Britain's worst atrocities

[Dragonweedy]

Following from a recent posting, I should like to ask the Historically aware amongst you, what do you think Britain's most shameful act might be?

From murder of civilians to mass slaughter on the battlefield, National history of almost any country is littered with the tragic consequences of Mankind's ability to make almost any issue worth killing for. Religion, Sovereignty, or just plain old-fashioned Greed are the most popular excuses, although to an alien it might look as though we were simply fulfilling a biological need to be aggressive. Fighting for a cause is justification for many acts of violence, but determining wether the cause is just, usually depends on which side of the debate you stand. In the case of Nation against Nation, we look to the leaders and their motivation, to decide on who should take the blame. Individual participation in the conflicts has less to do with personal choice yet it will often throw up specific instances of excessive cruelty and violent behaviour that stand out from the rank and file. It is often the isolated incidents which are raised up as examples of why WE are in the right, and THEY are the bad guys. It becomes extremely important to a Nation (or a group, or a crowd, or a team), that the enemy is continually identified as being deserving of their fate, as any doubts could soon lead to failure. Propaganda is used to whip up sentiment among a population, to mold public thought to One View. Sympathy must be extended to One's Allies, and enmity towards the enemy. The British Public were bemused to see the Russians go from Our Enemy, to Our Friend, then back to Our Enemy, in the few years before, during and after WW2.

Individual acts of heroism, and courage and compassion and virtue are indeed to be remembered with pride. Individual acts of cruelty, evil and sin MUST be remembered with shame and disgust. Pride in a Nation's history or shame at a Nation's past are complicated by the variety of acts performed under its banner. Being on the losing side in one war (or two) does not remove the desire to remember heroism with pride. Winning a war does not absolve us of the responsibility to remember our shadier past along with the better things.

Now, rambling essays aside... does anyone have any examples of British history that MOST of us won't know. All my historical knowledge comes from the School syllabus and that probably avoids some of the less attractive episodes of our great past (particularly in more recent history). I was amazed when a friend told me that China "hates GB", because of our involvement in the Boxer Rebellion, I thought we were lovely heroic friendly GB.

Sorry about the ramble, but I thought I'd try and get it down in one post instead of kicking off a load of back and forth with me trying to rephrase what I meant to say. Having written most of it at around 4am between nappy changes it probably makes no sense at all anyway :{.

Now I'm rushing the last bit as Mrs Tripitaka is wondering what I'm doing when I should be elsewhere...

[334th Lenagh]

You know we talk about the germans concentration camps well I believe we invented them during the boer war.

Int that funny eh ?

Len

[tinvek]

not strictly applicable to your post but with regards to how we remember our good deeds and the enemy's bad ones:

chuck yeager tells of how his wing of p51s were told to target an area of germany and shoot anything that moved, vehicle, soldier, cow, horse, man, woman, child etc.

his own view was that it was a pretty **** thing to have to do but that if it was required then he had to do it.

as he told his m8, if we're going to do things like this, then we'd better make sure we win the war

on a lighter note britains worst ever act ....

BLack Lace !
with
agga bl00dy dooo

[Edited by tinvek on 04-10-2000 at 10:49 AM]

[Phillie Time]

The Irish Potatoe Famin:
Between 1845 and 1848 more than a million people starved to death or died of fever brought on by starvation. More than a million and a half fled across the Atlantic to America or across the Irish Sea to Britain.

[Denham]

We are very lucky that times have changed!

[Phillie Time]

We are one of the worlds leading arms manufacturers.... selling weapons to all kinds of dodgy governments.

