For shame. Paris liberation made 'whites only'

[Каие]

And they said I was crazy and lying.

[Fibur]

;

[Phalanx300]

The Holocaust is a unique case and stands alone in the history of the world. Never before were factories created for the express purpose of wiping out a whole group of people. It was state sponsored killing on an unimaginable scale. 12,000,000 souls were lost from it. It wasn't just the Jews who suffered through the Holocaust. It was all the untermensch.

Yes, yet the British were the first to try out concentration camps. Starving women and children in camps in the Boer war to force a surrender from the heavilly outnumbered Boeren who refused to surrender.

[Dr. Croccer]

Yes, yet the British were the first to try out concentration camps. Starving women and children in camps in the Boer war to force a surrender from the heavilly outnumbered Boeren who refused to surrender.

Concentration camps were used in the Spanish-American War a few years prior for similair reasons.

But those concentration camps and their reasons were small and understandable in comparison to the Nazi ones.

[Phalanx300]

Concentration camps were used in the Spanish-American War a few years prior for similair reasons.

But those concentration camps and their reasons were small and understandable in comparison to the Nazi ones.

Since when is starving women and children "understandable"? Its just a dispicable cowardly act, as is attacking any civilians in a war.

And yes, these concentration camps were of a smaller scale and not with the same intentions yet it were still concentration camps.

[Dr. Croccer]

Since when is starving women and children "understandable"? Its just a dispicable cowardly act, as is attacking any civilians in a war.

The main point of the camps was to hold the women and children as bargaining chips. Essentially, it was an intelligent and understandable action, from a military point of view, because the Boers skirmished and rarely fought in a normal fashion. The only things that there were were their houses and families. Using them as bargaining chips to dicuss peace was fairly smart.

Also, the original idea was supposed to be more humane. But the British military top, in their infinite wisdom, choose crappy camps above more humane structures. The situation improved when the British civilians found out and campaigned for more humane camps. The casualty rate dropped from 26% to 6% or something.

Another thing that's often forgotten are the blacks that were imprisoned as well. They had it far worse than the Boers and had casualty rates over 50%.

[Treize]

This happened almost a century ago...

[Phalanx300]

The main point of the camps was to hold the women and children as bargaining chips. Essentially, it was an intelligent and understandable action, from a military point of view, because the Boers skirmished and rarely fought in a normal fashion. The only things that there were were their houses and families. Using them as bargaining chips to dicuss peace was fairly smart.

Also, the original idea was supposed to be more humane. But the British military top, in their infinite wisdom, choose crappy camps above more humane structures. The situation improved when the British civilians found out and campaigned for more humane camps. The casualty rate dropped from 26% to 6% or something.

Another thing that's often forgotten are the blacks that were imprisoned as well. They had it far worse than the Boers and had casualty rates over 50%.

The puting in concentrations camps of Jews and other "lesser" peoples in not understandable.

Yet starving women and children in concentration camps and pilaging the land of people your at war with is understandable?!

[Каие]

Don't you support the Israeli blockade of Gaza?

[Dr. Croccer]

The puting in concentrations camps of Jews and other "lesser" peoples in not understandable.

Yet starving women and children in concentration camps and pilaging the land of people your at war with is understandable?!

Are you blind? Did you read what I just said? The British didn't intend to starve the women and children but simply contain them. They died due to incompetence, not blind hate or intention.

[Phalanx300]

Are you blind? Did you read what I just said? The British didn't intend to starve the women and children but simply contain them. They died due to incompetence, not blind hate or intention.

Maybe you are blind?

I gues the nazi's didn't intend to kill the Jews either? But they just did it anyways?

Don't you support the Israeli blockade of Gaza?

I do?

[Каие]

I believe so. Unless I have you all mistaken, I recall some I support the IDF/Israel in Gaza sigs.

[Keravnos]

Since when is starving women and children "understandable"? Its just a dispicable cowardly act, as is attacking any civilians in a war.

And yes, these concentration camps were of a smaller scale and not with the same intentions yet it were still concentration camps.

