For shame. Paris liberation made 'whites only'

[Каие]

And you don't consider the hundreds of thousands of French-Africans who volunteered to liberate France as ''wanting to be Frenchmen''?

[Bwaho]

To sum up Visna's views: atrocities are OK as long as the are they done under the British flag. The British never did anything wrong. They've always been good hearted and altruistic in all their actions.

That's a stand up fine individual defending his native country and fighting for comradeship.

british airmen liberating dresden(warning disturbing image):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a British happy camp (warning disturbing image):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Visna]

To sum up Visna's views: atrocities are OK as long as the are they done under the British flag. The British never did anything wrong. They've always been good hearted and altruistic in all their actions.

Do you, I don't know, have me confused with someone else?

I fail to see how you can draw that conclusion from sentences like these:
On Kitchener:

He was already a controversial character even in a generally racist time like that in Great Britain

On the British concentration camps:

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've repeatedly asked for sources, and yet none have been provided. So either prove me wrong, or stop putting words in my mouth please. It's not nice.

[Dr. Croccer]

Americans were awesome as well.

(all images heavy content)
A Japanese citizen liberated by the Americansd

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or the Russians

Za Rodinu!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Everyone committed crimes. The Japs and Germans more and for personal, often ridiculous reasons.

[Fibur]

And you don't consider the hundreds of thousands of French-Africans who volunteered to liberate France as ''wanting to be Frenchmen''?

Where did I says such a thing? Where did I justify the fact that they were not allowed to parade with all the others? I was basically pointing out the mistakes of your assessment, that's all.

As for your question, I don't know. The problem being, I don't know if they were somewhat forced to fight or volunteered. In the latter case, those who applied to become French should have been granted citizenship.
On the other side, considering how they were treated in colonies, I somehow doubt they were too keen to be seen as Frenchmen.

[Каие]

On the other side, considering how they were treated in colonies, I somehow doubt they were too keen to be seen as Frenchmen.

Well they volunteered. According to your previous assessment that made them Frenchmen.

To sum up Visna's views: atrocities are OK as long as the are they done under the British flag. The British never did anything wrong. They've always been good hearted and altruistic in all their actions.

That's not what she said at all.

[Bwaho]

what I find disturbing Visna is that you're making excuses for people that starved little children to death simply because the perpetrators happened to be British. I'm sure all dictators, the Dr.Mengele's etc all had very good explanations for why they did what they did. I see now you are following their proud tradition of self justification.

to my knowledge putting the civilians in camps was not part of an extermination policy

shooting into a crowd of unarmed protesters doesn't have to be part of an extermination policy either.

and the poor conditions were because of incompetence

and they obviously didn't care enough to fix it. you don't have to hate someone to hurt someone.

[Fibur]

Well they volunteered. According to your previous assessment that made them Frenchmen.

Quite true, but I merely stated a philosophical stance, i.e., why race or religion has no relevance to acquire French citizenship. Administrative realities are however much more complicated, and other conditions are required to become a French citizen (excuse me if I don't know them by heart).

[Visna]

what I find disturbing Visna is that you're making excuses for people that starved little children to death simply because the perpetrators happened to be British. I'm sure all dictators, the Dr.Mengele's etc all had very good explanations for why they did what they did. I see now you are following their proud tradition of self justification.

Self justification? I'm not even British. It's not like the Boer war is a pet subject of mine. What I find disturbing, Bwaho, is that you appearantly think you can pass judgment on me without even actually reading what I write. Kitchener was controversial. Great Britain was generally racist. Read "The White Man's Burden" It's no coincidence that it was written at that time. And Kitchener fully subscribed to it's ideas. And he was even worse.
Comparing me to Dr. Mengele is simply so low I'll let it speak for itself. I trust people who can read what is written instead of what they think is written can tell the difference.
I'm not making excuses. I'm simply saying that there is a difference between deliberately starving people to death and unfortunate side effects from incompetence. You didn't have to perform excellent as an officer to become in charge of anything back in those days. Your parents mattered a whole lot more. And the fact remains that when the British public became aware of the conditions in the camps there were loud protests and eventually conditions improved. At least in the camps holding white inmates. Not many cared much about the Blacks.

shooting into a crowd of unarmed protesters doesn't have to be part of an extermination policy either.

