Welcome to the Genocide Club

It seems that the genocide club is a little bigger than we thought. We all know about the United States and the Native Americans, the Turks and the Armenians, the Belgians and the Congo, and of course the Germans and the Jews (and the gays and the gypsies and the retarded and anybody who looked Slavic). But were you aware of the British and the Indians? I was not. (And yes, I know there are people with forceful arguments that some or all of the above genocides weren't "really" genocides. Please allow it for the sake of rhetoric, okay?)

A recent book documents the events:

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Niño drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4m hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way". The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices". The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought". The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, like Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceeding three years, at least 1.25m died.

Apparently the Brits were equally naughty in Kenya:

Three recent books - Britain's Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson, and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps. Most of the remainder - more than a million - were held in "enclosed villages". Prisoners were questioned with the help of "slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes". British soldiers used a "metal castrating instrument" to cut off testicles and fingers. "By the time I cut his balls off," one settler boasted, "he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket." The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked "provided they were black". Elkins's evidence suggests that more than 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1,090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria. Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had "failed to halt" when challenged.

One and a quarter million dead in just two provinces of India. A hundred thousand dead (at minimum) and many thousands mutilated in Kenya. Who knew the Brits were up to such naughtiness? Were any of our British Orgahs aware of these events?

-edit-

Oh, and apparently the Brits invented the concentration camp during the Boer War. Rule Britannia!

AFAIK, this is old news.
That's why I always laught at french history teachers who keep saying that the brits were, unlike us, nice and polite settlers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

AFAIK, this is old news.

---

One might be tempted to call it "history," eh?

Uh... everyone already knew this. Rule is, if you can do awful things and get away with it, you do it. (in this case if you have bangsticks)

EDIT: Personally, I can't really think of why one would wake up in the morning and decide to rip off some guy's balls, but whatever.

Everybody did it, and a concentration camp is a prison with barbed wire instead of walls, I'd invent it does exactly he same thing keep them in. And no.

It's strange how many people like to think of the British Empire as being some sort of vast charity concern with its subjects best interests at heart.

At the end of the day it was a vast money making machine, which perhaps is one (pedantic) point that can be made against the opinions expressed in the opening post. Normally when the British Empire was doing something awful to its subjects it's in the name of making money (ie: Exporting food from India whilst Indians starve) or putting down challenges to British rule. Attempting to out and out exterminate certain ethnicites rarely figured. A good argument could be made for guilty as charged in the case of Tasmania however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Everybody did it, and a concentration camp is a prison with barbed wire instead of walls, I'd invent it does exactly he same thing keep them in. And no.

---

Quite true. "Genocide" as it is currently defined is how nations form.

Send me to Mars to found my own nation please.

Meh, iI thought this was ging to be about the 150 000 civilian casualties in Iraq, I'm dissapointed.

Lemur, can I in turn express my surprise at your surprise? Surely at least the Irish Potato Famine should be well known to American audiences? And how do you think Australia became white?

But you touch on an important issue. There is a tendency in British historiography to paint an all too rosy picture of the British Empire, of British decolonialism. All those nice pink-coloured territories on the face of the earth weren't exactly dying to become part of splendid Albion. Some studies go as far as calling the British Empire 'defensive in nature'. An accidental empire, instated to protect British trading interests.
Part of a general tendency to believe in British exceptionalism maybe.

Also, you left out France on your list of genocidal maniac nations. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

That's why I always laught at french history teachers who keep saying that the brits were, unlike us, nice and polite settlers.

---

Aye, they need a better example for this eternal self-flagellation that passes for history class nowadays.

Me, I am happy that there has been some sort of re-assesment of France's colonial past in recent years. Colonialism was not entirely negative. Some of the more positive and constructive elements are nowadays part of the school curricula as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Also, you left out France on your list of genocidal maniac nations. :furious3:

---

And the Spanish, the Portugese, the Dutch or just about everything that is alive. We killed hundrerds of thousands after WW2 and millions before. Americans really need to get over their cherokeearepwned-complex. We wouldn't do such a thing nowadays now would we.

