Following the Rineen ambush (22 September) in which six RIC men were killed, police burned many houses in the surrounding villages of Milltown Malbay, Lahinch and Ennistymon, and killed five civilians.
In early November, Black and Tans "besieged" Tralee in revenge for the IRA abduction and killing of two local RIC men. They closed all the businesses in the town, let no food in for a week and shot dead three local civilians.
On 14 November, Black and Tans were suspected of abducting and murdering a Roman Catholic priest, Father Michael Griffin, in Galway. His body was found in a bog in Barna a week later.
From October 1920 to July 1921, the Galway region was "remarkable in many ways", most notably the level of police brutality towards suspected IRA members, which was far above the norm in the rest of Ireland.
The villages of Clifden and Knockcroghery suffered mass reprisals in March and June 1921.
I don't think this combined death toll goes up to even 100, or 200 at the very maximum, which just goes to show how desperate you have to be that this is what you call Britain's answer to the Belgian Congo and the Namibian genocide. Singularly pathetic!
I don't think this combined death toll goes up to even 100, or 200 at the very maximum, which just goes to show how desperate you have to be that this is what you call Britain's answer to the Belgian Congo and the Namibian genocide. Singularly pathetic!
Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old officer whose parents, younger brothers, and two of his sisters had died in the Cawnpore massacre, recorded his experience:
The orders went out to shoot every soul.... It was literally murder... I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference ...
A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the Bombay Telegraph and reproduced in the British press testified to the scale of the Indian casualties:
.... All the city's people found within the walls of the city of Delhi when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed.
The anti-semitic Judenzählung of 1916 disgusted many German Jewish soldiers, being aimed at falsely proving that Jews were trying to avoid military service. The truth was that the census disproved the accusations: 80 percent served on the front lines.
Uh-huh. Observe how the reality of Jewish patriotism and military excellence is emphasized, while the fact of the German military leadership not giving a shit and stirring up antisemitism anyway is deemphasized as hard as possible - first being made physically smaller than the part about Jewish patriotism, which fills up several screen-widths with inordinately large pictures of young patriotic men, and then being used to loop the reader's attention back to the reality of Jewish patriotism yet again. At all times, the reader is almost physically dragged away from the reality of the German military's antisemitism with images of the reality which they lied about to the public in order to stir up antisemitism.
Ignore the above segment, I was entirely mistaken.
Yeah, because it took until the government began hearing news from anyone but the military, who were actually running the camps and wanted to conceal the disgraceful thereof for some reason(*), for the government to actually start cottoning on to the possibility that maybe the military were lying. From there, the British government disbelieved the reports until the woman they sent to determine the truth came back confirming the reality. At that point, they immediately changed course. I invite you to speculate as to whether the German government would have made that same choice.
(*): I couldn't possibly know what that reason was. Maybe it's that they feared being held to account for their mismanagement of the camps, which is what it was. Because the camps had been intended from the outset not to be death camps - as opposed to the camps in Namibia, which were slave camps reminiscent of Auschwitz from the start and with express German government permission for that role.
By people who didn't want to believe that the British military could possibly be *gasp* so barbaric, reinforced by the actual military which was desperately trying to discredit anyone who pointed out the absolute state of the camps.
And your argument is what?
That people who should have known, arguably must have known, and had good reasons to lie about knowing in the aftermath didn't know?
That a bunch of detached politicians in Whitehall, who were being told by the military authorities in charge of the camps that everything was fine and the atrocity stories were all damnable lies by Boer sympathizers, refused to believe what was happening until someone the Prime Minister appointed to investigate said that it was indeed happening. No shit!
I mean someone leaned on the newspapers not to print it - which would seem to be completely pointless if the government is simultaneously admitting it?
Someone whose efforts were so effective that Hobhouse was able to publicize details of the tragedy completely unhindered.
And above all, I reiterate: the fact that the British government did something when the truth came out and the German government didn't speaks a lot about the comparison between the two.
Uh-huh. Observe how the reality of Jewish patriotism and military excellence is emphasized, while the fact of the German military leadership not giving a shit and stirring up antisemitism anyway is deemphasized as hard as possible - first being made physically smaller than the part about Jewish patriotism, which fills up several screen-widths with inordinately large pictures of young patriotic men, and then being used to loop the reader's attention back to the reality of Jewish patriotism yet again.
At all times, the reader is almost physically dragged away from the reality of the German military's antisemitism with images of the reality which they lied about to the public in order to stir up antisemitism.
No idea how to change picture sizes from Wikipedia...
The study was ordered by Adolf Wild von Hohenborn (from Hesse) who was against the Hindenberg/Ludendorff (Posen, West Prussia) clique and their programs. He was replaced 2 weeks after ordering the study, when the H/L clique took over and got WII to put Hermann Christlieb Matthäus Stein in as Prussian Minister of War.
