessing that 'Harry' is Prince Harry rather than Harry Rednapp.

I am trying you know.

Steve M

PS: Sorry if you think that all my posts smack the same. I'll try not to bore you in future. How about if I start a discussion on the Welfare State? We might be able to get through it without a mention of the 'I' or 'J' words.

William is for the Villa.

And we can't forget Phillip for Real Mallorca