Wow, people doing bad things to other people. I'm shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Uh... everyone already knew this. Rule is, if you can do awful things and get away with it, you do it. (in this case if you have bangsticks)

EDIT: Personally, I can't really think of why one would wake up in the morning and decide to rip off some guy's balls, but whatever.

---

It turns out a lot of people do awful things even if they can't get away with it... which is even worse. The British empire wouldn't have crumbled so easily if it hadn't putting itself in a situation where they sent out men who were interested in drinking their tea against an increasingly big horde of people who wanted revenge against brutal genocide of their families, relatives and friends. Similar to most empires who use a temporary advantage granted to them during a short period of history to ruthlessly and mercilessly attack people they had no quarrel with. Which is why one would think that after all failed Imperialism attempt all new instances of similar ideas would have learnt the lesson from their history books...

As for thread, yeah, old news to most I guess... By the way, you could just as well claim the romans invented concentration camps, IIRC there have been some claims of a few castrum-looking buildings where POWs and civilians were kept and many starved to death. The idea to attack and systematically attempt to exterminate civilians has been employed in many historical periods, sometimes (unfortunately) looking beneficial in the short term, but almost always harmful in the long run, the notable exception being native Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Quite true. "Genocide" as it is currently defined is how nations form.

---

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

You Romanian guys did invent biological warfare in a way, the first record of using diseased agents and throwing diseased plague victims into enemy towns are from uncle Vlad.

I hadn't heard about the India thing, but it doesn't surprise me that much. It's essentially the same thing that happened in the Irish potato famine. Lots of food, but worth more as export than sold locally. Many say bio-fuels will cause another one of these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I hadn't heard about the India thing, but it doesn't surprise me that much. It's essentially the same thing that happened in the Irish potato famine. Lots of food, but worth more as export than sold locally. Many say bio-fuels will cause another one of these.

---

Quite, I have been making a killing on wheat its up nearly 3 fold since everyone got ethenol/corn happy. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

---

If you cause the eradication of a particular culture by force, you are guilty of genocide. You can't tell me that there was only one migration into Norway. I largely ignorant about Iceland but think there must have been one there as well. The "French" nation is far older than the 100 years war. The creation of England is a good example of genocide.

People tend to "get around."

I'm basing this off the definition posted some time ago in the Monestary. It's pretty general.

I'm no advocate of it and if I understand the author's intention correctly I support him.

Im not sure about genocide though maybe im using the word incorrectly, I knew of the Indian one didn't realise the scale of it. I think the problem is Brits did a few nice things, abolition of slavery and giving the colonys thier independance (i don't think they had much choice with the majority of them) and people seem to forget that we weren't nice, we were the big bad and we abused it, like every superpower.

I think genocide is a stretch, and overused in many cases. But that the British certainly weren't innocent of their share of vicious crimes against humanity is beyond doubt. Hyperbole however doesn't really help much. Where I think the opening post goes to far is the case of India; while it's clear the British could have, and should have done a lot more to relieve the Indians from hunger and the accompanying dangers, India certainly was not the only part of that world greatly suffering under the climate circumstances and massive failure of crops. China, for one, is a clear example of an area which wasn't under any colonial rule and suffered much the same problems, on a similar scale, one of the causes of the frequent civil strife of the late Qing dynasty.

Also, I'd like to note that as it was at the time, 'concentration camp' has no bearing whatsoever on the later crimes of the Nazis. Around the Boer war, it had the meaning of a fenced in camp for those arrested by the British where the inmates were put to work on forced labour. Harsh conditions, certainly, but the link the opening post implies isn't there.

What I'm surprised at is that anyone is surprised about these crimes. Surely while the rest of the world often stands accused on colonialist evils, there's no way the British could somehow have escaped notice, particularly in the politically correct age?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

And a few examples of entirely peacefully formed countries off the top of my head:
- Norway (became independent by a referendum)
- Iceland (gradually became free through treaties of increasing autonomy)

---

Although I agree that many, if not most, nations were formed without actions that fit in with the definition of genocide, I do however think that few countries in the world today who became what they are entirely peacefully. Norway for example, spent most of the medieval period and the early modern era fighting with or against either Denmark or Sweden, untill eventually ending up in a more or less forced personal union with Sweden after a brief war in 1814. The modern state of Norway didn't exist until 1905, but Norway and the Norwegians sure did.