[tinvek]

how about the way we ran india.

we had total control and did nothing to break up the cast system, even though in other countries we' quite happily impose our own systems of rule and civilisation. consequently the untouchable caste etc still exists today.

it may not have resulted in mass hardship/ death at the time, but if we'd taken the opportunity, today millions of indians would be living a better life.

being cynical i would say we left it alone as it macthed our ideas about the class system in this country at the time!

btw not having a pop at indians in particular, just it seems such a wasted opportunity

failing that

how about the outlawing of a peoples national tongue, the banning of it from schools, even though it was the only language the children could speak, the ritual humiliation of any child caught using their mother language and the trial of offenders being held in english when they could not speak or understand english ?

in case you havent guessed this was what happened in wales in the late 1800's till the 1930's

(slightly tongue in cheak but it is something that is tried to keep hidden about our past)

[Edited by tinvek on 04-10-2000 at 11:03 AM]

[Phillie Time]

I don't know how historically accurate this is - it's pretty sensetive - as the other thread indicated:

http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR20.4/Forbes.html

Makes interesting/shocking reading though.

[Phillie Time]

The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, is also a pretty dark spot in our history - thats how we got Hong Kong. We forced Chine to accept our import of Opium that we were forcing the Indians to grow. The chinese tried to stop it as it was detroying their ppl - so the british sent in the royal navy and land armies to crush the (at the time) technically inferior chinese. Twice.....

[Dragonweedy]

Thanks Chaps, I appreciate the response.

BTW, this does not mean I am belittling our heroic achievements, nor trying to excuse the atrocities committed by our enemies. I just get this bitter taste in my mouth when I hear myself and others talking about GB as though it is a nation of saints. The best thing we can do is to acknowledge ALL the lessons from history, good and bad, from our side and our various former enemies. More of a global awareness of the shortcomings of our species.
:

[SonicYoof]

Manchester United

p.s. sorry to be so flippant in an obviously serious thread, but my opinion stands

[Dragonweedy]

Aaah, yes, The Opium War, that's the one!

Anyone know a site (or book, heaven forbid) that can tell me about the Opium War? I have an interest in China, but I am embarrassed at my lack of knowledge about the British involvement...

[Phillie Time]

Neither am I Dweed :)

When I moved to Holland a few years ago I was forced to consider my national Identity - I found myself to be extremly proud of who I was (nationality wise). It didn't mean that I had to forget the mistakes of the past to be proud :)

Same goes for anyone from any country I think. I can't think of a single place that hasn't got things in their history that they are ashamed of and other things that they are very proud of - same for an individual's life history.

We are only human after all - nobodies perfect.

[Phillie Time]

Opium War:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/OLDNEWS/opium.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/heroin/opiwar1.htm

[Marg]

In a foolish and tragic reaction to baseless stories about the contribution that spies and saboteurs had made to german victories, they (the 74,000 enemy aliens in britain, most of whom had escaped nazi persecution) were locked up in the most squalid of improvised accomodation. At one rat-infested disused factory (Wharf Mills) 2,000 internees shared 18 water taps. 60 buckets in the yard served as toilets and there were straw matresses only for the chronically sick. At another british internment centre, two men who'd already experienced a Nazi concentration camp committed suicide: "this camp has broken their spirit", said an investigator. When the war cabinet read the report on the camps they would not allow it to be published. But neither would they release the internees, thinking it would reveal the muddle and injustice.

sounds like an atrocity to me. either that, or a big bloody shame.

[Marky B]

seems like an atrocity to me

[Chadman]

Isnt it ironic, that ppl are quick to point the finger at other countries atrocities, but slow to look at themselves and their own countries behaviour in the past.

Ppl in glass houses comment comes to mind.

Sad but true, we arent as civilised as we like to think we are.

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Potato famine? That brings back memories, mostly of Americans describing themselves as Irish, pontificating on the What-If usenet group without bothering to do any research into the subject beforehand.

[Dragonweedy]

Care to elaborate on that for us JJ?
I'm all ears...








... well that's what Mrs Tripitaka says anyway. She calls me "Teapot with two handles". I never get a chance to reply with my "extra-large spout", she wears the trousers in my house.

[Dark Dave]

What exactly is it you guys call an atrocity ? where do you draw the line?

