Serious question for Sebigboss

[Last Hussar]

Straight up- this is a touchy subject.  I think (hope) Sebigboss will take it in the spirit in which it is meant, which is in friendship.

80 years ago your country had a period of, shall we say, collective lunacy.  There is now a whole hobby dedicated to making entertainment out of the consequences, and discussion about the technical points.  Does this ever feel a bit weird?

[Orcs]

Hang on a minute LH. Your from Great Brittain.

Applying your logic this country has spent the best part of the last 1000 years in a period of "collective lunacy" where we invaded civilised 2 thirds of the world. According to the article below we have civilised invaded all but 22 of the worlds 200 countries. 

We game most of them, so does that feel weird to you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

[Last Hussar]

Yes, but were Right.  The Daily Mail told me so. 

Seriously- I know all European countries aren't exactly whiter than white, but Germany is held up as the 'big evil'. It must be freaky to have to deal with such history, especially if not even your parents can be held accountable.

[capthugeca]

But is that because we read British history books?
I wonder how other nation's histories record our treatment of them.

[Orcs]

But is that because we read British history books?
I wonder how other nation's histories record our treatment of them.

Probably. We have quietly forgotten about:-

Who invented the concentration camp, and the thousands of Boer Women and Children who died in them
The attrocities commited by Allied troops in WW2 not just on the eastern front. 
The thousands of  people who dies from western deseases - sometimes used as a weapon
The thousands of chinese who dies from Opium supplied by the worlds biggest ever drugs supplier.
The dubious sinking of the French Fleet at Oran.

Not to mention the dubious wars we engineered like the Zulu war, the Sikh wars
And although there were no casualties the invasion of Neutral Iceland in 1940.

I suspect I have only scratched the surface, but I think we are a long way from being  whiter than white

[fsn]

Firstly, if there are only 22 countries we haven't invaded, let's crack on and get the full set. 

It has oft been said that the British invented the concentration camp. Yes we did as a way of scooping up the local who supported the Boers and hence drying the sea that those particular fish swam in. Death that occured in them were, I would suggest, caused by incompetence and neglect rather than as a deliberate policy of extermination. The same tactic of shepherding the local populace has been used more successfully since then. 

I think the sinking of the French fleet is only dubious with the benefit of hindsight. France had fallen (again) and they had a very powerful navy that could have been used to cover an invasion, attack shipping or just tie down British resources, and the French refused to put those ships out of the reach of the Germans. French ships in Britain refused to come under the control of the RN, and what should not be forgotten is that the overwhelming number of French soldiers saved on the Dunkirk beaches opted to return to France rather than to continue to fight.

Again, invading Iceland was to get a base for aircraft to support trans Atlantic shipping from the attacks of the U-boats. 

We are a long way from being whiter than white, but I do think we need to put ourselves into the position of the decision makers at the time. We know that Germany would surrender in 1945. In 1940, the outcome was not so clear. 

Similarly, opium was seen as a good thing in Victorian times, with laudenum being regularly used to stop women from getting hysterical. As fro the Chinese, well they needed to be brought the benefits of Christianity and trade with Britian, because that would be good for them whether they liked it or not. A different world view, which we have decided is repugnant now.

I would contrast this with the Nazis who deliberately set out on a path of extermination of Jews, gypsies, gays and the disabled. We're not whiter than white, but we're not blacker than black.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Hi

I won't say too much but the British, and especially Harold Macmillan, are reviled amongst Cossack circles for the forced repatriations of tens of thousands of Cossacks to almost certain death after the war. You might want to have a look at:-

http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/19th-september-1981/10/macmillan-and-the-cossacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repatriation_of_Cossacks_after_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Yalta

GrumpyOldMan

[FierceKitty]

So opium was sold to the Chinese just as a medicine? I live and learn. But not always what people think they're teaching.

[Fenton]

Well the Chinese had always regarded Opium as dangerous. I think it was the Europeans that introduced the practice of mixing it with tobacco for smoking

In the late 18th century the Chinese Emperor decreed

Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law. Now the commoner, Yang, dares to bring it into the Forbidden City. Indeed, he flouts the law! However, recently the purchasers, eaters, and consumers of opium have become numerous. Deceitful merchants buy and sell it to gain profit. The customs house at the Ch'ung-wen Gate was originally set up to supervise the collection of imports (it had no responsibility with regard to opium smuggling). If we confine our search for opium to the seaports, we fear the search will not be sufficiently thorough. We should also order the general commandant of the police and police- censors at the five gates to prohibit opium and to search for it at all gates. If they capture any violators, they should immediately punish them and should destroy the opium at once. As to Kwangtung and Fukien, the provinces from which opium comes, we order their viceroys, governors, and superintendents of the maritime customs to conduct a thorough search for opium, and cut off its supply. They should in no ways consider this order a dead letter and allow opium to be smuggled out

In 1839 the Chinese government wrote to Queen Victoria

"Your Majesty has not before been thus officially notified, and you may plead ignorance of the severity of our laws, but I now give my assurance that we mean to cut this harmful drug forever."

I dont think you bombard Chinese Cities over a medicine either

[fsn]

I think I may be being misinterpreted. I neevr said that Britain sold opium to the Chinese as a medicine. I am batting from the back foot as Victoria's wars are not my period, and the history of drugs usage is not my interest. What I was trying to say is that the British Empire saw opium as a commodity. It was in common usage in Britain, and Britain was being it's usual ruthless bastard self in its dealing with China. British interests were identified and defended with force.

I am not saying that this was anything other than ruthless, and Britain demonstrated a complete disregard of the interests of "Johnny Foreigner" at every opportunity.

One could draw parallels with current Chinese activities in Africa.

However, I maintain that the activities of the Nazis towards their own and other peoples took darkness to a new dimension. This, I think was the thrust of the original question.

[Ace of Spades]

Firstly, if there are only 22 countries we haven't invaded, let's crack on and get the full set. 

It has oft been said that the British invented the concentration camp. Yes we did as a way of scooping up the local who supported the Boers and hence drying the sea that those particular fish swam in. Death that occured in them were, I would suggest, caused by incompetence and neglect rather than as a deliberate policy of extermination. The same tactic of shepherding the local populace has been used more successfully since then. 

I think the sinking of the French fleet is only dubious with the benefit of hindsight. France had fallen (again) and they had a very powerful navy that could have been used to cover an invasion, attack shipping or just tie down British resources, and the French refused to put those ships out of the reach of the Germans. French ships in Britain refused to come under the control of the RN, and what should not be forgotten is that the overwhelming number of French soldiers saved on the Dunkirk beaches opted to return to France rather than to continue to fight.

Again, invading Iceland was to get a base for aircraft to support trans Atlantic shipping from the attacks of the U-boats. 


We are a long way from being whiter than white, but I do think we need to put ourselves into the position of the decision makers at the time. We know that Germany would surrender in 1945. In 1940, the outcome was not so clear. 

Similarly, opium was seen as a good thing in Victorian times, with laudenum being regularly used to stop women from getting hysterical. As fro the Chinese, well they needed to be brought the benefits of Christianity and trade with Britian, because that would be good for them whether they liked it or not. A different world view, which we have decided is repugnant now.

I would contrast this with the Nazis who deliberately set out on a path of extermination of Jews, gypsies, gays and the disabled. We're not whiter than white, but we're not blacker than black.

Gentlemen,

I certainly don't want to be fsn-bashing (from what I understand the poor chap has a hard enough time as it is with a serious lack of Centurions being produced and all that...) but I do believe some of the points brought forward could do with some other points of view...

First of all I think fsn is right in that a lot of historical occurences have to be viewed in the light (or darkness?) of the days in which they happened. Hindsight is a bliss but is called hindsight with a reason... It is to easy for us to judge with our knowledge and experiences. Even so...

- though it is true that a lot of the attrocities  that occured in the concentration camps in the Boer war were the result of incompetence and neglect, it is still very hard to swallow that people starve on the one side of a barbed wire fence while those guarding them on the other side are pretty well fed. Barbed wire fences don't block a line of sight but seem to block conscience extremely well as history has shown us...

- the thoughts on French troops escaping from Dunkirk need some more different point of view too I guess; first of all; who do you all think died defending the beachheads when the BEF was evacuated? It certainly weren't those BEF soldiers that managed to escape. It's not that they were escorted to the ships by the Germans under a save passage. Not withstanding the bravery of the BEF soldiers that fought and fell in France, I bet most that died defending the beachheads were actually French... Those French troops that did manage to get aboard were not really given a chance too stay in Britain; they were expected to return to France a.s.a.p. to continue the fight, and so they did. They were reorganized and sent back and many of them died afterwards defending their country. I'm sorry if all this sounds a bit harsh but I feel the respect for the French soldier in WW-2 seems to be 'somewhat' lacking. They did much more than surrender at the first shot!

Being Dutch I really don't want to complain about British, American, Canadian and  other troops 'invading' my country in 1944; I'm happy they did! On the other hand I don't blame every individual German soldier who invaded my country in 1940 cause I can understand the mess they were in. That's also were I think I can link up with fsn's last line. The crime's committed by the Nazi's in WW-2 were planned and well thought out (okay; the Opium Wars are somewhat dubious in this context)  but overall I do think that's what makes the difference.
So fsn; no hard feelings; I'm right in there with you; just pick some better examples please next time 

Cheers,
Rob

[fsn]

I have no problem with spirited debate, but again I feel I am being misunderstood.

My point about the French was that the question of what France was going to do after the fall was uncertain. France could either stay neutral or join the Germans and there was no guarantee of neutrality. The French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir was given the choice to basically mothball itself safely (from a British point of view) in a French port in the West Indies or the USA, sail to a British port or continue the fight.

My point about the French soldiers being repatriated is that there was not (as is popularly assumed now) huge support for de Gaulle and the Free French. This being the case, the French were viewed as potential enemies by the British and the threat of the French fleet neutralised.  Vichy activities in Syria and Madagascar and the bombing of Gibraltar show that perhaps this viewpoint was justified.  I am not denigrating the French soldier of 1940, I am saying that the political situation in 1940 indicated that France could have become a German ally.

Also, I was very careful to use the word "Nazi" rather than "German". I do not taint the whole of Germany with the same brush, and I think this partly is at the root of the original question.

The examples were not mine. I was merely trying to put them into context against the horror of the Nazis. I would also say that I cann ot think of any country that is free from all charges of barbarism. The Spanish in South America, the US in North America, the Italians in Abyssinia, the Japanese in Korea ...   

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I think this really is too sensitive a subject for some.
As Henning Wehn clearly states, German history starts in 1947.
There is nothing before that...

http://m.scotsman.com/news/comedy-henning-wehn-shows-how-an-outsider-s-perspective-is-useful-in-joking-about-britain-1-1532775

[Ace of Spades]

Don't worry gents,

I really find this sort of debating very interesting and fsn's points and especially his explanations are certainly informative and make it clear he knows what he's talking about; my sincere compliments!
As a Dutch citizen I tend to live in this very strange ethical twillight zone where I am not supposed to point the finger at any German for what his grandparents or parents did during the Second World War but where our sovereign is asked to apologize on behalf of the Dutch State for the slave trade for wel over two centuries ago... I find this somewhat controversial; hence my interest in subjects like this.

On the subject of the repatriated French, purely from a historical point, I think hat after the take over of their country they had more or less the same problem as my ancestors had. The coastline, just as it was in the Netherlands, was completely controlled by the Germans and guarded quite effectively, even more so as the war lasted. Escape from the Mainland was extremely difficult and hazardous and for a lot of people this simply was not an option. I believe that relative few people in all the occupied countries in Europe were actively involved in organised resistance. Life was tough enough as it was and the threat of having your family members being shot for one's actions was quite a deterrent to most I can imagine. Heck, I know that in the Netherlands more people volunteered for the SS as were actively involved in the Resistance. Sad but true...

As an active re-enactor in several periods I also have to do with these questions as to what is acceptable and what isn't. There was a lot of discussion when people first suggested German WW-2 re-enactment (I don't re-enact WW-2 Germans by the way) in the Netherlands and the funny thing is that it was all young peple who opposed it. The older people who had lived through the war and that visited the first 'try outs' with WW-2 Germans were actually very glad to see this part of history being portrayed finally.

So please, let's keep this discussion going and exchange our points of view; I for one will never be offended by people with different points of view as long as it's done with respect and arguements; it's the only way to forward mutual understanding and keep us from reliving history in all it's true horrors.

Cheers,
Rob

[Last Hussar]

My question wasn't so much finger-pointing, rather than an interest how blameless generations deal with something so horrendous that is still in living history.

From a 21st century point of view Nations commit atrocities throughout history.  Yet we understand, if not condone, manners of an age, and the reasons behind it.  Humans conquer for their own tribe's benefit, I think no one here would disagree.  The actions of the British Empire was for its own benefit, rather than just a set of beliefs.  The White Man's Burden was the excuse for the land grab, rather than the cause.

Stalin killed 2-3 as many as the Nazis, but his actions can be seen as those of a extreme dictator.  Some of his actions are actually no different to a WW1 general, THIS IS NOT TO EXCUSE HIM IN ANYWAY.

Nazi Germany, rightly or wrongly, is perceived differently, I guess because of the nature of the killing: not enemies just the victims of a lunatic ideology.

The reason I asked originally is that SeBigBoss is, I feel, the only German I know who I feel comfortable in asking, and I feel would take the question in the spirit it was meant.  How do you deal day to day not only with the history, but the fact that the period is entertainment (films, games, video games etc)?  It must seem weird.

SBB IF I HAVE OFFENDED, PLEASE CONTACT ME SO I CAN GIVE AN UNRESERVED APOLOGY.