At which point, we're back to time traveling Britbongs again. And look how far we have to go back!
If you're going that far back, I might as well mention Maria Theresa and Joseph I's crimes against the Romani people as a sign of the Austrian Empire's indelible evil while I'm at it. Because using that to claim that the Austrians of the 1780s were the same as the Austrians of the 1910s (or to say that Imperial Germany was evil from its foundation, for that matter) would just be silly, right?
But I don't bring that up, because I don't need to go mining into the distant past to dig up signs of evil from centuries prior and claim that they represent evidence of Britain's current evil. After all, why bother doing that when there is so much evidence from the actual generation that started WW1?
I mistakenly believed your previous post to be a sly deflection from Ludendorff's antisemitism, rather than a simple explanation thereof.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
At which point, we're back to time traveling Britbongs again. And look how far we have to go back!
If you're going that far back, I might as well mention Maria Theresa and Joseph I's crimes against the Romani people as a sign of the Austrian Empire's indelible evil while I'm at it. Because using that to claim that the Austrians of the 1780s were the same as the Austrians of the 1910s (or to say that Imperial Germany was evil from its foundation, for that matter) would just be silly, right?
But I don't bring that up, because I don't need to go mining into the distant past to dig up signs of evil from centuries prior and claim that they represent evidence of Britain's current evil. After all, why bother doing that when there is so much evidence from the actual generation that started WW1?
I mistakenly believed your previous post to be a sly deflection from Ludendorff's antisemitism, rather than a simple explanation thereof.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I don't particularly follow the British. I recently finished several books on the American Revolution and was surprised about the death by neglect of American Pows. The link was from Andersonville National Historical Site, where the commandant was Swiss. He was convicted of war crimes and executed. The Irish information came from drinking at too many Irish pubs in college. I did read a book on the Sepoy Mutiny and was shocked by the atrocities on both sides. Shooting people tied to cannons seems a bit much.
While I don’t think something like the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost would occur here, it’s still possible something like the Khmer Rouge would come to power outside of Europe. And who’s to say something like the Stalinist purges or the Great Leap Forward wouldn’t occur either. So I agree the overall death toll is probably lower, it’s truly impossible to tell.
Yeah, because it took until the government began hearing news from anyone but the military, who were actually running the camps and wanted to conceal the disgraceful thereof for some reason(*), for the government to actually start cottoning on to the possibility that maybe the military were lying.
Again it's a matter of Hansard, it was raised as issue, i.e. now the government found out, because they were told - And then the government defends it.
Defeats motions about it - and sometime later after the public has found out, they eventually send someone there to find out, what they already knew.
And it's worth noting that didn't end the policy, they were just told to implement the policy more humanely!
By people who didn't want to believe that the British military could possibly be *gasp* so barbaric, reinforced by the actual military which was desperately trying to discredit anyone who pointed out the absolute state of the camps.
Except when she wasn't regarded as a Boer sympathizing liar and ignored.
And of course the issue was raised before her report, it's almost like there were other people who were successfully silenced.
And above all, I reiterate: the fact that the British government did something when the truth came out and the German government didn't speaks a lot about the comparison between the two.
Insgesamt stieß das Morden in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit auf massive Kritik.[64] Wenige Tage nach dem Eintreffen der trothaschen Proklamation vom 2. Oktober 1904 in Berlin – der Postweg für amtliche Dokumente aus dem Sandfeld dauerte damals gute sechs Wochen – beschloss die Reichsregierung, dass die Proklamation zurückzunehmen sei. Dennoch sollte es noch bis Dezember dauern, bis alle beteiligten Behörden und Dienststellen, die im Kaiserreich vielfach wenig kooperierten, die gefassten Beschlüsse endlich umsetzten. Während der damaligen Debatten im Reichstag wurde die Kriegführung des Generals unter anderem von dem SPD-Führer August Bebel angeprangert: „Eine solche Kriegsführung kann jeder Metzgerknecht treiben, dazu braucht man nicht General oder höherer Offizier zu sein.“[65] In der Sitzung vom 2. Dezember 1905 verlas der sozialistische Abgeordnete Georg Ledebour Teile aus Trothas „Proklamation“ vom 2. Oktober 1904 (s. o.) und stellte fest, dass sie auf „die Vernichtung und Ausrottung der Eingeborenen“ hinauslaufe.[66] Trotha, der zur Beendigung des Krieges „die Nation als solche vernichtet“ oder „aus dem Lande gewiesen“ sehen wollte (Brief an den Generalstab vom 4. Oktober 1904), wurde zur Umkehr gezwungen.
