View Full Version : Total People Killed
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-05-2008, 05:54
I'm interested in some reliable statistics for the total amount of people killed by the British Empire. Rough guesses are great, of course.
603
The voices in my head told me so, and they're never wrong.
:creep:
My joshing aside, I think that would be a number all but impossible to quantify. I highly doubt there are any stats on how many native people died via hunger & disease when Britain was colonizing all over the place. Heck, I'd be surprised if anyone's even bothered to do a rough estimate. :book:
CountArach
11-05-2008, 10:43
If you just talk about in war then I imagine you could find some very rough estimates. If you include Imperialism, then it is beyond quantifiable.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-05-2008, 21:59
Let's say things that could be considered to be intentional, but not including armed conflict. So starving people to death, the Boer concentration camps, etcetera. Are there any professors who offer reliable statistics?
Sarmatian
11-06-2008, 01:56
Preparing the big guns for the "No better then them" thread? :laugh4:
On the issue, I doubt you'll find precise data for something so broad. Maybe if you limit yourself to some bigger conflicts of the British Empire and then make your own calculation.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-06-2008, 02:05
Preparing the big guns for the "No better then them" thread?
No, quite on the contrary in fact. I'm trying to prove that the British Empire was better than someone, not worse.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-06-2008, 02:21
My conclusion so far, from a number of almost futile Google searches, is that plenty of people died in the British Empire, but many of these deaths were due to famine, disease, and neglect, and generally not policies of outright mass murder, and certainly nothing approaching the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Mao's China. That is good.
LittleGrizzly
11-07-2008, 14:29
Were you trying to argue against a comparison to the big 3 ? (hitler, stalin and mao)
Are you going to be including deaths to the slave trade ?
Up until the war of independance the BE probably deserves a portion of slave trade and removal of native indians.... though im not sure if other country's helped out partially with the indians..
InsaneApache
11-07-2008, 16:00
Up until the war of independance the BE probably deserves a portion of slave trade and removal of native indians.... though im not sure if other country's helped out partially with the indians..
Actually if you forget the 230 year old spin, one of the reasons for the rebellion was because the King refused to allow the colonists to expand westwards. He'd signed treaties with various tribes and intended to keep to them.
In contrast with what followed....:shame:
It's probably impossible to say how many lives were lost during the British Empire, it was in place an awful long time. It started during Elizabeth I reign and didn't end until Elizabeth II reign.
To try and look at the empire in this way is to lose sight of why it happened in the first place. It was always a trading empire, not one of conquest. Sounds an oxymoron I know but the bottom line was always profit, not how much land was grabbed.
Oh, another reason for the empire was to keep the French in check.
And that's a good enough reason for me. :laugh4:
Pannonian
11-07-2008, 16:40
Oh, another reason for the empire was to keep the French in check.
And that's a good enough reason for me. :laugh4:
There's a thread in the TWC history forum right now, asking what was the British view of Napoleon: whether he was seen as a tyrant, the embodiment of enlightenment, etc. My first thought was that he was seen as a Frenchman, and that was enough to make him the mortal enemy of Britain.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-08-2008, 04:25
Were you trying to argue against a comparison to the big 3 ? (hitler, stalin and mao)
More or less, yes.
Meneldil
11-08-2008, 05:53
There's a thread in the TWC history forum right now, asking what was the British view of Napoleon: whether he was seen as a tyrant, the embodiment of enlightenment, etc. My first thought was that he was seen as a Frenchman, and that was enough to make him the mortal enemy of Britain.
Awww com'on, can't we just hug eachother ?:yes:
CountArach
11-08-2008, 07:27
Awww com'on, can't we just hug eachother ?:yes:
I'd watch out. The British are probably holding a knife.
Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.
Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.
Open your own thread, then.
Maniac- You will be hard pressed to find a reliable and close estimate of the total people killed under thr British Empire.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-09-2008, 01:12
Maniac - why just british.
Lets check how many killed II German Reich.
Completely irrelevant Krook, as I'm trying to make the case that the British Empire killed less than the "big three."
Maniac- You will be hard pressed to find a reliable and close estimate of the total people killed under thr British Empire.
I'm aware, that's why I posted here. Google failed me. :shame:
We can't compare killing people from colonisation time with killing people from XX century.
Killing people into colonisation was just a way to achieve objective. Killing people by "big three" was practically objective. Of course we can say that objective was "living area" or "international revolution" but reality was different - killing was objective itself.