I think you can`t judge people from history like this, sure it was bad, but they didn`t have the information that we do, they didn`t even have the standard Telephone, living this age it`s difficult to imagine a world without it, but all their information would have been at least a day or two out of date. And that was for people in the know, I doubt the ordinary citizen would have known anything much until after the event.

I remember seeing an interview on TV with a pilot downed in the Gulf war, the interviewer was trying to tell him all the misstakes the airforce had made, this guy rasied his voice saying "no, we did what was right according to the information at the time, it`s easy for the government to use hindsight now and claim things could have been done better, but we didn`t have hindsight ofcourse."
Well it went something very much like that.

[Phillie Time]

In the examples I used the powers at be knew exactly what they were doing 9they just didn't care - see below - ruthless) - ok the man in the street didn't - but they don't make decisions.....As far as the line.... thats every individuals judgement based on morals - and as you rightly point out morals change through time.


Collins dictionary
Atocity:
1) Behaviour or action that is wicked or ruthless
2) The fact or quality of being atrocious

[FlyinBrick]

JJ - spot on....usually known on US boards as "Trollin"

[WPS]

I think if this debate is to continue, I suggest you set some parameters. I offer a/. nothing before 1800, as it could be said that Britain is not the same nation as it was any earlier than that. E.g. let's not talk about what the normans did to the Anglo-Saxons etc., or **** that happened in Scotland, which is important to be sure, but those I don't feel any connection with the peoples of those times. Also, b/. differentiate between reasoned acts of callusness or cruelty, and simple bungling incompetence, E.g. one could say that the forced immigration of orphans to Australia was something of an atrocity, but it's generally agreed that the people behind thought they were doing a good thing, they just hadn't thought it through. Motive is a difficult thing to pin down - one could argue that the British had a case during the American war of independence.

(in fact, one could argue that we shouldn't consider any case before we had universal suffrage (date anybody?), as our leaders were not democratically elected, and therefore the British people were not responsible for what they did).

[Edited by WPS on 05-10-2000 at 12:07 AM]

[Dragonweedy]

No, no, no
All-inclusive please
I want to hear about all the things that happened, which we sweep under the carpet when it is time to celebrate our glorious past. Henry VIII and his trashing of the monasteries, King Richard I trekking out to the Middle East to crush some poor bloke sitting in a tent minding his own business, Queen Victoria paddling on the Isle of Wight while Indians were playing Sardines in the black hole of Calcutta.

We Brits go on about our wonderful heritage. We are fortunate to be surrounded by the relics and remains of an illustrious past. We should get to know all the details behind the facade. Too many of us only learn History at school, and never get to hear the Adult version of various events.

[Dark Dave]

Originally posted by Dragonweedy
No, no, no
All-inclusive please


What about the time your cave-man ancestor killed my Great ancestor , you F****** ******* I`m gonna hold you responsible.

[Dragonweedy]

lol @ Dark Age Dave

My Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-Grandfather is bigger than your Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-Grandfather :rambo: :D



Like I said, let's not focus on blame, other than perhaps blaming our species for doing more to harm ourselves and the planet than all the rest of Life on Earth put together. The barbaric acts of cruelty, murder, destruction, etc. are pretty much world-wide and without exception. It is not just particular Football Teams, Political Parties or Countries, rather it is Homo Sapiens in general. We can't point the finger at Hutu and Tutsi genocide and claim that it is unique. It has happened before and will most likely happen again. Our job is to try and make sure that it doesn't happen where we are.



[Edited by Dragonweedy on 05-10-2000 at 03:56 AM]

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Dragonweedy
while Indians were playing Sardines in the black hole of Calcutta.




Other way round. It was members of the East India Company and their families who were in the Black Hole, and Victoria hadn't been born yet IIRC - written from memory so I'm probably wrong on the dates!!

Potato famine - it's a commonly held belief in the US that this was deliberately engineered by a callous and scheming British government who treated the Irish radically differently to the way they treated the English. Wrong on both counts.