It never is understandable. No-one said it was. The only justification for it was that the Boers were fighting against the British at the time. This means, however nasty it may look when you read this, that there is a small, tiny amount of justification on the part of the British.

Please do not compare different things. The British didn't intend to kill off the Boers, nor did they lock up millions of them, nor did they kill them at gas chambers, or destroyed the remains in crematoria.

The Hebrews of Europe had done NOTHING to deserve the treatment they got. They were the definition of innocent victims. Anyone saying otherwise, is plain lying. If you don't believe me read a historians' account. For all its inaccuracies, www.en.wikipedia.com is a good place to start. Let me help,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

The puting in concentrations camps of Jews and other "lesser" peoples in not understandable.

Yet starving women and children in concentration camps and pilaging the land of people your at war with is understandable?!

Again you make a mistake. This isn't some bragging rights thing with you saying "How do you dare implying that my people didn't suffer, where as your did"... "My people suffered too, you know".

The Holocaust is so different to anything else, so inherently evil, it stands out. To compare it with something else is wrong. Nothing in history can compare with the Holocaust. Read that link I provided and you will understand.

Listen, my grandfather had his whole family and tens of others of his kin slain in the chaos that was Turkey in 1915. He was a rich boy, the son of a wealthy merchant and he wound up in Greece with nothing, being discriminated against, working as a builder to make a living. I'm telling this so that you see that he was street smart and he had been through enough hardship to be able to figure out what had happened. He joined EAM resistance group and tried to warn them of what awaited them if they would be rounded up and shipped over our borders. 1850 never came back.

He suffered a lot in his life because of that. You could call it survivors guilt. He was treated poorly as he was called a communist even if he considered himself left of center but no commie. He was exiled twice, even spent time in a mental institution because he just couldn't cope (he always thought he had failed everyone, his family included). Yet, he told me time and again, when I was young, that there was nothing in this world so bad as what had happened to the Hebrews. It's just that I was too small at the time and couldn't quite understand it. I think I must have blocked it somehow, pushed it out of my mind. Unfortunately, I do understand it now. Only too well, I might add.

Maybe you are blind?

I gues the nazi's didn't intend to kill the Jews either? But they just did it anyways?

Let's not go around accusing each other over who wanted to kill whom and for what; or who's blind cause we will wind up gouging eyeballs.

[Phalanx300]

I believe so. Unless I have you all mistaken, I recall some I support the IDF/Israel in Gaza sigs.

I have better things to waste my sig on then protesting or advertising things...

It never is understandable. No-one said it was. The only justification for it was that the Boers were fighting against the British at the time. This means, however nasty it may look when you read this, that there is a small, tiny amount of justification on the part of the British.

Please do not compare different things. The British didn't intend to kill off the Boers, nor did they lock up millions of them, nor did they kill them at gas chambers, or destroyed the remains in crematoria.

The Hebrews of Europe had done NOTHING to deserve the treatment they got. They were the definition of innocent victims. Anyone saying otherwise, is plain lying. If you don't believe me read a historians' account. For all its inaccuracies, www.en.wikipedia.com is a good place to start. Let me help,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Sorry but am I the only one who thinks its wrong to starve women and children in concentration camps? When they pillage their lands? Justification when they starve of hunger? Thats just plain lying as well.

The Boer army was about 80.000 strong, if their women and children were captive this would make for about 160.000 people in concentration camp, if you go by 1 man and 1 child. Might have been higher in some cases.

And what the hell makes you think that I think that they deserved it? All I'm saying is that the British were about the first with Concentration camps, that it wasn't a single event in history where it ever happened.

Again you make a mistake. This isn't some bragging rights thing with you saying "How do you dare implying that my people didn't suffer, where as your did"... "My people suffered too, you know".

I'm not bragging, I'm simply saying that the Jews weren't the only ones to face hard times.

The Holocaust is so different to anything else, so inherently evil, it stands out. To compare it with something else is wrong. Nothing in history can compare with the Holocaust. Read that link I provided and you will understand.

