DBWI : Britain denies war crimes!

It been 70 years since the Second Weltkrieg, where the German Empire and it’s allies defeated the Internationale. When German troops entered Britain, they were horrified at the concentration camps the British ran. Central Powers POWs, Jews, Turks, Arabs, Asians, ect were all being put into consideration camps with gas chambers, slave labor, ect.

The president of Britain is protesting the opening of the memorial of the “Massacre” at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Berlin, claiming the past should be forgotten and thinks a statue of the friendship between Britain and Germany should be built instead. Meanwhile, the mayor of London while commemorating the Blitz claims that the Union of Britain was liberating the world from German imperialism and it’s war crimes were just imperialist propaganda. There’s a British textbook controversy which omits large details of the Second Weltkrieg, especially the Massacre. Relationships between Britain/Japan and Afrikan/Asien nation remain sour, as Britain refuses to pay reparations for it’s war crimes. It is well reported of Anglo Japanese troops using comfort women in the war in Asien. Meanwhile, the United States had been fully apologetic for it’s war crimes, especially in the mass killings of African Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, and Native Americans. The United Stays often pays reparations for these war crimes.

POD : This is a equivalent of OTL Japan’s denial of war crimes in a world where Germany won World War 1.
 
Last edited:
Despite Holdgagen’s assertion of a “national” defect in the British, demonstrated to his mind through British policy in Ireland as the experiment; despite his claims it is clearly a function of imperialism and total war. General British support for killing “lesser races” was the fully worked through logic of Taylorism divisions of labour on an international scale. With the right circumstances even civilised Germany could end up deliberately killing civilians en masse: their role as a coloniser in Africa; though far less than Britain’s bloody colonial past, demonstrates this.

Total war. Imperial racism. Generalised Punishment of the “lesser races,” for the “criminal pollution” of their existence. Britain merely happened to be best placed to be the horrific murderers we detest.
 
  • Zimmerer, Jürgen (2005) "Annihilation in Africa: The 'Race War' in German Southwest Africa (1904–1908) and its Significance for a Global History of Genocide." Bulletin of the German Historical Institute Issue 37
  • Schaller, Dominik J. (2008). Moses, A. Dirk (ed.). From Conquest to Genocide: Colonial Rule in German Southwest Africa and German East Africa [Empire, Colony Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History] (first ed.). Oxford: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4.
  • Baranowski, Shelley (2011) Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler, Cambridge University Press
  • Benjamin Madley (2005). "From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe". European History Quarterly. 35 (3): 429–64. doi:10.1177/0265691405054218
“While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers such as the Spanish and British empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territory frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia.[2] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.[3][4]According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants in order to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonial or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[5]” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples). The footnotes are adequate for the claims and concur with my reading of Lemkin when I last had to read him.

Yours,
Sam R.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
  • Zimmerer, Jürgen (2005) "Annihilation in Africa: The 'Race War' in German Southwest Africa (1904–1908) and its Significance for a Global History of Genocide." Bulletin of the German Historical Institute Issue 37
  • Schaller, Dominik J. (2008). Moses, A. Dirk (ed.). From Conquest to Genocide: Colonial Rule in German Southwest Africa and German East Africa [Empire, Colony Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History] (first ed.). Oxford: Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4.
  • Baranowski, Shelley (2011) Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler, Cambridge University Press
  • Benjamin Madley (2005). "From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe". European History Quarterly. 35 (3): 429–64. doi:10.1177/0265691405054218
“While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers such as the Spanish and British empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territory frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia.[2] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.[3][4]According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants in order to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonial or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[5]” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples). The footnotes are adequate for the claims and concur with my reading of Lemkin when I last had to read him.

Yours,
Sam R.
We are all victims of genocide then by those definitions (what did the Romans ever do for us.............)
 
It been 70 years since the Second Weltkrieg, where the German Empire and it’s allies defeated the Internationale. When German troops entered Britain, they were horrified at the concentration camps the British ran. Central Powers POWs, Jews, Turks, Arabs, Asians, ect were all being put into consideration camps with gas chambers, slave labor, ect.