We can't compare killing people from colonisation time with killing people from XX century.
Killing people into colonisation was just a way to achieve objective. Killing people by "big three" was practically objective. Of course we can say that objective was "living area" or "international revolution" but reality was different - killing was objective itself.
This topic is the total amount of people killed by (under?) the British Empire. Not Germany, France, Russia, Poland, or The Octosquid-Spider Alliance.
Feel free to open a new topic other than make this thread go off topic.
PanzerJaeger
11-09-2008, 04:45
I believe the British were involved in intentionally trading blankets and other items from smallpox victims with Native Americans. That could really bump up their numbers. I'm not sure if anyone has done a study of the decline in the native population from Jamestown to 1776 though...
Incidentally, while I'm not sure about the British, I think a case could be made against the Spanish in comparison to the genocides of the 20th Century. The natives they were directly responsible for killing in Central and South America numbered into the tens of millions. However, that's not really OT.
Incongruous
11-09-2008, 06:14
In terms of the British Empire's mandate for conquest, I believe it can be said that after the Napoleonic wars the drive was ever more ideological, first Romantic and then a purely Imperialistic "Our right!"type thing. By the 1830's the trade income garnered from the Empire was already touching a downwards slope and this meant an ever desperate scramble for markets. But quickly lead to full blown conquest for Imperium, much as the Romans attempted to do in Germania. The Empire was dfinatley a burden by the third quater of the century. We should have given India up then and sought to forge a close and lasting sense of friendship with the Imperial peoples via independence and alliances.
InsaneApache
11-09-2008, 14:21
We should have given India up then and sought to forge a close and lasting sense of friendship with the Imperial peoples via independence and alliances.
Not in the time frame that you mention but the British did. It's called The Commonwealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Commonwealth).*
Not many of the colonies left the empire and the commonwealth. The only two examples I can think of, off the top of my head, were South Africa and Ireland. Both for obvious reasons.
If you think about it it's quite extraordinary that an empire should collapse and then vote to stay, albeit loosely, together as a political/social entity. AFAIK it's the only time in history for this to happen.
*Not to mention gaining a former colony of a foreign power.
If really interested you should look at the national archives, you should be able to come up with a decent estimate, after spending your entire life in the national archives looking for clues. The english have just about the most complete archive there is, good hunting.
Louis VI the Fat
11-09-2008, 15:09
I think this subject defies a simple 'how many people did they kill?'
Over a timescale as long as the British Empire, the question will end up in a demographic 'what if' question. That is, pretty impossible to answer.
Like, how many people did the Romans kill? And how many did they save with plumbing? And how many would've been killed by the Parthians if it weren't for the Romans. Ectetera.
I think this subject defies a simple 'how many people did they kill?'
Over a timescale as long as the British Empire, the question will end up in a demographic 'what if' question. That is, pretty impossible to answer.
Like, how many people did the Romans kill? And how many did they save with plumbing? And how many would've been killed by the Parthians if it weren't for the Romans. Ectetera.
Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard. ~;)
InsaneApache
11-09-2008, 17:04
Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard. ~;)
More like algebra, methinks.
Louis VI the Fat
11-09-2008, 17:25
Just a matter of plus and minus, basic mathematics, can't be that hard. ~;)I'm afraid it is more complicated than that. It involves a lot of counter-factual assumptions and what-if's. For example, if the British had not moved into Africa, how many would've died then? There needs to be a hypothetical counter history of Africa for that, which, as counter histories go, become increasingly hypothetive the longer the period.
What if the British had not build extensive railroads in India, how many Indians would not have been born?
Those are qauntitative difficulties. What of qualitative difficulties? Australia was a sparsely populated continent. Yet, it was also one the oldest settled by man. One of the most isolated. How many unique cultures, languages weren't wiped out forever? The numbers of indivuduals killed aren't that high, but ho to label the human cost of the genocide of hundreds of unique civilizations over an area the size of Europe?
Rhyfelwyr
11-09-2008, 19:48
Australia was a sparsely populated continent. Yet, it was also one the oldest settled by man. ?
Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.
Incongruous
11-09-2008, 22:42
Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.
No I believe the Aboriginal Australians have been there a very, very, very, very, long time.
Wow... do you have any info on this? I always thought Australia would be amongst the last to be settled, since some people must have hopped over from Indonesia at some point.
The American continent appears to have been the last to be settled. Australia was IIRC colonised by the first wave of humans that settled SE Asia.