Overall, the killing met with massive criticism from the German public.[64] A few days after the defiant proclamation of October 2, 1904, arrived in Berlin - it took a good six weeks to mail official documents from the Sandfeld at the time - the imperial government decided that the proclamation should be withdrawn. Nevertheless, it was to take until December for all the authorities and departments involved, many of which did not cooperate much in the empire, to finally implement the decisions taken. During the debates in the Reichstag at the time, the general's conduct of the war was denounced by the SPD leader August Bebel, among others: "Any butcher's assistant can conduct such warfare; one does not need to be a general or a higher officer to do so."[65] In the session of December 2, 1905, the Socialist deputy Georg Ledebour read out parts of Trotha's "Proclamation" of October 2, 1904 (see above). October 1904 (see above) and stated that it amounted to "the destruction and extermination of the natives."[66] Trotha, who wanted to see "the nation as such destroyed" or "expelled from the country" to end the war (letter to the General Staff, October 4, 1904), was forced to turn back.
A reaction which consisted of "We retract this statement!" while doing nothing to actually change the situation on the ground, where that statement was still being enforced.
(As opposed to the British government, which actually intervened to stop the mass deaths in the Boer concentration camps because they weren't part of the original plan.)
Again it's a matter of Hansard, it was raised as issue, i.e. now the government found out, because they were told - And then the government defends it.
Defeats motions about it - and sometime later after the public has found out, they eventually send someone there to find out, what they already knew.
Irish MP proclaims support for the Boer cause and questions the army's triumphalist narrative of the war.
His main evidence is the fact that the British army is still burning Boer farms, which would be unnecessary if the war was anywhere near as finished as Kitchener and the army make it out to be. He then quotes correspondence between a British general and a Boer general, which the army had censored to keep it from being published in the newspapers, as further proof, and includes mentions of the British general breaking a promise he made to the Boer general to not intern Boer women and children in British camps (which wouldn't be happening if the British army was about to break the Boer resistance any day now. He then quotes the Boer general to state that the current guerilla war is Boer national policy to deal with British tactics of burning farms to deny the Boers food. He then quotes another censored letter which eventually got published on 24th December 1900 which also states that the Boer resistance is in fact highly organized and not just a few bandits like the Army leadership is making it out to be. He then quotes a letter written by a camp follower in the actual British army which corroborates this statement. Finally, he quotes Kitchener's own words, published in the newspapers just 5 days prior to this debate, which heavily imply that the British are losing the war, badly.
After that, there's some back-and-forth between the MP and several people questioning his statements.
Then the MP goes into some detail about the Boers' national character, his sympathies for their struggle against the British as an Irishman, and the farm burnings being carried out by the British army. He then goes on to smash various attempts by other MPs to present a pro-army narrative, such as that the farm burnings are being done by unruly soldiers or that they are done in retaliation for Boer guerilla sabotage. He also says that the army and the colonial secretary have been misleading Parliament. He continues with numerous quotes from various sources which demonstrate that the Army is burning farms all over Boer territory. He then addresses other narratives by army supporters in Parliament, including one which rests on the aforementioned British general's (Lord Roberts) humaneness, or that only people who gave information to the enemy were deported to camps.
He ends with a laundry list of proofs that the British army is indeed putting women and children into camps, and excoriates the army for its behavior. At the very end, he makes one final statement which indicates that reports of horrible conditions within the camps have already reached Britain, since an MP asked about it:
Now let me go a step further. Not only have women and children been shut up in these camps and treated as prisoners of war, but when the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a charge the other day—which I am constrained to believe —that in this camp a notice was posted stating that those families whose husbands and brothers were still on commando would be put on half rations, and would only be restored to full rations when their relatives surrendered, I expected a most indignant denial from the right hon. Gentleman, but all he said was that the hon. Member was making this charge without an atom of evidence. The hon. Member had exactly the same evidence, namely, Renter's telegram, which the right hon. Gentleman had himself the other day when he made charges in connection with the Esau case.
tl;dr - The conclusion is that, contrary to what the Army has been saying, the British are not winning against the Boers and the Army has been trying to hide that from the public by censoring outgoing reports. The fact that British camps exist in the first place is mentioned as a smoking gun for the fact that the Army is losing the war against the Boers, but no mention of mass deaths within the camps.
Notably, at the very end, the MP refers to rumors which have come back to England of a policy of putting civilians with relatives that are still fighting on half-rations until the relatives are captured. This isn't an open accusation of mass deaths in the camps, but it does show that rumors of the conditions there have already circulated back to England.
And here is the timeline which this event slots into:
October 1900: The Conservatives win the general election on a narrative that the British are winning the war against the Boers and they'll surrender any day now.
February 1901: the first allegations of mistreatment of Boer women and children in the camps start filtering back to Britain.
March 1901: two questions are put before Parliament on the issue (1, 2). War Secretary Brodrick brushes them off with "I don't have all the information, Kitchener tells me everything is okay."
May 1901: Hobhouse returns from her visit to the camps and starts publicizing the situation at the camps.