The fact that in both examples concentration camps are used already make a comparison. The Jews had a very hard time and didn't deserve it. Yet they weren't the only people facing hard times which they didn't deserve. That shouldn't be forgotten as well.

[Каие]

Fair enough.

[Nik]

Sorry but am I the only one who thinks its wrong to starve women and children in concentration camps? When they pillage their lands? Justification when they starve of hunger? Thats just plain lying as well.

Nobody said it was "right" from a humane point of view. The needless death of the civilians in that war is a stain on the british imperial honour, no point about that. But let us not mix up intention and result.
The british fought an counterinsurgency war, and one mean of beating the insurgent is to cut him of the civillian population. The british camps weren intended to concentrate the civilian population in managable and surveillably areas, making resuppying or hiding among the population impossible. The high death rate was a result of poor hygenic conditions and malnutrition, e.g. british planning failure. To formulate it more cynic, death was a sideresult and not the goal. Given that the british army is famed for its steadfast linesoldiers and excellent NonComs rathre than a capable officer corps, logistical failures do not really seem that far fetched.
The concentration camps of the gemans in their genocide incarnation were intended to concentrate the jews and other ethnic minorities in one place to make killing them of completely more efficient.

On a more original topic note, when Indigènes/Days of Glory came out, I read that President Chirat saw the movie, heard about the non-inflation adapted pensions of the veterans, and promptly put them on an equal footing with the with french veterans. Talk about a movie having an real impact.

[Phalanx300]

Nobody said it was "right" from a humane point of view. The needless death of the civilians in that war is a stain on the british imperial honour, no point about that. But let us not mix up intention and result.
The british fought an counterinsurgency war, and one mean of beating the insurgent is to cut him of the civillian population. The british camps weren intended to concentrate the civilian population in managable and surveillably areas, making resuppying or hiding among the population impossible. The high death rate was a result of poor hygenic conditions and malnutrition, e.g. british planning failure. To formulate it more cynic, death was a sideresult and not the goal. Given that the british army is famed for its steadfast linesoldiers and excellent NonComs rathre than a capable officer corps, logistical failures do not really seem that far fetched.
The concentration camps of the gemans in their genocide incarnation were intended to concentrate the jews and other ethnic minorities in one place to make killing them of completely more efficient.

On a more original topic note, when Indigènes/Days of Glory came out, I read that President Chirat saw the movie, heard about the non-inflation adapted pensions of the veterans, and promptly put them on an equal footing with the with french veterans. Talk about a movie having an real impact.

Humane point of view? Just the point of view from someone who has some sense of honour. Attacking or mistreating civilians is certainly not the thing to do, Hitler bombed Rotterdam killing many. Killing wasn't his goal yet it happened anyway.

[Pallantides]

A unconfirmed number of Black Africans also died in the British concentration camps

No one paid much attention to what was going on in the camps that held African refugees. It is thought that about 12% of all black African inmates died (about 14,154) but the precise number of deaths of Africans in concentration camps is unknown as little attempt was made to keep any records of the 107,000 black Africans who were interned.

[Visna]

Maybe you are blind?

I gues the nazi's didn't intend to kill the Jews either? But they just did it anyways?

You've just pointed out the difference. The Boers died due to incompetence not as a part of an extermination process.
Concentration camps are exactly what the name implies. And they were used fairly extensively by all the major powers at the time. US Japanese got put into concentration camps as well. But they weren't being put there to make the killing of them more efficient, but simply to concentrate and isolate them from the rest of the country.

[Phalanx300]

You've just pointed out the difference. The Boers died due to incompetence not as a part of an extermination process.
Concentration camps are exactly what the name implies. And they were used fairly extensively by all the major powers at the time. US Japanese got put into concentration camps as well. But they weren't being put there to make the killing of them more efficient, but simply to concentrate and isolate them from the rest of the country.

Yes, except they weren't purposely starved to force a surrender of their husbands and fathers who fought for the independance..