CBR
seireikhaan
11-10-2008, 01:48
To the OT- Frankly, the whole discussion smacks of moral rationalization and nationalism. Frankly, to even try to comprehend how many people were killed during British colonization is impossible due to the myriade of potential factors that have to be taken into account, never mind the poor records that were kept in most cases regarding just how many people could be killed. Its, frankly, a pointless discussion, with little actual value. Its just a pee race between nations to try and prove their superior history. History is supposed to be an analysis of past events, not to be turned into a "who's da best" competition to prove superiority based upon it.
Incongruous
11-10-2008, 22:36
To the OT- Frankly, the whole discussion smacks of moral rationalization and nationalism. Frankly, to even try to comprehend how many people were killed during British colonization is impossible due to the myriade of potential factors that have to be taken into account, never mind the poor records that were kept in most cases regarding just how many people could be killed. Its, frankly, a pointless discussion, with little actual value. Its just a pee race between nations to try and prove their superior history. History is supposed to be an analysis of past events, not to be turned into a "who's da best" competition to prove superiority based upon it.
Uuummm, ok, been spending too much time in the Backroom have we?
I think what you posted was absurd and almost a personal affront to EMFM, who was merely enquiring and was in no way flexing his nations murderous bicep, so perhaps you should take a deep breath and re-read?:yes:
Now, if you feel like you need to discuss political factors of the British Empire in the modern world, I suggest you open a thread in the bckroom to get your fix.:2thumbsup:
seireikhaan
11-10-2008, 23:01
No, quite on the contrary in fact. I'm trying to prove that the British Empire was better than someone, not worse.
Does this prove my point well enough?:inquisitive:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-10-2008, 23:27
Does this prove my point well enough?:inquisitive:
It was badly phrased - I'm trying to make the point that the British killed less than a certain country, but the point of this thread is not to make that comparison, it is to find an actual total.
seireikhaan
11-10-2008, 23:51
It was badly phrased - I'm trying to make the point that the British killed less than a certain country, but the point of this thread is not to make that comparison, it is to find an actual total.
Very well. I still find it a distasteful agenda. However, again, I will echo others when I say that trying to quantify the number of people who perished because of the British Empire is mostly impossible. The sheer number of variables, what with disease(both spread intentionally and unintentionally), intertribal warfare which may or may not have been propagated by the British, not to mention trying to comprehend how many people would have died had the British not intervened, particularly in violent, tribal areas of South Africa, as well as the issue of trying to make an accurate account of how many people would have populated the various areas of conquest/trade prior to foreign contact, due to a lack of written records. I'm sure there's other variables I'm not including, but my point stands that trying to quantify the numbers, particularly if seeking a comparison to a modern, 20th century Europe/China where records are far easier to attain, is simply impossible.
CountArach
11-11-2008, 07:14
No I believe the Aboriginal Australians have been there a very, very, very, very, long time.
50,000 years is the best estimate.
Incongruous
11-12-2008, 06:42
Yeah, it's frikin amazing tbh.
and certainly nothing approaching the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Mao's China. That is good.You can't even compare Nazi german concentration camps with gulags.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-18-2008, 21:44
You can't even compare Nazi german concentration camps with gulags.
Why, because people died "accidentally" in Gulags and on purpose in concentration camps?
Honestly, as someone who has had family who have experienced both the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, I'd say that the two are pretty much on the same moral page. :whip:
PanzerJaeger
11-19-2008, 15:37
You can't even compare Nazi german concentration camps with gulags.
I completely agree. The gulag system killed far more people and succeeded in wiping out many more ethnic minorities than Germans ever even attempted. Even worse than the raw numbers was the mindset behind them. The Russians did not have a warped racial ideology to justify their actions. They were simply the whims of a tin pot dictator, and everyone knew it - just ask Kruschev. ~;)
Pontius Pilate
11-19-2008, 21:44
Why, because people died "accidentally" in Gulags and on purpose in concentration camps?
Honestly, as someone who has had family who have experienced both the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, I'd say that the two are pretty much on the same moral page. :whip:
Gulags and Nazi concentration camps the same?? never heard of that one before. sure maybe alot more people died in gulags, but you have to remember in the Nazi concentration camps there was genocide going on and people were being exterminated on purpose, not by accident. and last time I checked, people dying on purpose is alot worst than on accident.