The government was actively trying to resolve the problem but were hampered by the machinations of people with money. Treatment of the Irish, as in they couldn't qualify for poor relief if they owned more than a set amount of land was exactly how anybody else would be treated. Poor relief was means tested and had been so since Elizabethan times when it was introduced.

[Phillie Time]

JJ ??? From what I understand - They let over a million ppl starve to death in what was their country !!!!!! They could have stopped it....

Surely thats the point ?

['Cosmo']

Originally posted by Chadman

Sad but true, we arent as civilised as we like to think we are.

Are not ? or Were not ?

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by tinvek
how about the way we ran india.

we had total control and did nothing to break up the cast system, even though in other countries we' quite happily impose our own systems of rule and civilisation. consequently the untouchable caste etc still exists today.

it may not have resulted in mass hardship/ death at the time, but if we'd taken the opportunity, today millions of indians would be living a better life.



On the other hand, the British did put an end to the Thugees, and to the practice of burning the wife alive on the husband's funeral pyre.

[Phillie Time]

JJ :) You've no need to be defensive of Britains record - thats the point here - we've done may great things in the world that we're proud of - this was simply pointing out some of the failures :)

:)

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Phillie Time
JJ ??? From what I understand - They let over a million ppl starve to death in what was their country !!!!!! They could have stopped it....

Surely thats the point ?


They? Who are they exactly? Do you mean the people who organised food aid and charity in England? Do you mean the government who tried to repeal the Corn Laws that would reduce the price of wheat in Ireland?

It's so easy to see this as a black and white, all English are bad, all Irish are good issue. The potato blight didn't just hit Ireland, yet the effect there was far worse than elsewhere. Unfortunately there seems to be a desire to always look for a single cause for events, and this is as much the case with the Famine as of any other great disaster.

Based on my understanding of the event I cannot agree that this was the deliberate attempt at genocide which 'popular' history claims it to be.

If you want deliberate genocide then I expect you'll find richer pickings in the history of Britain and Australia.

[Phillie Time]

I never mentioned genocide:

THE COURSE OF THE FAMINE


1845 -

As soon as the reports of the disaster reached Britain, the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, took immediate astion:

1. He set up a commission to investigate the blight.
2. He imported c. 100,000 of Indian Corn from the United States, which he intended to sell cheaply and thereby keep down the cost of bread and other
foodstuffs. This was known as "Peel's brimstone'.
3. He urged the board of works to provide employment - roadworks, leveling hills, filling hollows, etc. - so that the poor could earn money (payment was up to
3p a day) with which to buy food.

Government efforts were also helped by some local landlords who lowered rents and distributed clothes and food to their tenants. As a result, many landlords
went bankrupt. The Quakers (The Society of Friends) also did much to help. It is difficult to find out how many famine victims, if any, died under Peel's
Government. The Freeman's Journal newspaper reported at the time.

"No man died of famine during his administration,
and it is a boast of which he might be well be proud."

1846 -

In this year the major disaster began. This was due to number of factors.

1. Potatoes only partially failed in 1845 in totally failed in 1846.
2. Peel's government was defeated in England in July and a Lord John Russel became prime minister of a Conservative Government, his attitude was different to
Peel's

"It must be quite clear that we cannot feed the people...
We can at best keep down prices."

Keeping down prices, however, was little use to people who had no money at all.

3. The Assistant Secretary of Ireland this time was Charles Trevelyan - a man who believed in laissez faire. To give anything to the people for nothing would, he
said, result in

"Having the country on us for an indefinite number of years."

As a result, he stopped the public works and sent back a boat load of Indian Corn which had arrived from the U.S.A. The death toll steadily mounted, due to
starvation and to the spread of typhus and cholera. Thousands flocked to the overcrowded workhouses and into towns - spreading disease and causing more
deaths. Frightning scenes were reported:

"I entered a number of hovels. In the first, six famished and ghastly skeletons, to all appearances dead, lay huddled in the corner on some filthy straw,
the sole covering what seemed a ragged horse cloth and the wretched legs hanging about naked above the knee. I approached in horror and found a
woman sitting alone by a hearth, there was pile of straw in the corner under which was the mangled corpses of her two sons."