Iceland on the other hand, took shape after centuries of more or less constant civil war, in the shape of small but endless vendettas between powerful and wealthy families.

Also, while we're discussin genocide anyway, isn't it rather amusing that the official definition of genocide (as declared by the UN in 1948) still doesn't include the determined extermination of, for example, homosexuals? Goes to show what the UN is capable of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The "French" nation is far older than the 100 years war. The creation of England is a good example of genocide.

---

Well, here in France, the scholar term nation refers to modern (post-1789) nation-states.

Given that, France was merely a feudal state during the hundred years war, and only became a nation (and furthermore, the first one, according to our teachers) during the revolutionnary era, which - sort of - had his own genocide : the revolt in Vendée.

Don't forget about France and Madagaskar during WW 2 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich

There are plenty of nations which were formed without genocide. A few examples off the top of my head:
- France (was united and got its national image etc etc during their defense against the English in the 100 years war)
- England (formed by an invasion - major resistance pretty much ended after Battle of Hastings due to lacking support for Harold and the prior dynasty, the locals at that time didn't think it mattered much to become ruled by the Norman dynasty)

---

I hate to nitpick, but:

-France was actually formed, not necessarily via genocide, but after decades of warfare against, and forced conversion of, the Saxon tribes to the East, during the reign of Charlemagne. Germany could trace her basis to this conquest, as well.

(Edit: if we follow Meneldil's official definition, then I guess the Saxon conquest doesn't count.)

-England was really formed during the Anglo-Saxon period, which could probably fall into the category of "genocide" if we are drawing a line in the sand; William the Bastard really just inherited an intact structure via conquest, and made a few cosmetic changes after he had to suppress several Saxon rebellions. Speaking of which, surely the "Harrying of the North" could count as genocide?

Hello Everyone,

I’d like to join the conversation because I think this topic involves interesting aspects.
Unfortunately Italy was not immune to genocidal tendencies either, and this refers to relatively recent times.

Before entering World War II on the side of Nazi Germany in 1940, fascist dictator Benito Mussolini had planned an extremely aggressive form of nationalism in foreign policy. The invasion of Ethiopia involved several atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons (especially mustard gas), and the indiscriminate slaughter of much of the local population. The armed forces used a vast arsenal of bombs loaded with mustard gas, which were dropped from airplanes. This substance was also sprayed directly from above on to enemy combatants and villages. Mussolini and his generals tried to keep secret their use of chemical weapons, but the International Red Cross found out the truth and revealed the information to the world. The Italian reaction consisted in the falsely "erroneous" bombardment (at least 19 times) of Red Cross tents placed in the areas controlled by the Ethiopian resistance. Besides the bombs with mustard gas, the Italians instituted forced labor camps, installed public gallows, killed hostages, and mutilated the corpses of their enemies. Captured guerrillas were often eliminated by throwing them out of airplanes in mid-flight. Many Italian troops had themselves photographed next to cadavers hanging from gallows, or standing beside chests full of cut-off heads.

Although the Italian constitution obviously prohibits the reformation of the fascist party, sadly here in Italy we still have some parties clearly inspired by those principles of nationalism, racism, corporatism, strict censorship and state propaganda that were at the basis of the fascist regime. Some politicians on the far right have even defined Mussolini as “the greatest Italian statesman in the 20th century”. But the saddest thing is definitely that these right parties usually get most of their votes from the young, and not from old people who are nostalgic about the fascist period. This happens because Italian school teaches nearly nothing about Italy during World War II. Anyway Italian students are well instructed about ancient history: they have a good knowledge of daily life and culture of the ancient Romans and a deep insight into the techniques used by Caesar to conquer Gaul. It’s clear that all this can be very useful if one plans to become, say, a good RTW player… Joking aside, this is not an argument against the study of ancient history and my presence here is obviously evidence of my deep interest in the subject. I’m just saying that I can’t see the need of such a thorough analysis. I firmly believe that a good understanding of the main events that globally occurred in the last 70 years (at least) is essential in order to develop a strong civil consciousness (and the fundamental democratic values), despite the difference of ideological orientations. Well, I realize I’m a bit off topic now so I’ll just stop here for the moment.