Also it is impossible to find the total number slain by the British Empire. There are so many factors that play into it. I mean, you could actually say people are still dying today, due to post-colonial effects. examples are messed up economy, civil wars, tribal fighting, etc.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-20-2008, 01:37
Gulags and Nazi concentration camps the same?? never heard of that one before. sure maybe alot more people died in gulags, but you have to remember in the Nazi concentration camps there was genocide going on and people were being exterminated on purpose, not by accident. and last time I checked, people dying on purpose is alot worst than on accident.
...people were dying on purpose in the Soviet Union, on a massive scale. What, do you think sixty million-odd people disappear by accident? And yes, lots of the killings in the Soviet Union were racially motivated - ask the Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Cossacks, Ukranians, Finns, and Volga Germans.
The Nazi German concentration camps were unbelievably horrific, but the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were certainly on the same moral scale. I have no idea why we leave the symbols and statues of the Soviet "liberators" up in Germany - they are simply insulting to those of us who lost so much to Soviet crimes, and they make me want to vomit when I see them.
Incongruous
11-20-2008, 01:58
Gulags and Nazi concentration camps the same?? never heard of that one before. sure maybe alot more people died in gulags, but you have to remember in the Nazi concentration camps there was genocide going on and people were being exterminated on purpose, not by accident. and last time I checked, people dying on purpose is alot worst than on accident.
Also it is impossible to find the total number slain by the British Empire. There are so many factors that play into it. I mean, you could actually say people are still dying today, due to post-colonial effects. examples are messed up economy, civil wars, tribal fighting, etc.
What?
Where on earth did you somehow get the idea that the large murders TM. carried out by the Communists were at all accidental?
Oh woops, we just sent you on a train ride through freezing Siberia with no food and got you to work some tough ours without food, and we have accidentally killed you.
But we are going to do it all over again!
Not on purpose:laugh4: Go tell that one to the ethnic minorities wiped out by Stalin for the Good Of The PEOPLE. Might be a bit hard that one.
Pontius Pilate
11-20-2008, 07:20
What?
Where on earth did you somehow get the idea that the large murders TM. carried out by the Communists were at all accidental?
Oh woops, we just sent you on a train ride through freezing Siberia with no food and got you to work some tough ours without food, and we have accidentally killed you.
But we are going to do it all over again!
Not on purpose:laugh4: Go tell that one to the ethnic minorities wiped out by Stalin for the Good Of The PEOPLE. Might be a bit hard that one.
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:because Evil Manic from Mars said it himself, here is his darn post:
Why, because people died "accidentally" in Gulags and on purpose in concentration camps?
Honestly, as someone who has had family who have experienced both the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, I'd say that the two are pretty much on the same moral page. :whip:
also, the Nazis not only had concentration camps but extermination camps and death camps as well. and there only purpose was to soley and specifically kill Jews and other people. the Nazis were planning a Final Solution to the Jewish problem in which they intended to hunt down and wipe out every single Jew from the face of the earth, and the camps was one of there means of doing this. I know that the Russians on purpose killed alot of ethnic minorities but, correct me if I am wrong, did the Russians want to wipe all of these minorities from existence, or did they just eliminate them because they just happen to be in Russia or its territories? in the case of Germany though, they wanted all Jews gone, not only in Europe, but everywhere else on earth too, and they wanted to accomplish this by all means. that's one of the reasons why the holocaust is such a big deal. also, did the Russians have an entire process or procedure set up in which to kill people like the Nazis had? I mean you could actually say the Nazi way of exterminating Jews and other people was like an assembly line. After they got off the train carts the people were herded like cattle into the gas chambers were thousands were gased at a single time, then all of the bodies were cremated in ovens built specifically for that purpose.
so, Nazi death and extermination camps were probably worse and more horrific than Russian camps. and what do you mean exactly, when you say they are both on the same moral page??
PanzerJaeger
11-20-2008, 16:16
:thumbsdown::thumbsdown:because Evil Manic from Mars said it himself, here is his darn post:
I believe he was being facetious. Hence the quotation marks.
also, the Nazis not only had concentration camps but extermination camps and death camps as well. and there only purpose was to soley and specifically kill Jews and other people.
The gulag system was very similar. Of the over 400 camps, there were some which held prisoners who would eventually be released and there were some where people were sent to die. The only real difference is that the Chief Administration of Collective Labor was a much larger organization, which also handled smaller scale offenses that would not have been administered through the camp system in Germany. Make no mistake; the Gulags were used as a tool by the Soviet government for genocide.
the Nazis were planning a Final Solution to the Jewish problem in which they intended to hunt down and wipe out every single Jew from the face of the earth, and the camps was one of there means of doing this. I know that the Russians on purpose killed alot of ethnic minorities but, correct me if I am wrong, did the Russians want to wipe all of these minorities from existence, or did they just eliminate them because they just happen to be in Russia or its territories?