As a result of the worsening state of affairs, Travelyan reopened public works and by December of 1846, over half a million people were employed, at a cost of
30,000 a day.



1848

- The potato crop of 1848 was almost totally blighted. the death rate remained high as people lay "Dying in the fields, in ditches and in the streets ". Many
bodies remained unburied for up to eight days. Coffins, too, ran short and many were burieds in mass graves. Mean while, evictions continued, as many
unscrupulous landlords took advantage of the situation to clear their estates of tenants. If the death rate was high, so too was the rate of emigration. By 1848, over
one - quarter of a million people a year were leaving the country for England (especially the notheren towns such as Liverpool), Canada and the U.S. The
condition of the ships was appalling as many middle men used unseaworthy vessels and carried too many people, with a view to making a qick profit. On one of
these so - called coffin ships , of the 348 passengers, 117 died at sea; on another, going to Canada, 158 died of a total of 476 passengers.



1850

- By 1850, the worst had passed. About a million people had died and over a million had emigrated. The blight also disappeared and, with less pressure on
land(due to depopulation), the Famine came to an end.

[Phillie Time]

Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
Originally posted by Phillie Time
JJ ??? From what I understand - They let over a million ppl starve to death in what was their country !!!!!! They could have stopped it....

Surely thats the point ?


They? Who are they exactly? Do you mean the people who organised food aid and charity in England? Do you mean the government who tried to repeal the Corn Laws that would reduce the price of wheat in Ireland?

It's so easy to see this as a black and white, all English are bad, all Irish are good issue. The potato blight didn't just hit Ireland, yet the effect there was far worse than elsewhere. Unfortunately there seems to be a desire to always look for a single cause for events, and this is as much the case with the Famine as of any other great disaster.

Based on my understanding of the event I cannot agree that this was the deliberate attempt at genocide which 'popular' history claims it to be.

If you want deliberate genocide then I expect you'll find richer pickings in the history of Britain and Australia.

JJ - as I said before I think you're missing the point - this is just pointing out some mistakes - I'm english ffs - but comfortable enough with the fact that I'm human to admit mistakes have been made in the past in the name of my country. No one ever said Irish good/British bad.

And I'll say again - no one said anything here about Genocide - this isn't your usual arguement about the potatoe famin... we're just discussing it. Not saying Britain is evil....

Caaaaaaalm Doooooooown Maaaaaaaaan !!!!!!



[Edited by Phillie Time on 05-10-2000 at 09:19 AM]

[Dragonweedy]

Phillie Time, thanks ever so, for the links about the Opium Wars... fascinating stuff.

As for JJ's comments, methinks you are the one over-reacting. It seems that the "History Man" JJ is well aware of the details of the Potato Famine, and is simply trying to correct some of the misrepresentation that has been made in the US. If you are anything like me, then the whole story is all brand new and I know nothing about it until now. I thought it sounded like JJ was just giving us the nod, to let us know that there has been some over-simplification of the story by people looking to lay blame. It seems from your more recent post (the year by year extract), that your information is more fact-based than the claims to which JJ may have been referring.

In short, I think JJ may be a little ahead of us in the appreciation of history. He's gone through the bit about finding himself shocked at our past. Now he's on to the bit about being shocked at the flawed re-telling of that history. Not defending GB, more defending the integrity of historical research.

I myself am easily swayed by a few sensational articles, because for me they will probably be the first I've heard about something. If I'd heard it all before, then I might be more annoyed at the tone of the article, sloppy research, poor journalism, etc.


Oh and JJ, I'm sure you didn't need me to say all this. I just thought I'd save you the effort.

