Auschwitz 70 Years On.

Status
Not open for further replies.
AFCSR6 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29

The camps had originally been set up by the British Army as "refugee camps" to provide refuge for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes for whatever reason related to the war. However, when Kitchener succeeded Roberts as commander-in-chief in South Africa on 29 November 1900, the British Army introduced new tactics in an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign and the influx of civilians grew dramatically as a result. Kitchener initiated plans to

flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children ... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war
Click to expand...
Well done mate, you've discovered Wikipedia. The British set up internment camps.


Now compare that to the deliberate, systematic extermination of six million people.
 


AFCSR6 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29

The camps had originally been set up by the British Army as "refugee camps" to provide refuge for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes for whatever reason related to the war. However, when Kitchener succeeded Roberts as commander-in-chief in South Africa on 29 November 1900, the British Army introduced new tactics in an attempt to break the guerrilla campaign and the influx of civilians grew dramatically as a result. Kitchener initiated plans to

flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organised like a sporting shoot, with success defined in a weekly 'bag' of killed, captured and wounded, and to sweep the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children ... It was the clearance of civilians—uprooting a whole nation—that would come to dominate the last phase of the war
Click to expand...

Like I said, a shameful part of our history, but not even close to what the Nazis achieved.
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
Well done mate, you've discovered Wikipedia. The British set up internment camps.


Now compare that to the deliberate, systematic extermination of six million people.
Click to expand...

I am not comparing anything, nor do I think it is pertinent to the discussion or morally right to compare the two. Same with the genocidal acts of wiping out the Aboriginal people of Australia, which has been since been classed as genocide.

"
The extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines is regarded as a classic case of genocide by Lemkin, most comparative scholars of genocide, and many general historians, including Robert Hughes, Ward Churchill, Leo Kuper and Jared Diamond, who base their analysis on previously published histories.[86] Between 1824 and 1908 White settlers and Native Mounted Police in Queensland, according to Raymond Evans, killed more than 10,000 Aborigines, who were regarded as vermin and sometimes even hunted for sport.[87]

Ben Kiernan, an Australian historian of genocide, treats the Australian evidence over the first century of colonization as an example of genocide in his 2007 history of the concept and practice, Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur.[88] The Australian practice of removing the children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent from their families, has been described as genocidal.[89][90] The 1997 report "Bringing them Home" concluded that the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their family constituted an act of genocide. [91] In the 1990s a number of Australian state institutions, including the state of Queensland, apologized for its policies regarding forcible separation of aboriginal children.[92] Another allegation against the Australian state is the use of medical services to Aboriginals to administer contraceptive therapy to aboriginal women without their knowledge or consent, including the use of Depo Provera, as well as tubal ligations. Both forced adoption and forced contraception would fall under the provisions of the UN genocide convention.[93] Many Australian politicians and scholars, including historian Geoffrey Blainey, political scientist Ken Minogue and prominently professor Keith Windschuttle, reject the view that Australian aboriginal policy was genocide"
 
AFCSR6 said:
I am not comparing anything, nor do I think it is pertinent to the discussion or morally right to compare the two. Same with the genocidal acts of wiping out the Aboriginal people of Australia, which has been since been classed as genocide.

"
The extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines is regarded as a classic case of genocide by Lemkin, most comparative scholars of genocide, and many general historians, including Robert Hughes, Ward Churchill, Leo Kuper and Jared Diamond, who base their analysis on previously published histories.[86] Between 1824 and 1908 White settlers and Native Mounted Police in Queensland, according to Raymond Evans, killed more than 10,000 Aborigines, who were regarded as vermin and sometimes even hunted for sport.[87]