There are dozens of ethnic groups that once comprised millions of people in the Soviet Union that simply do not exist anymore - anywhere. Every man, woman, and child was eliminated. Luckily Stalin died before the Doctor's Plot could be put into practice, which would have been the Soviet Union's final solution to years of Jewish persecution.
in the case of Germany though, they wanted all Jews gone, not only in Europe, but everywhere else on earth too, and they wanted to accomplish this by all means.
Not really.
that's one of the reasons why the holocaust is such a big deal. also, did the Russians have an entire process or procedure set up in which to kill people like the Nazis had?
Yes. Although like everything in the Soviet Union, it was crude.
so, Nazi death and extermination camps were probably worse and more horrific than Russian camps.
It depends on the camps in question. If you are referring to the Siberian death camps, then you are categorically wrong.
Dutch_guy
11-20-2008, 17:43
Not really.
Aren't you being a bit naive ? If you consider how the Nazi's pressured their allies (and especially their Italian allies) to deport their Jewish population, and when you take into consideration the twisted priorities the Nazi leadership held in (the final phase of) the war - using trains not for troops, but for deportations, etc - it isn't that hard to imagine them doing everything they could to achieve their goal of a Jew-less Third Reich, and when that was accomplished a world without a single Jew. It does seem like a big step up, even for a Nazi administration, but I'd definitely not put it pas them. It's more likely than not.
that's one of the reasons why the holocaust is such a big deal. also, did the Russians have an entire process or procedure set up in which to kill people like the Nazis had?
Yes. Although like everything in the Soviet Union, it was crude.
Well we can agree that the Soviet leadership probably couldn't care less as to what happened to their prisoners in the camps, but they didn't systematically murder their prisoners and they didn't make it a priority to keep a steady stream of prisoners flowing to fill the gas chambers which they didn't have. Perhaps it's the crudeness of their, as you suspect it, plan of mass murder, but I just don't think you can compare the Nazi deathcamps with the gulags.
It depends on the camps in question. If you are referring to the Siberian death camps, then you are categorically wrong.
How so ? We can only guess, and there are ample arguments for both.
:balloon2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-20-2008, 22:16
Aren't you being a bit naive ?
Well, I'd say that he is at least half-right, but I'll leave that for you two.
but they didn't systematically murder their prisoners
Of course they did - they systematically murdered and killed people, partially targeting ethnic groups. What do you think happened to the Lienz Cossacks, for one?
and they didn't make it a priority to keep a steady stream of prisoners flowing to fill the gas chambers which they didn't have.
No, but they did keep a steady enough stream of prisoners coming into their camps and political prisons. Just because they didn't have gas chambers...
Perhaps it's the crudeness of their, as you suspect it, plan of mass murder, but I just don't think you can compare the Nazi deathcamps with the gulags.
Why not? They targeted certain ethnic groups for death or work to death - same as the Nazis. They deported these people to what were, in effect, concentration camps - same as the Nazis. They were similarily barbaric.
How so ? We can only guess, and there are ample arguments for both.
It is true that we can debate this, but Soviet camps were terrible places.
I believe he was being facetious. Hence the quotation marks.
Yes, correct. :bow:
The gulag system was very similar. Of the over 400 camps, there were some which held prisoners who would eventually be released and there were some where people were sent to die. The only real difference is that the Chief Administration of Collective Labor was a much larger organization, which also handled smaller scale offenses that would not have been administered through the camp system in Germany. Make no mistake; the Gulags were used as a tool by the Soviet government for genocide.
:yes:
Pontius Pilate
11-20-2008, 22:37
I believe he was being facetious. Hence the quotation marks
sarcasm works better in real life than typed on a computer screen.
The gulag system was very similar. Of the over 400 camps, there were some which held prisoners who would eventually be released and there were some where people were sent to die. The only real difference is that the Chief Administration of Collective Labor was a much larger organization, which also handled smaller scale offenses that would not have been administered through the camp system in Germany. Make no mistake; the Gulags were used as a tool by the Soviet government for genocide.
the Chief Administation of Collective Labor as a government agency is nothing compared to the the S.S.
true, the Soviet government used the Gulag prison camps as a tool of genocide, but you see, the Soviets were not obessed or hell-bent on genocide like the Nazis were, which is why their cruelty is more remembered and known.
