The Battle of Britain Was The First Defeat For The German Luftwaffe.

[bongodriver]

The Spanish, Portugese, French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Belgians were all in the 'race' for colonialism and some others were major Imperialist powers too, no point singleing any one country out, let's draw the line at the beginning of the 20th century and argue about what's happened this side of that line.

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways

Just like Germany, then. I sometimes wonder how much Germans (and many other peoples) are actually aware of their own countries Imperial and Colonial activities. Germany had many colonial interests around the world (including African and the Pacific colonies, and the only reason they were not more extensive is that they had effectively been left behind in the race to plunder other countries natural resources. Something which Kaiser Wilhelm II himself actually lamented, stating that "Germany has begun her colonial enterprise very late, and was, therefore, at the disadvantage of finding all the desirable places already occupied." Hmmmm.

What is now modern day Namibia was a former German Colony (with a greater landmass than Germany itself), and also the setting for the first (German perpetrated) Genocide of the 20th Century. Rebellions by the Namaqua and Herero tribes were ruthlessly and violently quashed, resulting in some 120,000 deaths. There are also allegations that desert wells were systematically poisoned by the German colonial army.

So, the fact that Germany was a little 'late to the party' is the reason we are not now talking more about its colonialism, they 'missed the boat' as it were.

There are many shameful and abhorrent episodes of British colonialism, slavery in particular (and which I personally was educated about as a child at school) but the point being is that Britain was hardly 'alone' in this vile enterprise, they were just ahead of the game.

I do not blame modern day young Germans for perhaps feeling that they are being unfairly vilified ('the son cannot be held guilty for the sins of the father'), but this 'other countries did it too' moral relativism is a little off the mark.

The British Empire never had a systematic, centralised, organised bureaucracy and infrastructure dedicated to and formed with the sole and express purpose of murdering each and every race on Earth different to them, or all other groups who did not conform to some perverse 'ideal'. All of them. Each and every one. Man, woman and child. That is the key difference.

More on 'concentration camps' later maybe, I'm off to the pub lol. Have fun peeps.

Err, maybe not. Was this thread ever on topic? LOL. Waaaaaay OT.

Cheers.

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

Originally Posted by bongodriver

The Spanish, Portugese, French, Germans, Italians, Dutch and Belgians were all in the 'race' for colonialism and some others were major Imperialist powers too, no point singleing any one country out, let's draw the line at the beginning of the 20th century and argue about what's happened this side of that line.

Let's draw a line on 21st century

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

That is basically the gist of it. I am not trying to justify german crimes in any way and take them at face value. The problem really is that whenever british misdeeds come up, it's attempted to justify them (we also brought a lot of good to the world, others were worse then us, we were forced to take drastic measures to bring victory, etc). You won't find this kind of relativism in Germany, at least not in a way to justify the actions of the people back then and make them "right". Just irritation that others still try to justify their own actions in such a way. Crimes are crimes. Maybe a major problem is that a lot of the british perspective comes from a mindset that for many people in Europe already is considered a bit of an anachromism, that nationality defines who you are and what you are accountable for. That is purely speculative, however.

[Feathered_IV]

63 pages in just one week. This must surely be the troll thread of the year. Well done.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

63 pages in just one week. This must surely be the troll thread of the year. Well done.

bwahaha, and it took you 63 pages to come in and leave a mark?

[bongodriver]

Actually as Bewolf pointed out this thread has miraculously avoided actual trolling, bar the few insults thrown around (more to do with personal sensitivities)

But I would like to see evidence of anybody 'justifying' past actions in terms of colonialism.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I mean, look at it this way. From a continental perspecitve, in general the british ran the largest conquest in history all over the world, they invented the concentration camps, they have a history of putting down resistance to their empirial ambitions in sometimes brutal ways and specifically in regards to WW2, they allied with the Russians, who were at least as agressive as the germans, they've had no problems with reducing all german cities above 100.000 citiziens to rubble and a lot of even smaller towns and villages (sometimes for the single reason that and old rugged road ran through them which made them "strategic important".) and put their inhabitants to the cruelest of deaths. And after the war there is the Rheinwiesen issues and the lack of support for german resistance goups.

It was a Spanish general, Valeriano Weyler, who established the first reconcentrados or “concentration centers” in Cuba in his drive to suppress the 1895 rebellion. Britain introduced concentration camps on a massive scale during the Boer War from 1899 to 1902. To deny the Boer guerrillas food and intelligence, Gen. Lord Kitchener ordered the British Army to sweep the Transvaal and Orange River territories of South Africa “clean.” Civilians—women, children, the elderly, and some men of fighting age—were herded from their homes and concentrated in camps along railway lines, with a view to their eventual removal from the territory. The Boers, to whom these camps became a symbol of genocide, called them laagers.

Polish historian Władysław Konopczyński has suggested the first concentration camps were created in Poland in the 18th century, during the Bar Confederation rebellion, when the Russian Empire established three concentration camps for Polish rebel captives awaiting deportation to Siberia.

The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s; however, the term originated in the reconcentrados (reconcentration camps) set up by the Spanish military in Cuba during the Ten Years' War (1868–187 and by the United States during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).

The CCs in South Africa were not established with the sole purpose of exterminating the inmates like the CCs established 40 years later in Germany. Were the conditions in the SA CCs atrocious? Yes but when it became known there was an effort to improve the conditions which certainly not the case in the German CCs.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Very sensitive post and I agree to most of it.

On one thing I would like to comment though. You rightly say that by pointing out British atrocities with the purpose to relativise German atrocities is wrong. I strongly support this.

But just a few lines later you start to compare British atrocities to German ones suggesting that whatever the Brits came up with is on a lower scale than what the Germans did. I do not make a statement about the content itself but you do exactly the same that you blame others to do: relativise by comparison. Relativism goes both ways and should be refuted both ways.

An injustice remains an injustice and hence uncomparable. They stand there and should be all regarded and considered independently without going into: country X or country y has done worse. Because this is what relativism is about. The same holds for instance for all the comparison between Nazi Germany's crimes and Soviet crimes. Both are there. Both are outrageously horrible. The existance of one does not make the other one smaller.

Just because Jack the Ripper killed five people does not make killing one man "only" a lesser crime.

So even if country x had no extermination scheme or killed only 10% of those killed by country y does not make it having less darker spots in history.

Hallo Crow. You are absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more. I was unable to finish my post and had in fact begun a final paragraph beginning 'however' in concurrence with what you have just posted (had to dash for a bus and so aborted it). It is indeed also relative, (relativism itself however being multifaceted and taking many forms in its philosophical context too).

There are those who maintain that there are universal 'moral' truths, going back to the age of Socrates and Plato. Few people here would argue for example, that the theft of an apple has any moral equivalence to the premeditated murder of an individual. Thus, most modern legal-punitive systems will have a curious blend of both moral absolutism ('murder is unquestionably wrong in any circumstance') as well as relativism ('murder is not as serious a crime as theft') with both being penalised accordingly.

The comparison made was not any attempt to validate or in any way mitigate a wrong ( 'The existence of one does not make the other one smaller.') I agree absolutely. The intent was to show how these observations are perceptual and indeed relative, and dependent on many variables. Others however would argue that they are comparable in terms of immorality. The concept of 'Morality' is a very murky area, and worthy of its own thread. I understand how this was not clear from my post, as it was unfinished and did not represent my views in their entirety. Really, I should not have posted it in that form.

So, no real disagreement here Crow.......'Two wrongs' most certainly do not make a right, and neither can diminish nor mitigate the other. Agreed (had a few lagers so sorry for any spelling mistakes if there is). Bottom line, we are all the same......end of story. What happened in Germany could conceivably happen anywhere, given a similar or identical set of conditions.

Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated. Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill. Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art.

Cheers.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

Interesting stuff, but we should probably get back to the BoB. LOL @Feathered's comment, yes a 'Troll nade' was successfully detonated. Evidence being Avro has not made a single contribution to the thread, he's just watching the small arms fire and artillery strikes, whistling away innocently from a nearby hill. Avro successfully started a ROF vs COD war at the Zoo, too. A master of his art.

Yeah a great chap indeed. But I find this discussion much to my interest. There is actually discussion, exchange of ideas, and its much more civilized than it used to be at the zoo.

I am pretty much just read only in it, largely because Thor, Beo' and 41SC already described, probably better than I could, the thoughts I can agree with the most.