Ben Kiernan, an Australian historian of genocide, treats the Australian evidence over the first century of colonization as an example of genocide in his 2007 history of the concept and practice, Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur.[88] The Australian practice of removing the children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent from their families, has been described as genocidal.[89][90] The 1997 report "Bringing them Home" concluded that the forced separation of Aboriginal children from their family constituted an act of genocide. [91] In the 1990s a number of Australian state institutions, including the state of Queensland, apologized for its policies regarding forcible separation of aboriginal children.[92] Another allegation against the Australian state is the use of medical services to Aboriginals to administer contraceptive therapy to aboriginal women without their knowledge or consent, including the use of Depo Provera, as well as tubal ligations. Both forced adoption and forced contraception would fall under the provisions of the UN genocide convention.[93] Many Australian politicians and scholars, including historian Geoffrey Blainey, political scientist Ken Minogue and prominently professor Keith Windschuttle, reject the view that Australian aboriginal policy was genocide"
Click to expand...
Then why bring the fcker up then?
And fck off with your quotes, if I want to sit reading Wikipedia i'll google it
 
SAFC 2012 said:
One thing i always remember when i see it in the paper etc is walking up the long path just through the entrance, then the train carriage in the middle. Shows a picture of a little old bloke being told to walk up the path, you get to the top and theres a gas chamber waiting at the top for them :eek::eek:
Click to expand...

Too many horrible things to mention
 
Horatio Pugwash said:
Then why bring the fcker up then?
And fck off with your quotes, if I want to sit reading Wikipedia i'll google it
Click to expand...

Because someone posted that it's hard to imagine that one of the most civilised societies of the time could so something so horrific. The British at the time were the most civilised country, but you can't account for any civilisations' actions when they believe they are superior to another race of people.
 
AFCSR6 said:
Because someone posted that it's hard to imagine that one of the most civilised societies of the time could so something so horrific. The British at the time were the most civilised country, but you can't account for any civilisations' actions when they believe they are superior to another race of people.
Click to expand...
they didnt
read a bit of history
 
AFCSR6 said:
As were the the Brits at the time who don't really have a great record with this to be fair; the Boer war concentration camps were not exactly pleasant, and the Aborigines and their entire language were all but wiped out in Australia. Same could be said for a lot of other European colonial campaigns, Red Indians, most of South America, New Zealand etc. were it was believed the European's were a stronger race of people, which is what the Nazi's ultimately also believed. Let's not forget the thousands of African men, woman and children that were boxed below decks on boats, the majority of which died, over the Atlantic to be slaves. I guess it's harder to see it being on the same level because of the graphic footage that's now available.
Click to expand...
Don`t forget the atrocities of King Leopold II of Belgium in the Congo. I sometimes find the cries of poor neutral Belgium as Germans advanced over their border in August 1914 a little ironic when only a few years earlier the Belgians were cutting the hands of the indigenous population and slaughtering upto 10 million people and enslaving a nation. Didnt like it too much when the (jack) boot was on the other foot.
 
Narraback said:
Not just a civilised society but one of the most advanced on the planet at the time. I've given up asking why.
Click to expand...
Social media. It was in its infancy then but as witnessed by history it was used to great affect by the Nazi regime. The power of social media was understood very well after that regime and has been used to great affect ever since by many, many regimes. You just have to look around modern social media to see how people can be influenced and manipulated. Back then it was less sophisticated and more revolutionary as to how information was disseminated, revolutionary as in brand new and less sophisticated as in what now looks crude. The whole "we are superior", Eugenics "science ! and philosophy ? " which had been going on for a while and seemed fairly widespread didn't help either.
Hopefully, we don't forget and we learn.

As an asides, the British royal family is a product of those times.
 
AFCSR6 said:
They didn't what?

What about the 8 million killed in the Congo by Belgium?
Click to expand...
The British didn't consider themselves 'superior' to the Boer.


It was a completely different situation. They were involved in a war with a guerrilla force who were being hidden and sustained by Boer held farms in the region.
When the camps were first opened they were to provide shelter for reugees from the conflict. Eventually when the British realised the only effective way to defeat the boer was to remove that aid they moved the occupants into the camps until the end of the war. This enabled them to conduct a scorched earth policy forcing the boer into the open.
They did not murder civilian men women and children on an industrial scale ffs.

Apologies t the op for this thread going off a very important topic

j.w said:
Do they avoid it in history lessons or what?
Click to expand...
dunno mate. as I say, they don't say much about it
 
  • Like
Reactions: j.w
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top