And where have I defended something like that? Where have I said that shooting unarmed women and children is alright as long as it's done under a British flag?

and they obviously didn't care enough to fix it. you don't have to hate someone to hurt someone.

And they obviously cared enough about the whites to fix their conditions. Noone cared much about the Blacks. Great Britain was generally racist at that time. How many times do I have to write this?

Frankly, given Kitchener's track record, I wouldn't be the least surprised if he did in fact run an extermination policy against the Blacks and the Boers. But to my knowledge he didn't. So I'll ask you again to either prove me wrong or stop putting words in my mouth.

[Каие]

what I find disturbing Visna is that you're making excuses for people that starved little children to death simply because the perpetrators happened to be British. I'm sure all dictators, the Dr.Mengele's etc all had very good explanations for why they did what they did. I see now you are following their proud tradition of self justification.

There was no justification made at all. Only an explanation which, by the last time I checked a dictionary, do not mean the same thing.

I'm British I'll tell ya straight, those were atrocious acts and the perpetrators should have been tried and jailed for life. War does not excuse any atrocity, ever.

Quite true, but I merely stated a philosophical stance, i.e., why race or religion has no relevance to acquire French citizenship. Administrative realities are however much more complicated, and other conditions are required to become a French citizen (excuse me if I don't know them by heart).

yeah, I understand now!

[Bwaho]

Comparing me to Dr. Mengele

I was comparing the excuses they made and the ones I was seeing you make, not the actions.

I'm simply saying that there is a difference between deliberately starving people to death and unfortunate side effects from incompetence

I don't think there's any difference. If your argument is that the British operating the camps didn't notice the inmates horrible conditions, then I'll say you've already lost.

no smoke without fire I say. If you systematically burn down farms (source of food), poison wells (water supply) and then move civilians into overcrowded camps where you don't feed them enough. Then guess what? you're ing responsible!

does it matter to the victims if they were part of a grand scheme of genocide or not? doesn't seem like it because they somehow managed to die by the thousands anyway. You don't need the head of state saying "we will exterminate you" to still be responsible for horrible atrocities.

[Каие]

Are you purposefully ignoring me? Is it because reading my post showed that you have mistaken the entire thing and therefore wrong? Or what?

[Visna]

I was comparing the excuses they made and the ones I was seeing you make, not the actions.

You really need to look up the difference between justification and explanation. Either that or take some reading classes. Or something.. I'm at my wits end here.

I don't think there's any difference. If your argument is that the British operating the camps didn't notice the inmates horrible conditions, then I'll say you've already lost.

What does noticing it have to do with anything?
To Kitchener (please do note the "TO KITCHENER" or you'll be blaming me for that as well next) the Boers were traitors and he was on an anti guerilla operation. He was not there to wipe out the Boers and he didn't care much about the Blacks.

no smoke without fire I say. If you systematically burn down farms (source of food), poison wells (water supply) and then move civilians into overcrowded camps where you don't feed them enough. Then guess what? you're ing responsible!

Absolutely. And not holding Kitchener and his gang responsible (as in trying and hanging them) for the side effects of their actions and how they conducted the war in general is a stain on the British Empire. But back then people didn't care. Well, they cared about some whites once their conditions became known, and the Blacks by and large could rot. That was the attitude of the time. The simple fact that the conditions improved and that an inquiery was set up after the war should hint to you that it was not part of an overall strategy by neither Kitchener nor the British Empire in general.

Does that make it right? NO!
But it makes comparing it to the Holocaust wrong.

does it matter to the victims if they were part of a grand scheme of genocide or not? doesn't seem like it because they somehow managed to die by the thousands anyway. You don't need the head of state saying "we will exterminate you" to still be responsible for horrible atrocities.

What kind of alternate reality is this? Have you been reading the thread? Or did you notice a post of mine and decided to offer your insight?
It does not matter to the victims, but it matters on the whole if you try to compare what happened in the Boer war to the Holocaust. One was a deliberate policy of extermination, the other was due to indifference and incompetence. If you guess which one is which you'll get a cookie.