BTW, you correctly spotted that the "Black Hole of Calcutta" represents another enormous Black Hole in my knowledge :)

I hope that other peeps have got something from this thread. I feel quite elated, to have learned something, about something of which I previously knew nothing... (grammar gone mad :{)
Thanks all

[Phillie Time]

Hmm I don't totally agree - I read it as calling into question whether the event was an atrocity - to me it certainly looks like one.... but there you go eh :)

What the US says has very little bearing to me.....

You read it your way though.
And I'll read it mine. :)

Thats interpretation for ya :)

[Edited by Phillie Time on 05-10-2000 at 11:48 AM]

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Bloody hell Dragonweedy, I should employ you on a retainer basis. You been up to those mind reading tricks again?

Phillie, well researched stuff there, you managed to dig up several points I hadn't previously found, and I apologise for not restricting my comments specifically to what you had written. I was, as DW surmised, thinking more in terms of the 'popular' view of this particular disaster rather than your own view.

But picking up on one of my own comments - if people really want to find out about deliberate atrocities carried out by citizens of the UK that aren't well known (one of DW's original requirements), then I believe there are events in the colonisation of Australia that will fit the bill.

Not as widespread and systematic as what happened in the USA, but the whole colonial business is something that made my mind up a few years ago about emigrating. Despite the fact that I loved my time working in Australia, I would feel very uncomfortable about living there because I wouldn't feel that I have the moral right.

[Dark Dave]

Why not JJ?
Assuming all humans came from Africa you have as much right as any other human to live there, no ?
Maybe Britain killed a few people which is ofcourse bad, but just because Britain documents their own history doesn`t make them necessarily worse than those that don`t have these kinds of records.


Phillie: I do think there is a need to defend Britains past, because what DW has asked for is a list of bad things Britain has done, which ofcourse is gonna make Britain look like a pretty **** country.
But, if DW asked for a list of bad things Jesus has done (for example) you could probably make him look bad also.
Gotta put it in context.

[Mebe]

Hmmmm its a little late for me to be entering this debate, good stuff so far though.

Don't get hung up thinking we are worse than anyone else though, in many respects we were one of the more enlightened countries, however, you can't make an empire the size that Britain had without misbehaving from time to time, given the size of our overseas activities we probably have a greater number of questionable events in the 1750-1900 timeframe. Post 1900 we've been reasonably well behaved.

[Dark Dave]

Originally posted by Mebe
you can't make an empire the size that Britain had without misbehaving from time to time.

Misbehaving according to who`s rules though ??

Yes phillie said it`s up to your own morals but, probably if you lived at the time your morals would have been different. So were the events bad compared to the time in history that they happened, I think that is a better question.

['Johnnie' Johnson]

I can't help but think getting killed is bad regardless of the morals of the time. Thinking from the killee's point of view here.

And even though I take a fairly long historical perspective view on things, stuff that happened over a million years ago (or whenever mankind left Africa) is pushing it a bit. Even oral history doesn't go that far back!

[[TSQN] Fu11]

i can't remember where i actually read this, i swear it's in the bible, but being a nu-christian (nee. lax) i can't actually find it..

it was basically regarding the types of sin, and the punishments god saw fitting, it was decided that no sin was "greater" than the other, there were just varying degrees of heinousness. the "sin" what the fact they actually commited the "sin" not how grand or twisted it was.

actually i'm making very little sense, i'll get my coat on the way out ;)

[Phillie Time]

Originally posted by Phillie Time
Neither am I Dweed :)

When I moved to Holland a few years ago I was forced to consider my national Identity - I found myself to be extremly proud of who I was (nationality wise). It didn't mean that I had to forget the mistakes of the past to be proud :)

Same goes for anyone from any country I think. I can't think of a single place that hasn't got things in their history that they are ashamed of and other things that they are very proud of - same for an individual's life history.

We are only human after all - nobodies perfect.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just incase you're thinking I'm trying to make Britain look bad.....