There are dozens of ethnic groups that once comprised millions of people in the Soviet Union that simply do not exist anymore - anywhere. Every man, woman, and child was eliminated. Luckily Stalin died before the Doctor's Plot could be put into practice, which would have been the Soviet Union's final solution to years of Jewish persecution.
no there wasn't, the Soviet Union had no Final Solution to the Jewish problem like the Nazis had! and the Doctor's Plot is still open to debate, there is simple not enough evidence to at this time to prove it valid, there is actually alot of evidence against it.
Not really.
what do you mean not really? um, it's actually yes really. come on, this is holocaust info 101. the Nazis thought they were the master race/Arians and wanted to purge everyone else, especially Jews. they wanted to have the master race rule the entire world. they were zealous fanatics when it came to this. also, at the end of the war the German high command released orders to prison guards to exterminate as many Jews in the camps as possible, and many of the guards followed this order, until they ran out of bullets.
Yes. Although like everything in the Soviet Union, it was crude.
As Dutch_Guy mentioned, the Soviets had no complex system of transporting prisoners, gasing, them, and then disposing of them. the Soviets more likely just tossed their prisoners into the camps and could careless how or when they died, just that they did in large numbers. but the Nazis on the other hand had a whole schedule and infrastructure dedicated to how their prisoners and POWS died. they were always tweaking their processes, trying to make them the most effective, and time efficient as possible.
It depends on the camps in question. If you are referring to the Siberian death camps, then you are categorically wrong..
Did the Siberian death camps have gas chambers where thousands could be elimianted at once? Did the Siberian death camps have ovens to cremate the bodies?
PanzerJaeger
11-21-2008, 00:36
Aren't you being a bit naive ? If you consider how the Nazi's pressured their allies (and especially their Italian allies) to deport their Jewish population, and when you take into consideration the twisted priorities the Nazi leadership held in (the final phase of) the war - using trains not for troops, but for deportations, etc - it isn't that hard to imagine them doing everything they could to achieve their goal of a Jew-less Third Reich, and when that was accomplished a world without a single Jew. It does seem like a big step up, even for a Nazi administration, but I'd definitely not put it pas them. It's more likely than not.
This assumes that both: the Germans believed it conceivable they could occupy the globe and that they even desired such an outcome. Both assumptions are arguable at best, as the "Master Plan" changed quite frequently according to how the war was progressing and whom you talked to. The Nazis were not all on the same page regarding the future. Surely some of the more extreme higher-ups entertained the notion of global domination after the Allies fell so easily, and we've all seen the propaganda newsreels showing the German arrow meeting the Japanese one around Afghanistan; but there is little evidence that Hitler or his commanders realistically envisioned German soldiers occupying every continent. Even his grand plans for after the war, including the new and improved Berlin, extended through Europe only. He understood that land mass nations were going to dominate the future, and he wanted to make Germany one of them.
What we do know is that the Germans made attempts to deport the Jews to other nations, such as the United States. Then there was the plan to use the British Navy to transport the Jews to Madagascar and other emigration theories. There was even some support for a Jewish homeland, although they'd never admit to supporting Zionism. ~;)
The Final Solution was final because it was seen as the only way to deal with the problem. By 1942, any Germans still harboring dreams of world domination were faced with reality. Germany could still win the war, but it would be a far less aggrandized affair with an outcome more akin to WW1 than any massive global empire. Upon this reality the Final Solution was conceived to eliminate the Jewish population in Europe. It is simply conjecture to extend it to the entire world, especially considering the attempts made to simply remove the Jews from Europe.
Well we can agree that the Soviet leadership probably couldn't care less as to what happened to their prisoners in the camps, but they didn't systematically murder their prisoners and they didn't make it a priority to keep a steady stream of prisoners flowing to fill the gas chambers which they didn't have. Perhaps it's the crudeness of their, as you suspect it, plan of mass murder, but I just don't think you can compare the Nazi deathcamps with the gulags.
I would disagree. Many camps within the Gulag system were operated with the sole purpose of killing their inhabitants, and many of those were based on ethnicity. As I said, while the Germans failed at eliminating the Jews from Europe, the Soviet Union was successful in completely eradicating many independent ethnic groups - groups we only know about based on historical record. Stalin exacted these purges on groups that supported the Whites, were against his collectivization attempts, supported the Nazis, or just based on his paranoia. Unfortunately the Soviets had ample time and opportunity to alter history so we may never know the extent of these individual genocides.