The president of Britain is protesting the opening of the memorial of the “Massacre” at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Berlin, claiming the past should be forgotten and thinks a statue of the friendship between Britain and Germany should be built instead. Meanwhile, the mayor of London while commemorating the Blitz claims that the Union of Britain was liberating the world from German imperialism and it’s war crimes were just imperialist propaganda. There’s a British textbook controversy which omits large details of the Second Weltkrieg, especially the Massacre. Relationships between Britain/Japan and Afrikan/Asien nation remain sour, as Britain refuses to pay reparations for it’s war crimes. It is well reported of Anglo Japanese troops using comfort women in the war in Asien. Meanwhile, the United States had been fully apologetic for it’s war crimes, especially in the mass killings of African Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, and Native Americans. The United Stays often pays reparations for these war crimes.

POD : This is an equivalent of OTL Japan’s denial of war crimes in a world where Germany won World War 1.


I think that a big reason for the difference in how we deal with our war time issues and britian does comes down to this.

The American socialist party wasn't installed by a democratic vote, they gained power through the coup of 29 which was backed by the anglo Japanese alliance. The current second republic was made by people who either resisted or rebelled against the ASPs or as we called them the snakes. The second republic dirives its legitimacy through over throwing the ASP party and resoring the republic.

So talking about the numerous crimes of the ASP party both in war and other wise helps legitimize our government.

For britian it was different they freely elected the people who well did what they did, the government had a kind of legitimacy that it simply didn't have in the united states, and where as we got rid of the snakes in a popular rebellion their current government was imposed upon them by outside forces.

That's why there is such a massive difference in how the two countries treat their war guilt.
 
“While the concept of genocide was formulated by Raphael Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers such as the Spanish and British empires and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territory frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas, Australia, Africa and Asia.[2] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal". He saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.

So he's just wrong. "Genocide" means the deliberate killing of a whole ethnic group. It requires mass murder. Changing ways of life may include widespread increases in the mortality rates, but it's not genocide.

[3][4]According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants in order to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonial or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[5]

The same. This will almost certainly result in a decrease in numbers of the involved ethnic groups, and small groups may become extinct, but it's not the intentional murdering of a whole ethnic group as such and because of its mere existence.

The problem is intent, of course. The Nazis' intent, with their actually existing extermination camps (as opposed to the non-existing gas chambers in Britain), was to actually murder all Jews, and all Gypsies, in the world, or at least all those they could lay their hands on. This is genocide. Ethnic cleansing, land robbing etc. are of course crimes against humanity, but they aren't genocide.

As to the Germans in this thread, so shocked about the way the British treated their colonies, evidently they had had a 1984 as to their own country's treatment of the Herero and Nama. That also was genocide, or at least attempted genocide like the OTL one against the Jews and Gypsies, as opposed to murderous colonial land-grabbing policies.
 
It been 70 years since the Second Weltkrieg, where the German Empire and it’s allies defeated the Internationale. When German troops entered Britain, they were horrified at the concentration camps the British ran. Central Powers POWs, Jews, Turks, Arabs, Asians, ect were all being put into consideration camps with gas chambers, slave labor, ect.

The president of Britain is protesting the opening of the memorial of the “Massacre” at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Berlin, claiming the past should be forgotten and thinks a statue of the friendship between Britain and Germany should be built instead. Meanwhile, the mayor of London while commemorating the Blitz claims that the Union of Britain was liberating the world from German imperialism and it’s war crimes were just imperialist propaganda. There’s a British textbook controversy which omits large details of the Second Weltkrieg, especially the Massacre. Relationships between Britain/Japan and Afrikan/Asien nation remain sour, as Britain refuses to pay reparations for it’s war crimes. It is well reported of Anglo Japanese troops using comfort women in the war in Asien. Meanwhile, the United States had been fully apologetic for it’s war crimes, especially in the mass killings of African Americans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, and Native Americans. The United Stays often pays reparations for these war crimes.

POD : This is an equivalent of OTL Japan’s denial of war crimes in a world where Germany won World War 1.
What war crimes? Sure enemy alians, cowards, deviants and potential traitors were interned but so what. That happened in other countries too. As for the conditions, it's true they were harsh but this was due to the German Uboat blockade with the resultant food shortage and the damage caused by air raids preventing proper maintenance work being carried out. When famine strikes and thousands are being killed, injured or made homeless every day of course you take care of your own first. The Germans claim there were piles of dead in the internment camps, but they ignore the fact that their air force was dropping gas just before their army reached them. That the so called postwar Government blamed the previous government for these so called crimes means nothing. They were just a bunch of traitors happily collaborating with the enemy and it's a shame the Auxilliary Units didn't shoot more of the bastards.