June 1901: Hobhouse publishes a report on the camps. Lloyd George accuses the government, in Parliament, of a policy of extermination against the Boers.
July 1901: in response to the uproar, the government asks Kitchener for the actual statistics from the camps, which he sends. They confirm everything Hobhouse has been saying. Now that the massive death toll has been confirmed, the government needs to send someone to see the camps for themselves and come up with a program to prevent further deaths. Enter Millicent Fawcett.
August 1901: Millicent Fawcett begins her tour of the camps. She will return to Britain in December, after having given the program she came up with to the Colonial Secretary. By February, her program has caused death rates (among white inmates(*)) to plummet down to 6.9%, and later down to 2%.
(*): the camp authorities enact her program with the white camps first, because racism.
That is a funny way of saying "Brought it back to its original intended purpose, which was to simply house civilians and captured fighters with an absolute minimum of deaths."
When the government approved the use of concentration camps, they did not mean it as a euphemism for death camps, and trusted that the Army could organize them on its own. The Army failed, and then shamefacedly hid the evidence from the government and the public, as the above text from Hansard demonstrates, until the government at last looked into their conduct for itself and disproved their lies with its own eyes. It then undertook to fix the camps.
By the government, which chose to believe Kitchener when he said everything was fine, right up until they asked for actual statistics and he gave them, and the statistics proved that everything was not fine and Hobhouse was telling the truth. And the public lapped her statements up, as did such famous political figures as Lloyd George, who openly accused the government of genocide. So much for silencing.
Though the camp authorities enacted Fawcett's reform program with white camps first, they did enact it with the black camps as well.
(As opposed to the Germans who, regardless of their racism, intended for the camps in Namibia to be death camps from the start, and thus did not change a damn thing about the camps anyway.)
I'm confused, is your point that since the Entente won, and they didn't commit any atrocities, the CP's in a victory wouldn't either, or, The entente did commit atrocities, therefore Germany would too?
No. My point was that bringing up atrocities committed by the Allied Powers was unnecessary since it was irrelevant to the discussion of atrocities commited by the Central Powers. I believe the term is "red herring", but feel free to correct me.
I'm confused, what's the point you're trying to make? That the conspiracy theory wouldn't exist just because Russia lost the war? Y'know, like in real life.
Of Poland? - No one suggested that - The cleansing of the border strip, which is a possibility in a possibility was never envisaged by anyone to constitute large area or population.
Absent the total radicalization and destruction of German politics and society following Versailes, a polity that wasn't sold on annexing a small border strip and then again, not sold on any ethnic cleansing of said area is simply never ever going to have the sort of radical thought space where such a large crazy idea could be considered as General plan ost.
Thoughts that can't be had before 1919 apparently existed before 1919. Me time traveling to fabricate evidence to win a debate on the internet, or you being wrong? You decide.
Hmm, yes? Sure, if you define "Nazi" by broadening the definition so far that it means "a far-right government with genocidal leanings based in Germany," then it's not quite impossible. But specifically the OTL Nazis were so ridiculously unlikely that replicating their rise 100% in such drastically different conditions is ASB.
Btw, has the definition of liberal democracy changed by quite a bit? Originally it meant that model how to govern a country, but nowadays it seems to mean a democracy that subscribes to liberal values and human rights.
Btw, has the definition of liberal democracy changed by quite a bit? Originally it meant that model how to govern a country, but nowadays it seems to mean a democracy that subscribes to liberal values and human rights.
Liberal democracy has traditionally meant a state where policy was ostensibly decided by popular elections between multiple political parties (in actuality policy is decided by the press, which controls what information the public receives and therefore who wins elections). In practice, a quote I once saw and believe to be accurate is, "'Democracies' are states in which the US has managed to install a client regime. 'Authoritarian regimes' are countries where the US has not yet been successful in doing so."
Liberal democracy has traditionally meant a state where policy was ostensibly decided by popular elections between multiple political parties (in actuality policy is decided by the press, which controls what information the public receives and therefore who wins elections). In practice, a quote I once saw and believe to be accurate is, "'Democracies' are states in which the US has managed to install a client regime. 'Authoritarian regimes' are countries where the US has not yet been successful in doing so."
I am pretty sure that democracy have born in many countries by themselves or at least without American influence or even intervention. And what I have noticed governments installed by USA have been often pretty authotarian and USA has even ousted democratically elected governments.
I am pretty sure that democracy have born in many countries by themselves or at least without American influence or even intervention. And what I have noticed governments installed by USA have been often pretty authotarian and USA has even ousted democratically elected governments.
In fact, it has often had a better chance of consolidating when the United States refrains from intervening than the opposite. And America's attempts to "spread democracy" through bombardments have often resulted in a blatant worsening of conditions in "aid" recipient countries (and when the guy who was in charge before is fucking Saddam Hussein that says a lot, and not pretty)
de.wikipedia.org