Regards

Genocide is such an ugly word. I prefer the Spirit of Competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Americans really need to get over their cherokeearepwned-complex.

---

No, they are pwned. Most live in poverty, only a few are extremely rich.

he he, yeah we got those suckers good, oops! uh... i mean those poor proud people... i uh, wish i could apologize but i didn't do anything.

Australian Aboriginals were not taken off the wildlife census and added to the human one until a successful referendum in....

























1967. :help: :oops: :furious3: :thumbsdown:

Hey the Free State hasn't manage to get a claim in to join the club yet , can we have a go at genocide on the Victonians , apparently their cattle are quite nice and house trained and the women can cook and clean so they can be spared from the slaughter.....only sheep shaggers think small , lets go genocidal on the Victonians , but don't forget to bring your step ladder .:2thumbsup:

Let's keep the Victonia posts in the sub-forum provided, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Let's keep the Victonia posts in the sub-forum provided, please.

---

Yes, please.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:bounce:

Quote:

---

Let's keep the Victonia posts in the sub-forum provided, please.

---

Are you trying to stifle the free expression of citizens political views ?:whip:

Ok then , on topic , can we have a litte genocide claim over here so we can join the guilt club as a state ?
Tell you what , there was a lot of micks out in van Diemans land , can we get the credit for getting rid of the Tasmans ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ok then , on topic , can we have a litte genocide claim over here so we can join the guilt club as a state ?

---

But we invented modern terrorism - let's leave something for the imperials, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Tell you what , there was a lot of micks out in van Diemans land , can we get the credit for getting rid of the Tasmans ?

---

It does have the virtue of being a real genocide.

I'm sorry, but I don't care. I really don't. Or rather, I care to the same extent and for the same reasons that I care about, I don't know, the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD.

Quote:

---

Oh, and apparently the Brits invented the concentration camp during the Boer War. Rule Britannia!

---

Yeah. (We didn't invent death camps though.) This was because those crafty boers refused to stand still in one place to be shot at. So we gathered in all the civilians, and then anyone left outside must be an enemy. What can I say? It worked.

Quote:

---

There is a tendency in British historiography to paint an all too rosy picture of the British Empire, of British decolonialism.

---

I think you are about 40 years behind the times. The only tendency I am aware of is the tendency to blame every problem in the developing world on colonialism, tempered only by the difficulty of reconciling the mutually conflicting desires to present the British as ruthlessly evil and completely incompetent. You are still allowed to teach British history in schools, but only if you make it clear the British were always wrong.

Personally, I'd like a bit of ruthless evilness right now. Starting with the political :daisy: s hiding in depatments of education up and down the country.

[QUOTE=I think you are about 40 years behind the times. The only tendency I am aware of is the tendency to blame every problem in the developing world on colonialism, tempered only by the difficulty of reconciling the mutually conflicting desires to present the British as ruthlessly evil and completely incompetent. You are still allowed to teach British history in schools, but only if you make it clear the British were always wrong.

Personally, I'd like a bit of ruthless evilness right now. Starting with the political :daisy: s hiding in depatments of education up and down the country.[/QUOTE]

In a way the British Empire is responsible for many on going conflicts in the Middle East, especially around Turkey. It was the British Empire who made the Greeks, Arabs, Armenians (with French and Russians) and Kurds to rebel against the Empire. Of course the outdated structure of the Ottoman Empire was the main reason for its collapse but still... Unfortunately people living in the region still experience the same conflicts that were sown by the British Empire back then. Turks and Greeks still have to deal with England for solving the Cyprus conflict. Turkey still has problems with Armenians and Kurds. And the Arabs after the Turkish rule never had stability.