So prove me wrong! Prove that Kitchener was conducting a deliberate policy of extermination. Or stop making silly comparisons where there are close to none in the first place. Please.

[Bwaho]

Are you purposefully ignoring me? Is it because reading my post showed that you have mistaken the entire thing and therefore wrong? Or what?

sure, totally, you are the best debater in the universe, you figured me out, you're super awesome.

the other was due to indifference and incompetence.

You're right about indifference. By saying incompetence you assume the British set out to treat them as equals when they never had those intentions to begin with. Improving conditions for some inmates after public outcries as a way of appeasing the people, but still treating others (blacks) the same way as before isn't good enough in my book. Maybe it is in yours though.

So prove me wrong! Prove that Kitchener was conducting a deliberate policy of extermination.

He was indifferent to the suffering and deaths of civilians. He knew his actions would harm the civilian population and still went through with it. That is a deliberate plan.

Did he want all those people to die? even if he didn't it wouldn't change the fact that he made decisions that he knew would result in many civilian deaths.


If you know that you can kill someone by driving drunk and you still go through with it then you are deliberately indifferent to well being of others.

[Каие]

sure, totally, you are the best debater in the universe, you figured me out, you're super awesome.

I know this already, but it still doesn't answer the fact that you ignored my very simple explanation, and instead have focused your time at libelling another member.

[Bwaho]

but it still doesn't answer the fact that you ignored my very simple explanation

I didn't ignore it. I already admitted you were the grand master of debates. You hold the all the answers. God is your servant.

[Каие]

Correct, except just one answer. Why did you ignore my post and instead continue incorrectly libelling another member and bashing an entire country? Despite evidence to the contrary?

[Bwaho]

why don't you use your omnipotent powers to find out?

Despite evidence to the contrary?

there are none

[Каие]

Yes there are

a; She never justified the camps
b; She isn't British, thus never embarked on ''self justification''
c. I'm British, and we do not jump around saying they were great

[Visna]

You're right about indifference. By saying incompetence you assume the British set out to treat them as equals when they never had those intentions to begin with. Improving conditions for some inmates after public outcries as a way of appeasing the people, but still treating others (blacks) the same way as before isn't good enough in my book. Maybe it is in yours though.

Which yardstick to you use to judge that? It was perfectly ok at the time. It certainly wouldn't go down well today, not even with me *gasp*.
Just like slavery. Or universal suffrage. We can sit here today 100 years + later and pad ourselves on the back until there are 2 Thursdays in a week, and spend some time discussing and allocating guilt if you want. Not that I think we'll disagree much. Kitchener was a scumbag, and he was already controversial, even in that time. But that doesn't change that to my knowledge he did not do what he did as a part of an attempt at exterminating. And that is the difference that makes comparing what happened in the Boer war to the Holocaust wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll gladly agree. Until you've done so I'll continue to claim that there is a distinct and important difference between what the British Empire did and what Nazi Germany did.

He was indifferent to the suffering and deaths of civilians. He knew his actions would harm the civilian population and still went through with it. That is a deliberate plan.

No. That's indifference. A plan would be something like Kitchener smoking his pipe one evening and issuing orders to kill the Boers en masse to thin out the recruiting potential for the guerillas. Or to scare the survivors from joining or into giving information. Or just because Boers bothered him. Or for no particular reason at all except sadism. But he didn't. Instead he opted for an anti guerilla tactic that's perfectly logical. Was it cruel? Yes. Did he deserve to be hanged for it after the war? Absolutely. Does it compare to the Holocaust apart from some concentration camps? No.

Did he want all those people to die? even if he didn't it wouldn't change the fact that he made decisions that he knew would result in many civilian deaths.

I'm not even sure if he thought the consequences through. Maybe his incompetent supply commander told him that the whites would be fine. I don't know. For the sake of convinience I've ignored the Blacks in that equation because Kitchener basically didn't care about them. At all. He was indifferent. He was not exterminating them. Note the difference.

If you know that you can kill someone by driving drunk and you still go through with it then you are deliberately indifferent to well being of others.

Thank you for agreeing. I don't get into my car with the intention of killing someone when I drive drunk. (Not that I've ever done so, but for argument's sake let's assume I have).