Restore the monarchy, reform the union and Free Britain.

God save the King and Death to all collaborators.
 
It been 70 years since the Second Weltkrieg, where the German Empire and it’s allies defeated the Internationale. When German troops entered Britain, they were horrified at the concentration camps the British ran. Central Powers POWs, Jews, Turks, Arabs, Asians, ect were all being put into consideration camps with gas chambers, slave labor, ect.
Well, Mosley's Britain warped socialism from the utopian ideal it was into an abomination, to put things mildly.
 
What war crimes? Sure enemy alians, cowards, deviants and potential traitors were interned but so what. That happened in other countries too. As for the conditions, it's true they were harsh but this was due to the German Uboat blockade with the resultant food shortage and the damage caused by air raids preventing proper maintenance work being carried out. When famine strikes and thousands are being killed, injured or made homeless every day of course you take care of your own first. The Germans claim there were piles of dead in the internment camps, but they ignore the fact that their air force was dropping gas just before their army reached them. That the so called postwar Government blamed the previous government for these so called crimes means nothing. They were just a bunch of traitors happily collaborating with the enemy and it's a shame the Auxilliary Units didn't shoot more of the bastards.

Restore the monarchy, reform the union and Free Britain.

God save the King and Death to all collaborators.
What Monarchy? The Union of Britain was a syndicalist nation that overthrew it’s king in the 1925 British revolution.
 
Despite Holdgagen’s assertion of a “national” defect in the British, demonstrated to his mind through British policy in Ireland as the experiment; despite his claims it is clearly a function of imperialism and total war. General British support for killing “lesser races” was the fully worked through logic of Taylorism divisions of labour on an international scale. With the right circumstances even civilised Germany could end up deliberately killing civilians en masse: their role as a coloniser in Africa; though far less than Britain’s bloody colonial past, demonstrates this.

Total war. Imperial racism. Generalised Punishment of the “lesser races,” for the “criminal pollution” of their existence. Britain merely happened to be best placed to be the horrific murderers we detest.
The Union of Britain was anything but colonialist. Britain overthrew it’s king in the 1925 British revolution and the king fled to Canada. The Union of Britain denounced colonialism and was extremely anti imperialist. One of the main motivations for the Syndicalists were to overthrow Imperialism.
 
So he's just wrong.

While I agree, Lemkin’s opinion is usually accorded a degree of weight as he characterised and popularised the scholarly term. So much so that attacks on the concepts usefulness usually start with an attack on Lemkin’s genesis.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
While I agree, Lemkin’s opinion is usually accorded a degree of weight as he characterised and popularised the scholarly term. So much so that attacks on the concepts usefulness usually start with an attack on Lemkin’s genesis.
OOC - Please tell me that you are not saying that we can't disagree with Lemkin's definition because he was Polish and Jewish?
 
OOC - Please tell me that you are not saying that we can't disagree with Lemkin's definition because he was Polish and Jewish?

I’m saying it is hard to argue with a seminal tradition of the term’s use—one which is current in relation to colonial “genocide”—if you think the term is useful. It is easier to reject the term completely and go to massacre studies, than it is to try to split the hair that Lemkin popularised.
 
I'm entirely OK with the term genocide, if the intent is to outright kill an ethnic group.
By that standard, if you stop killing group members once you've taken their lands, restricted them to reservations, and thinned down their population so much that they will no longer be a problem - that is horrible, and a crime against humanity too, but you never were out to outright kill them all, so it's not actually genocide.
If you don't actually kill the last group member, but not for lack of trying, that's not accomplished genocide, but it's certainly attempted genocide.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
I’m saying it is hard to argue with a seminal tradition of the term’s use—one which is current in relation to colonial “genocide”—if you think the term is useful. It is easier to reject the term completely and go to massacre studies, than it is to try to split the hair that Lemkin popularised.
Trouble is that Lemkin didn't deliver a hair - he delivered a tree trunk of a definition which actually devalues the term. Out of context you could accuse the mainly Southern England based Conservative governments of the 80's of "genocide" of the mostly manufacturing based working population of Northern England. Which might play well at a political conference but is hyperbole.
 
Top