On the other hand all of these prove the effieciency and effectiveness of the English diplomacy because even after the fall of the British Empire, England continues to influnce Middle East. In that way there are actually admirable and strong features of the British Empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

You are still allowed to teach British history in schools, but only if you make it clear the British were always wrong.

---

When I was doing GCSE History only 6 years ago this was not true, we covered the slave trade, the two world wars (build up and after effects) and the JFK assasinaton.

Britian has plenty of bad things said about it but good things to, we shipped the slaves over and sold them off but we then abolished the practice. The common theme seemed to be the truth whether it made britian look good or bad.

Of course the Brits perpetrated genocides during their history. After all, we do know that they are used to eat children.

But i think the genocide term is a bit overused. Colonization and military conquests are based upon the submission of the local populations through violence.

This caused massive civilans massacres all along history but the objective was not to anihilate populations, only to force them into submission, military campaigns to cause terror and remove even the slightest bit of rebellious spirit : cadavers do not work into the fields.

Of course, this does not change the factual evidence of british natural genociders tendancies.

Quite so. I brutally massacred a small community of slugs earlier today. Good times. :2thumbsup:

If you hate genociding then everyone can convert to buddhism... Which is not gonna happen is it?:no:

Some more example of genociding

Japan while in Korea
Russians killing Jews
French killing French (French revolution)
Persian killing Greeks (SPARTA!!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy187

Japan while in Korea

---

This is something that has always irked me. You put Genocide and WWII in the same sentence and the first thing everyone think of is Hitler + Holocaust.

Japan and WWII? Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima/Nagasaki

What people never remember is how many Chinese civilians died during WWII due to the Japanese.

Total Chinese civilian deaths are estimated at around 16-17million I believe. Although many were due to being caught to the crossfire, the Japanese strategy right before 1940(I think) basically had them killing everyone, looting everything, and burning everything.

Furthermore, Japanese history taught in Japan often uses textbooks that just coincidentally forgets such facts or just glances over them which should have but did not create international outrage.

This topic is still remembered in China by alot of people and partly accounts for the not overly friendly Chinese/Japanese diplomatic relations

Nan jing... 'nuff said. :thumbsdown:

Dont know how its done in Japanese history lessons because I moved from Japan before I had the chance to learn history.

Issue in Japan is extremely low nationalism due to loss of WW2 and storys about how bad our ancesters were. Several books and movies came out which gives alternative view point that Japan back then werent evil overlord but im guessing most Japanese people are constantly taught that Japan are bad. I heard several schools makes their students go to Korea (dont know about China) and makes them apologize (Which I dont think is particulary fabulous idea) So you can hardly say the history book makes them forget about it.

Now the big secret.. I am also half chinese so im not completely going to defend Japan. But firstly every country who participated in WW2 did something quite similar. So I guess no body can just blame Hitler, Japan and Mussoulini for all the tragedy in WW2.

(I read this in some book.. So I could be wrong)
The casualty in China was incredibly high for several reason. One for the guerilla tactic that Chinese army used. Second because Chinese army didnt use uniform. And third because China was having a civil war at the same time (National party vs Communist) So cant blame Japan only for all the casualties.

Also lot of events such as Rape of Nanjing are still debated whether it really took place or not. Strictly speaking Japan never even declared war on modern day China (communist government) but only on modern day Taiwan (Nationalist government) and communist government tend to blame others for their tragic situation.

Again im not justifying everysingle action that the Japanese did so dont turn this in to massive hate beefy and the Japs thread.

I don't think that Great Britain practised genocide as a policy. After all the empire was born out of trade and domination of markets, mainly to keep the French in check. :quiet:

Having said that, my grandad, who was in the British Army in India, always said that we (British) were not the benign paternalists depicted in newsreels etc.

However, we redeemed ourselves in 1939-45, when for nearly 18 months we stood alone in Europe against the Nazi menace (Godwin notwithstanding), otherwise you'd all be speaking German. *

*Unless you are a German of course :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy187

Issue in Japan is extremely low nationalism due to loss of WW2 and storys about how bad our ancesters were. Several books and movies came out which gives alternative view point that Japan back then werent evil overlord but im guessing most Japanese people are constantly taught that Japan are bad. I heard several schools makes their students go to Korea (dont know about China) and makes them apologize (Which I dont think is particulary fabulous idea) So you can hardly say the history book makes them forget about it.

---

Well the fact of the matter is if the Axis forces won the WWII then it would be United States apologizing for what they did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan was pasifized by the Allies after the war for creating a new market and establishing a solid frontier against communism (like Germany). The Germans and Japanese as far as I see it hate their ancestors because the Allies had a lot to say about the defeated nations eduacation policies and what not. I mean Germans and Japanese shouldn't be embarrased of their ancestors because Allies were as bad. Whole towns were destroyed in Europe because of carpet bombing for just destroying a few factories. On the other hand I think what the Germans did to Jews is terrible and totally unacceptable but the Pope and all the others just looked the other way. If one is to apologize then we should all be embarrassed and apologize actually, not only the Germans and Japanese. It is in our blood, unfortuantely... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mete Han

Well the fact of the matter is if the Axis forces won the WWII then it would be United States apologizing for what they did in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan was pasifized by the Allies after the war for creating a new market and establishing a solid frontier against communism (like Germany). The Germans and Japanese as far as I see it hate their ancestors because the Allies had a lot to say about the defeated nations eduacation policies and what not. I mean Germans and Japanese shouldn't be embarrased of their ancestors because Allies were as bad. Whole towns were destroyed in Europe because of carpet bombing for just destroying a few factories. On the other hand I think what the Germans did to Jews is terrible and totally unacceptable but the Pope and all the others just looked the other way. If one is to apologize then we should all be embarrassed and apologize actually, not only the Germans and Japanese. It is in our blood, unfortuantely... :wall:

---

Agree with you totally

Besides me being sorry doesnt do much does it? What matters is what we do now. If you get our generation as premier then we might have some trouble dealing with China, Korea and North Korea...:sweatdrop:

If its only me, my family served as docters. So I dont think they killed anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy187

Agree with you totally

Besides me being sorry doesnt do much does it? What matters is what we do now. If you get our generation as premier then we might have some trouble dealing with China, Korea and North Korea...:sweatdrop:

If its only me, my family served as docters. So I dont think they killed anyone

---

Actually it does in a way. I mean bashing your ancestors all the time for some bad (from your point of view) thing they did is not fair. Do you have any ideas how many young Japanese died (sacrificed their lives) for you (the next generations) to have a better life. Our ancestors (american, turkish, japanese etc...) went to certain death knowingly, willingly and yes they did bad things but think about how they would feel if they knew how their descents bashing them. We have no right to feel sorry. But that does not mean we should continue killing each other. The nations (politicians or whatever) in the world should stop putting each other in the place where individuals have to sacrifice.

Sounds good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beefy187

Russians killing Jews

---

Not quite so.
If you were referring to Ze Good Old Days of Tsarist Russia, it would be unwise not to mention where exactly the Pogroms took place and our good Ukrainian brethren.
If you were referring to the Ze Revolution or Ze Good Old Days of Stalin Regime, well... everybody killed everybody, not that we cared whom to kill. Russians, jews, poles, balts, mountain and asian dwellers... all of us gladly took their part in it on the both sides of it, no innocent person or tribe left

Sidenote: me have russian, ukrainian, georgian and jewish blood in my veins and accusing me in defending russians against the rest would be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Persian killing Greeks (SPARTA!!)

---

do you actually know how that little war started with? ever heard about persian city named Sardis and its barbequed inhabitants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Furthermore, Japanese history taught in Japan often uses textbooks that just coincidentally forgets such facts or just glances over them which should have but did not create international outrage.