[[TSQN] Fu11]

Originally posted by Phillie Time

Just incase you're thinking I'm trying to make Britain look bad.....



as if we needed to try?

[Edited by [TSQN] Fu11 on 06-10-2000 at 09:37 AM]

[Mebe]

Originally posted by Dark Dave
Originally posted by Mebe
you can't make an empire the size that Britain had without misbehaving from time to time.

Misbehaving according to who`s rules though ??

Yes phillie said it`s up to your own morals but, probably if you lived at the time your morals would have been different. So were the events bad compared to the time in history that they happened, I think that is a better question.

I think thats the point I was trying to get across.

[Marg]

i still think my reference is the only refence so far that could be labled as an "atrocity." who did what in the potato famine is all very well, but putting escaped jews back into concentration camps is pretty bad imho.

[WPS]

Depends if you were aware of what they had gone through, or whether they were aware of what those left behind were going through, or if there was a more 'humane' viable alternative. While in an absolute sense it was obviously a pretty bad thing to do, can it really be said that the intentions weren't good - after all, they took them in when they could have just refused to let them off the ship. Bearing in mind that resources were scarce at the time. I'm not defending their actions, I'm just suggesting that it's easy for us to make statements about it in hindsite, but at the time, the perspective may have been very different. I doubt very much if there is a clear-cut malicious intent there.

Nobody so far has yet to suggest an instance of obvious evil and malicious intent, where the mood of the people was behind the action (rather than the individual whim of an out-of-control individual - e.g. Baden-Powell, or the rights of Prima Nocta and all that, which can be ascribed to the actions of an indivudal, rather than the people as a whole [another reason not to go back too far - can the commands of a king be blamed on the people he rules?]). Name an atrocity that the 'British people' have comitted, or it's government comitted with the substantial approval and collusion of the people.

[tinvek]

trouble is evryones got differing ideas of right and wrong.

for example the behaviour of the japaneese in the pacific war, in japan to be taken prisoner was(is?) highly dishonerable and so not only did their officers needlessly commit their troops to suicidal defences but also they treated our troops with an utter contempt when they were taken prisoner. additinaly when executing someone, the highest sign of respect in japan is to behead that person, one of the lowest being a firing squad. in the west, the firing squad is seen as respectful and beheading as a barbaric attrocity.

intrestingly the japaneese mentality often lead them to commiting suicide rather than fighting "to the death2 and posibly surviving and being taken prisoner, their honour being more important in these circumstances than any benfit their country could have gained from a determined defence.

ironically, due to stories about the japaneese treatment of prisoners, western forces became inclind to fight to the death and also less humane in the treatment of jaaneese prisoners.

re taking of prisoners, all sides killed prisoners, an example most are familiar with is the shooting of the two germans trying to surrender after the beach assault in saving private ryan. in real life, david niven, a man who to many embodied the civalised nature of a british gentleman, once during the war, after capturing a german E boat, lined up the german crew and shot them with a sten gun, before dumping the bodies overboard. many "inexcusable" events can probably be attributed to the heat of battle, in the case of private ryan, if youd seen you buddies being slaughtered and thought you were going to die at the hands of an enemy which seemingly had no mercy, then you may well feel less than 100% inclined to say fair enought youve given up go and sit down in over there and someone will lokk after you.

[Unkempt]

Goes back a long way, but England's treatment of the Jews in the 13th Century was very similar to Nazi Germany's, except that the 'final solution' (in 1290) was to expel them from the country rather than kill them all.
No Jews were allowed in England for 350 years after that.

The initial 'conquest' of North America included a lot of instances of native massacres, either straightforward 'kill-em-all' or more subtle 'give-em-all-smallpox' types.

Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland during the protectorate wasn't too nice; basically, all catholics were declared to be traitors, with various punishments (up to hanging) given out for this 'crime'. Not to mention a couple of largish massacres, notably Drogheda. Thousands of civilians slaughtered there (how many thousand depends on who you read.)