Strike For The South
11-21-2008, 00:42
Yawl are debating over wether the concentration camps or the gulags were worse. I mean aren't we splitting hairs here?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-21-2008, 00:47
Yawl are debating over wether the concentration camps or the gulags were worse. I mean aren't we splitting hairs here?
That is precisely my point, and I suspect Panzer's point also. :bow:
PanzerJaeger
11-21-2008, 01:07
sarcasm works better in real life than typed on a computer screen.
Ok.
the Chief Administation of Collective Labor as a government agency is nothing compared to the the S.S.
How so? Because the SS wore impeccable yet ominous uniforms with the Totenkopf on their hats? The only real differences I can see are in efficiency and style - pretty much the same when comparing anything German to Russian. :beam:
true, the Soviet government used the Gulag prison camps as a tool of genocide, but you see, the Soviets were not obessed or hell-bent on genocide like the Nazis were, which is why their cruelty is more remembered and known.
No, their cruelty is more remembered and known because they lost. The Nazis no longer had the power or the propaganda machine needed to hide their crimes. In contrast, much of what went on behind the Iron Curtain is still being uncovered today.
In any event, when Stalin gave an order, the Soviets were just as hell-bent on achieving it.
no there wasn't, the Soviet Union had no Final Solution to the Jewish problem like the Nazis had! and the Doctor's Plot is still open to debate, there is simple not enough evidence to at this time to prove it valid, there is actually alot of evidence against it.
Why are the Jews somehow more relevant than the dozens of ethnic groups Stalin did destroy? The Jews were unique in that they were spread throughout the world, but that doesn't make them any more or less meaningful than the many less-traveled ethnic groups in isolated areas of Russia that the Red Army simply enveloped and wiped clean off the map. Stalin was a busy boy and was just getting to Jews right before he died.
what do you mean not really? um, it's actually yes really. come on, this is holocaust info 101. the Nazis thought they were the master race/Arians and wanted to purge everyone else, especially Jews. they wanted to have the master race rule the entire world. they were zealous fanatics when it came to this. also, at the end of the war the German high command released orders to prison guards to exterminate as many Jews in the camps as possible, and many of the guards followed this order, until they ran out of bullets.
It is important to separate their propaganda from their realistic intentions, and the real leaders from the henchmen. Certain Nazis, especially under Himmler, were allowed to dabble in the master race theories, the occult, and all sorts of other fun stuff - but Himmler and that group of the SS leadership were never involved in any strategic planning. (Well, after Hitler had accepted eventual defeat, he did give him an army for a few days. :laugh4:) Anyway, Himmler was only kept around for his organizational skills and his ruthlessness. Hitler had far more realistic goals in his prosecution of the war.
As Dutch_Guy mentioned, the Soviets had no complex system of transporting prisoners, gasing, them, and then disposing of them. the Soviets more likely just tossed their prisoners into the camps and could careless how or when they died, just that they did in large numbers. but the Nazis on the other hand had a whole schedule and infrastructure dedicated to how their prisoners and POWS died. they were always tweaking their processes, trying to make them the most effective, and time efficient as possible.
I'm struggling to see how German efficiency makes one system of organized genocide any worse than another. This argument always seems to crop up, but it just doesn't make much sense. It doesn't really matter if you're gassed or starved to death, you're still dead. In fact, if I had to succumb to such a fate, I would chose the former.
Did the Siberian death camps have gas chambers where thousands could be elimianted at once? Did the Siberian death camps have ovens to cremate the bodies?
Relevance?
The Soviet Union had ample time and space to do their dirty work. They did not need to expedite the process and they did not need to hide the results in Siberia.
So Hitler and Stalin are in hell, and their evil is measured by how high the blood of the innocents they killed goes up their body.
It goes up to Hitler's neck, and Stalin's chest.
Hitler remarks "Wait, I killed less people than you did! How do I have more blood?"
To which Stalin replies, "Aha! But I am standing on Lenin's shoulders!"
LittleGrizzly
11-21-2008, 07:21
I'm struggling to see how German efficiency makes one system of organized genocide any worse than another. This argument always seems to crop up, but it just doesn't make much sense. It doesn't really matter if you're gassed or starved to death, you're still dead. In fact, if I had to succumb to such a fate, I would chose the former.
I think the basic difference he's saying is, the nazis wanted you dead, that is why they used the gas chambers, the soviets didn't care whether you died or not, i now the soviets did kill and the nazis did work to death as well, but the nazis were very concerned with the killing and removal of groups whereas stalin was more about practical ambition... of course to die to either is paticularly horrible...
The nazis being worse does not in any way exonerate the soviets crimes, they were both terrible empires that were a scourge on europe....
Fisherking
11-21-2008, 08:34
Back to the original question.
You know that Ireland was the first colony. Even on that one small island no one has a clear idea how many were killed over that 800 years. The numbers from that would be staggering!
At least on one occasion General Amherst sent pelage infested blankets to the Indians. That pelage spread over a whole continent and took years to play out. I don’t know how you get an estimate for something like that.
Multiply acts like that from Ireland to New Zealand over all that time and you wind up with unbelievable numbers. Do you count those who died in the English slave trade?
I don’t think you will like what you find. We like to think our ancestors were a bit more enlightened than those from other places but when you look into the acts themselves you don’t feel like you can say but look at what those others did. It is pointless.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-21-2008, 22:14
I don’t think you will like what you find.
Probably not. There is no question that the British Empire was guilty of many atrocities, but it is, unfortunately, probably impossible to seperate the intentional deaths from the unintentional, even if a full estimate can be stumbled upon.
We like to think our ancestors were a bit more enlightened than those from other places
I'm not British. ~;)
Strike For The South
11-21-2008, 22:18
I'm not British. ~;)
Pity as they are the only tolerable people in your hemisphere ~;)
Incongruous
11-22-2008, 08:18
Back to the original question.
You know that Ireland was the first colony. Even on that one small island no one has a clear idea how many were killed over that 800 years. The numbers from that would be staggering!
At least on one occasion General Amherst sent pelage infested blankets to the Indians. That pelage spread over a whole continent and took years to play out. I don’t know how you get an estimate for something like that.
Multiply acts like that from Ireland to New Zealand over all that time and you wind up with unbelievable numbers. Do you count those who died in the English slave trade?
I don’t think you will like what you find. We like to think our ancestors were a bit more enlightened than those from other places but when you look into the acts themselves you don’t feel like you can say but look at what those others did. It is pointless.
Oh I love it when people bring up NZ, because I live here I have had the oppprtunity to fully judge the scale of Imperial enedevour in the country.
Now, because you use it in the context of mass murder, I am going to have to declare you a purveyor of bollocks.
The Maori Iwi were never subjected to anything akin to mass murder, they did that to each other well enough though, indeed there are many Iwi who would have been eaten into extinction without the aid of British muskets.:whip:
Fisherking
11-22-2008, 18:54
Oh I love it when people bring up NZ, because I live here I have had the oppprtunity to fully judge the scale of Imperial enedevour in the country.
Now, because you use it in the context of mass murder, I am going to have to declare you a purveyor of bollocks.
The Maori Iwi were never subjected to anything akin to mass murder, they did that to each other well enough though, indeed there are many Iwi who would have been eaten into extinction without the aid of British muskets.:whip:
I was only talking about the size of the Empire when I brought in NZ. But one could ask, who provided the muskets? Yes I know it was not officially a British Possession at the time…
The Maori usually gave as good as they got.
I didn‘t mean to imply wholesale slaughter of native populations as common practice of the Crown though there are a few instances… and Amherst‘s biological warfare against the North American tribes...
Back to wholesale slaughter though. The worst was in all likelihood what happened in Ireland in the 1500-1600s not to mention the neglect of the potato famine of the 1840s. I am sure that in Ireland alone over those 800 years will put you in the area of 6 to 8 million. (feel free to argue but if you have read some of the histories of the Irish wars you may agree or even think it is a low figure)
Any way, I don‘t think it was Crown policy to exterminate populations in most cases. To some extent the Crown bared the way to westward expansion in the American Colonies in favor of the tribes and added to the riff with England. But bad or misguided men and corrupt officials did bad things, sometimes with the backing of the Crown.
Amherst detested Indians and had little use or respect for them as allies. What he did likely resulted in deaths in the hundreds of thousands and some tribes simply ceased to exist. It could have easily happened on its own without intervention but it was a calculated act on his part.
The pelage brought before settlement was far more devastating or the early colonies would never have succeeded. Some estimates of that are in the tens of millions. The Plymouth Colony lived the first winter off what was scavenged from empty villages and graves. It was likely brought ashore by the English fishing fleet. Does it count?
The whole question is open to interpretation but if it is just by war and official acts then you will have a much lower number.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.