---

Trust me, it happens everywhere. All nations, to a certain extent, try to cover up their crimes from WWII. It's not quite as bad here, but reading the textbook for high school history in Canada was really quite amusing. There were four or so full pages on the London Blitz, and none on Dresden, Chemnitz, and Hamburg. The Eastern Front is also conveniently left out, which leads most of the students I talked to to believe that the Soviets were merely a thorn in the side of Germany, and the Allies really did all the work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Me, I am happy that there has been some sort of re-assesment of France's colonial past in recent years. Colonialism was not entirely negative. Some of the more positive and constructive elements are nowadays part of the school curricula as well.

---

If only because people in certain African regions speak better French than a lot of French..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

Not quite so.
If you were referring to Ze Good Old Days of Tsarist Russia, it would be unwise not to mention where exactly the Pogroms took place and our good Ukrainian brethren.
If you were referring to the Ze Revolution or Ze Good Old Days of Stalin Regime, well... everybody killed everybody, not that we cared whom to kill. Russians, jews, poles, balts, mountain and asian dwellers... all of us gladly took their part in it on the both sides of it, no innocent person or tribe left

Sidenote: me have russian, ukrainian, georgian and jewish blood in my veins and accusing me in defending russians against the rest would be ridiculous.


do you actually know how that little war started with? ever heard about persian city named Sardis and its barbequed inhabitants?

---

I was reffering to the Tsarist Russia.

If you dont mind could you tell me what happened in Sardis?:book:

Well, the The Sack of Sardis was the prime cause of Greco Persian Wars that began as persian punitive raid.

It is actually very annoying that nobody when they speak of those wars, cares to mention that:
1. Ionian greeks never were Persian conquest target. Persians got Ionians (and the future troubles) for free after they've repelled Lydyan attack and subdued those who's been Ionian masters;
2. Persian punitive raid was successful. Athens were sacked. Twice, methinx.
3. Greek hoplites were heavy infantry. Having a heavy infantry status in ancient greek city-states meant you are from the rich class of slave-owners. And to defend yours freedom and civil rights at those times also meant to defend yours slave-ownership.

cheers :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

2. Persian punitive raid was successful. Athens were sacked. Twice, methinx.

---

I thought it was only sacked once in the Persian Wars, after the battle of Thermopylae and before Salamis (480BC?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiniMe

If you were referring to the Ze Revolution or Ze Good Old Days of Stalin Regime, well... everybody killed everybody, not that we cared whom to kill. Russians, jews, poles, balts, mountain and asian dwellers... all of us gladly took their part in it on the both sides of it, no innocent person or tribe left

---

Indeed. At one point, 10% of the Russian population had been arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

I thought it was only sacked once in the Persian Wars, after the battle of Thermopylae and before Salamis (480BC?)

---

480 BC and 479 BC, Salamin inbetween, Platea afterwards

You mean just before they left it? It's a pillage then, but since the town was already theirs and there weren't any defenders anymore I wouldn't call it a victory.

I am sorry, I will not join this discussion as I don't have enough time to write what I would say on some subject mentioned.
However I find it irritating that, seeing as I have just joined the backroom in the failing search of decent conversation, this subject is pattered and scarred hither and thither with little remarks to the effect of, "Why do you people constantly have to talk silly-billy politics? Is that all you do? Can we not just leave it?", in a Political section of the forum.

There is enough one-line sarcasm everywhere else on the forum, this is the place which self-defines as respectable speech and argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

I am sorry, I will not join this discussion as I don't have enough time to write what I would say on some subject mentioned.
However I find it irritating that, seeing as I have just joined the backroom in the failing search of decent conversation, this subject is pattered and scarred hither and thither with little remarks to the effect of, "Why do you people constantly have to talk silly-billy politics? Is that all you do? Can we not just leave it?", in a Political section of the forum.

There is enough one-line sarcasm everywhere else on the forum, this is the place which self-defines as respectable speech and argument.

---

Personally, I think this is a topic for the Monastary.

I always find the Backroom slows down at certain points in the year. It always regains momentum, and is one of the better places on the forums I visit for educated debate.

LOLomgwtfme2