Widespread hunting of Aborigines in Australia; can't remember if that was 'government approved' or not.

[Unkempt]

Originally posted by tinvek
in real life, david niven, a man who to many embodied the civalised nature of a british gentleman, once during the war, after capturing a german E boat, lined up the german crew and shot them with a sten gun, before dumping the bodies overboard.


Where did this come from? Not saying it isn't true, I'm just amazed I've never heard it before.

[Marg]

I'm just suggesting that it's easy for us to make statements about it in hindsite, but at the time, the perspective may have been very different

seems like they didnt want to release the info in their own time, because of what ppl might say. that suggests to me that the perpective they had on what theyd done is the same as what i might think of it now. its barbaric, by our standards. 2000 people, 18 water taps. no beds unless ure sick. this is not hindsight, the war cabinet had full knowledge, and chose not to release the info, or the "prisoners." why? because they were ashamed

[Mebe]

Marg, you have a very late 20th century view of 'barbaric', for instance, they had food, water & shelter (not much by the sounds of it) but at least they had some.

Yes the conditions are ones we would consider unacceptable today (and probably then too) but they were by no means barbaric. For barbaric check out the Saxon custom of giving a defeated opponent 'Angels Wings' - specifically opening the rib cage from the rear by breaking the ribs from the spine and spreading out in the form of wings the lungs of the still alive victim (not that you last long with your lungs out mind).

Now thats barbaric.

For your example to be barbaric by todays standards you'd have to prove that the conditions were set deliberately to harm, punish or kill rather than just simple neglect.

[Mebe]

BTW, during the drought of 76 I can remember higher ratios of people using standpipes (taps) where I live.... it aint that terrible, many millions of people in shanty towns of South America and Africa live in far worse conditons today.

[Dark Dave]

Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
I can't help but think getting killed is bad regardless of the morals of the time. Thinking from the killee's point of view here.

But what if it`s kill or be killed, like often was in the old world. Would you just let someone kill you to prove you were the better man ie that you didn`t kill people?

[Marg]

they had food, water & shelter
so did aushwitz.

suffering comes in more forms than physical. imagine escaping nazi germany, only to be put back into a camp. fine, theyre not gonna die, but how cheerful can you be in a place like that?

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Dark Dave
Originally posted by 'Johnnie' Johnson
I can't help but think getting killed is bad regardless of the morals of the time. Thinking from the killee's point of view here.

But what if it`s kill or be killed, like often was in the old world. Would you just let someone kill you to prove you were the better man ie that you didn`t kill people?

Eh? Changing the terms of reference a bit aren't you. We were talking about atrocities, not killing someone in the heat of battle.

[Dark Dave]

Well I guess so.

But people are saying killing is bad regardless of the situation and calling it an atrocity, I just ment sometimes it unavoidable.

Also in old times, countries probably liked to make themselves look agressive and wouldn`t have wanted to look kind/weak for fear of invasion, no ?

['Johnnie' Johnson]

Originally posted by Dark Dave
But people are saying killing is bad regardless of the situation and calling it an atrocity,

I missed that. Who said that?

I know I said getting killed was a bad thing. I'm sure someone will come up with some convoluted exception where this isn't the case.

[Dark Dave]

How about killing Hitler? is that a bad thing?

[Dragonweedy]

I'm trying to think of a convoluted exception, but I can't! Perhaps I have run out of coffee :{

[Dragonweedy]

... I've got it!

Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) in "Alien 3", where she is killed by falling into a vat of molten steel. This also kills the unborn alien foetus which she has discovered that she is bearing. So getting killed is actually a good thing.

Or is it just a case of suicide. :E


Damn, and it took me ages to think of that!

['Cosmo']

ages ???? it looks as tho it took you 5 months m8 :E

oh and not meaning to upset you or anything but it isnt actually real ;)

[Dragonweedy]

You got a good point there m8 :emb: