Got a source on that?
Not that much into the Boer war, but to my knowledge Kitchener, who was already at the time a controversial fellow, wanted to do a scorched earth policy in reverse so to speak. Put the civilians into camps, keep the guerilla from resupplying by wrecking the countryside, poisoning the wells etc.
No doubt conditions in the camps were very poor, but they improved when the British public became aware of what was going on. And the poor early conditions were to my knowledge not part of an extermination policy.
Last edited by Visna; April 09, 2009 at 06:26 PM.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
If only there were a god..
They put people in concentration camps, women and children, they starve. They starved none the less, and pillaging the countryside didn't help with feeding as well.
You do realise we're probably talking about thousands of captives.
Why put them in concentration camps in the first place if you aren't mistreating them? Why would the Boeren even surrender if their familly was in good condition and this was maintained? Starving them to win a war is cowardly, the one who did that had no honour to speak of.
Being put in a concentration camp does not necessarily equal being starved. After the British public became aware of the poor conditions in the camps Kitchener was forced to improve them. And as already said, to my knowledge putting the civilians in camps was not part of an extermination policy, and the poor conditions were because of incompetence. Not saying that makes it alright, of course it doesn't make it right. But it makes comparing it to the Holocaust wrong.
Absolutely. Tens of thousands, probably.
I'd be very interested in a source on that.
Kitchener believed that by wrecking the countryside and by isolating the civilians from the guerillas, they would eventually be forced to either engage in open battle, where they could be killed, or forced to surrender because there simply wouldn't be resources around to continue their effort.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
I fail to see what this has to do with the Paris liberation of 1944.
I don't see any shame, it's logical that a proud nation such as France wishes Paris to be liberated by Frenchmen and not colonials. There is nothing racist about that.
German soldiers have always been demonised while basically fighting for the same goals as their Allied counterparts (conscription, comradeship, protection of their native country), so why should it be a big deal that the Senegalese dont get any positive credit?
Originally Posted by Seneca
Originally Posted by A.J.P. TaylorOriginally Posted by Miel Cools
Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.
Originally Posted by Jörg FriedrichOriginally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
Jajem ssoref is m'n korewE goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtompWer niks is, hot kawsones
Yes, since you are obviously right without doubt.
It does not equal it, yet it did happen. In both things were they put in concentration camps, the very comparison is wrong yet it is there..Being put in a concentration camp does not necessarily equal being starved. After the British public became aware of the poor conditions in the camps Kitchener was forced to improve them. And as already said, to my knowledge putting the civilians in camps was not part of an extermination policy, and the poor conditions were because of incompetence. Not saying that makes it alright, of course it doesn't make it right. But it makes comparing it to the Holocaust wrong.
I think its at least 160.000 people.Absolutely. Tens of thousands, probably.
Don't really have a source by hand.I'd be very interested in a source on that.
Kitchener believed that by wrecking the countryside and by isolating the civilians from the guerillas, they would eventually be forced to either engage in open battle, where they could be killed, or forced to surrender because there simply wouldn't be resources around to continue their effort.
To me I see no point in surrendering if its clear that your familly will be good taken care of. Yet if they are starving them or treating them with death now thats a reason to surrender. Why surrender if nothing would happen to your familly otherwise?
Indeed I am.Yes, since you are obviously right without doubt.
German concentration camps put the inmates to work, malnourished and diseased them on purpose, whereas the British only did the latter by incompetence.It does not equal it, yet it did happen. In both things were they put in concentration camps, the very comparison is wrong yet it is there..
Around 28.000 Boers died, along with 14.000 blacks.I think its at least 160.000 people.
Originally Posted by A.J.P. TaylorOriginally Posted by Miel Cools
Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.
Originally Posted by Jörg FriedrichOriginally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
Jajem ssoref is m'n korewE goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtompWer niks is, hot kawsones
Which I just said... Gotta look out for that fist .Indeed I am.
Yes, but it was the reason the Boers surrended, would you continue to fight when your wife and children are being starved in concentration camps? Its plain chantage(or however its called in English).German concentration camps put the inmates to work, malnourished and diseased them on purpose, whereas the British only did the latter by incompetence.
I was talking about how much Boeren women and children were probably captive.Around 28.000 Boers died, along with 14.000 blacks.
Well, yeah, they were placed in concentration camps but that's about as far as the comparion goes.
Not certain about the numbers, but sure, 160,000 sounds reasonable as well.
If you find one, I'd sure like to see it.
To my knowledge Kitchener wanted to force a situation where the guerillas would either come out and "fight like gentlemen" or simply surrender because their supply situation, hiding places etc was wrecked. Sort of like emptying a lake in order to make it easier to catch some fish. He was already a controversial character even in a generally racist time like that in Great Britain, The White Man's Burden and all that. Not written by him of course, but he certainly subscribed to it's ideas.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
a digitalization of a black and white photo?
The problem is how much leeway does a soldier in a time of war under a totalitarian dictatorship have to question orders? Does that make those who commited such crimes weak cowards? Sure. But, don't think those guys were much different from the average Joe from the streets. Most of humanity is made of cowards who will easily bend to pressure in order to avoid trouble and I would not take myself out of this bunch either. Everyone has a price to do something he wouldn't and if life is in the mix it is usually a bargain
One doesn't see much resistance in similar dictatorships around the globe either.
The only point is however that the entirety of the Wehrmacht and SS was made up of millions of people. It's difficult to ascertain which one's were immorale pigs by nature and which failed under pressure and which stayed clean. Everyone who did such crimes was guilty but it's not exactly that a soldier at the front lines in those times can expect anything less but a bullet by a friend instead a foe for disobeying orders.
"Sebaceans once had a god called Djancaz-Bru. Six worlds prayed to her. They built her temples, conquered planets. And yet one day she rose up and destroyed all six worlds. And when the last warrior was dying, he said, 'We gave you everything, why did you destroy us?' And she looked down upon him and she whispered, 'Because I can.' "
Mangalore Design
That's not an average soldier, but someone from an SS-einsatzgruppe, less than 1% of German forces fighting in the war. If you read accounts by regular German soldiers you know they were none different from Western Allied soldiers. Most were simply trying to stay alive to come back to their families, like most soldiers in modern wars have done. Why should you suddenly expect differently just because they lived in a national socialist state?
Originally Posted by Seneca
Euh yeah, that was the point. Like I said.
Which was extremely huge, your estimate is nearly the size of the entire Boer population. Around 50.000-70.000 Boer men joined the fight out of a population of around 160.000, leaving around 90.000 noncombatants, the majority of which were imprisoned, which would fit with the 28.000 30% casualty rate.I was talking about how much Boeren women and children were probably captive.
Originally Posted by A.J.P. TaylorOriginally Posted by Miel Cools
Cò am Fear am measg ant-sluaigh,
A mhaireas buan gu bràth?
Chan eil sinn uileadh ach air chuart,
Mar dhìthein buaile fàs,Bheir siantannan na bliadhna sìos,'S nach tog a' ghrian an àird.
Originally Posted by Jörg FriedrichOriginally Posted by Louis Napoleon III, Des Idees Napoleoniennes
Originally Posted by Wolfgang Held
Jajem ssoref is m'n korewE goochem mit e wenk, e nar mit e shtompWer niks is, hot kawsones
low quality crop of original one:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9LoaUU4w5U...w/8rYW-mH5mls/
There are different versions of the photo and its authenticity has been questioned but apparently original was German photo which was contained in a letter sent home by a German soldier who was on the Eastern Front and intercepted in 1942 by the Polish Home Army, which monitored mail from the east that passed through the post office in Warsaw. Question of course is why would censors allow a soldier to send home an incriminating photo of an atrocity?
Sorry for off topic post
Yes and no.
The French conception of nationality as defined in the late 19th century mainly defines nationality by the will of the people to be part of the nation. Contrary to Germany, whe have no blood right, rather soil right, meaning that if you are born on French soil, French nationality is automatically granted should you ask it (with conditions of residence).
Basically, we believe that belonging to the French nation is not conditionned by language, religion or ethnicity, but only by your wish to be part of it. That's why you cannot speak of "ethnic French" (a notion that seems to be very popular in these parts).
Of course, it followed a political agenda: it permitted to consider Alsace part of France depsite their language being Germanic, and allowed immigrants to reinforce our troops after the 1870 defeat.
But on the whole, it is a good thing.