" Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme..."

[The_Enigma]

But that is changing the question...

So in your opinion there is no difference between the British Empire or the German Third Empire or how some may conceive the USSR?

I dont think anyone here has stated they are perfect, or they are an ideal social model however i think we have to be unbais and look at the whole issue. From what i have read the British Empire imported culture, adhered to peoples religious beliefs, did not try to mass convert them, improved inferstruture, exported law and language etc Using an earlier example, this is something i dont believe the Belgians did in the Congo nor the Germans in east africa. Empires may not be perfect but they can do good. Least we forget that the dominions and various colonies had near enough free will and were not in essance protectorates.

One would question how many endaveours was the British Empire able to go on, which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland would not have been able to do so without the comerical backing. To also note that the Empire helped to fund other areas; the Empire pumped billions into all the continents of the world. How many developing countries would have had an even harder time without the huge finacial backing that was given?

[Attrition]

The British empire built mounds of corpses using various forms of short-term and long-term plunder. No doubt when it was noticed at the metropole there was some liberal hand-wringing and the occasional amelioration, like the abolition of chattel slavery but the continuity of eploitation can't be denied. You might say that an empire is a corpse making machine and if so what is the British empire's body count? A bit greater than those C20th mountebanks I'll bet.

How can an empire exist without ubermenschen and untermenschen? That being so how can empires not resemble each other? There are other forms of tyranny of course but that's no excuse.

[The_Enigma]

Ok lets put it this way; did the British Empire ever instatute a policy of extermination aimed at certain ethnic groups and comited genocide on such a huge scale within the space of only a few years with the ultimate goal of wiping out entire sections of society?
Additionally did the British Empire every enforce a policy that led to a man made famine that caused millions of deaths?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Attrition,

The relatively long-lived British Empire had a very low "body count" compared with the intense slaughter houses that were 20th Century totalitarian regimes. Indeed, I would suggest that imbalance in British favour is so great that regimes such as those of Stalin, Hitler and Mao may have killed as many people every year as the British Empire did in its entire existence!

Indeed, by contrast to them, the population of almost every territory ruled by the UK grew massively under British rule. (See Colin McCevedy's "Atlas of World Population History").

The one exception was Ireland, where the population today is still below what it was before the famine of the 1840s. However, this is largely due to emigration to English-speaking countries rather than deaths in the famine. There are currently some 50 million people of claimed Irish descent in English-speaking countries!

I wouldn't for a moment pretend that the British Empire was constructed for the benefit of anybody but the British (including many emigrant Irish), but the incidental benefits for local populations must also have been considerable for their populations to expand so much under British rule.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Terry Duncan]

How can an empire exist without ubermenschen and untermenschen?

Territorial expansion and racist policies do not always go hand in hand.

No doubt when it was noticed at the metropole there was some liberal hand-wringing and the occasional amelioration, like the abolition of chattel slavery but the continuity of eploitation can't be denied.

The social conditions of the very poorest in Britain were no better or worse than their counterparts in most of the colonies until very late in the 19thC- likewise the very poorest in nations that had no empire were equally badly off.

You might say that an empire is a corpse making machine and if so what is the British empire's body count?

Deaths from all causes do not increase or decrease simply because the term 'empire' or 'democracy' are applied to an area.

A bit greater than those C20th mountebanks I'll bet.

If you mean did an empire covering a large portion of the world - including some of the most densely populated areas - for two hundred years see more people die from all causes over its time in existence than a few relatively short lived brutal regimes managed to kill deliberately, then its a silly question. If you consider only the people killed deliberately, the British empire is far lower.

There is still no policy of the British Empire than compares to those of Stalin, Mao, or Hitler when it came to killing people.

[Attrition]

Casuistry.

Apropos have another look at the effect on 'independent' Africa of World Bank and IMF diktats about replacing local food production with cash crops for export since the 70s. Spot the difference with the earlier empires.

If the British empire didn't kill untold millions of people in a fit of absence of mind but accidentally let them die because they would under any regime of government or because it was an epiphenomenon, then the new C20th empires can be whitewashed with the same excuses.

[Terry Duncan]

If the British empire didn't kill untold millions of people in a fit of absence of mind but accidentally let them die

You have yet to show that they were leaving people to die when they could have averted it. So far you have provided a simple chart of famines, but nothing to show there was plenty of food nearby if anyone had bothered to move it to the effected areas.

the new C20th empires can be whitewashed with the same excuses.

If you are really unaware of the methods used in Germany, Russia and China to get rid of 'undesirable' people then there is really little point in this continuing further.

[Attrition]

I note that you stress process rather than product; I find this as depressing as it is predictable.

[Terry Duncan]

I note that you stress process rather than product; I find this as depressing as it is predictable.

So show the British Empire was hastening the demise of its subjects? All people die at ome point, you need to show the British were accelerating the process.

[glenn239]

I wouldn't for a moment pretend that the British Empire was constructed for the benefit of anybody but the British (including many emigrant Irish), but the incidental benefits for local populations must also have been considerable for their populations to expand so much under British rule.

If not Great Britain, I would be hard pressed to think of which power of modern history qualifies as the most responsible, legal, and even handed in the colonial sphere? The United States perhaps?

Additionally did the British Empire every enforce a policy that led to a man made famine that caused millions of deaths

Yes – against Europe in WW1, where it may be the case that over 1 million died as a direct result.

[The_Enigma]

I wouldn't for a moment pretend that the British Empire was constructed for the benefit of anybody but the British (including many emigrant Irish), but the incidental benefits for local populations must also have been considerable for their populations to expand so much under British rule.

If not Great Britain, I would be hard pressed to think of which power of modern history qualifies as the most responsible, legal, and even handed in the colonial sphere? The United States perhaps?

Additionally did the British Empire every enforce a policy that led to a man made famine that caused millions of deaths

Yes – against Europe in WW1, where it may be the case that over 1 million died as a direct result.

So your only evidence is a total war .... wow

[monk2002uk]

Yes – against Europe in WW1, where it may be the case that over 1 million died as a direct result.

Did you mean 'Germany' rather than 'Europe', ie the ongoing effects of the British naval blockade of Germany after the signing of the Armistice?

Robert

[Terry Duncan]

Yes – against Europe in WW1, where it may be the case that over 1 million died as a direct result.

Really? Where? Blockade was a response to German actions in starting a war, and the loss of troops was also inevitable for the same reason. This is not a case of British policy killing British Empire civilians out of a desire to be rid of them though.

The US record in the Philippines was not too good, so with relatively few colonial areas to judge other than this, it would be hard to place them above Britain all things considered.

[Attrition]

I note that you stress process rather than product; I find this as depressing as it is predictable.

So show the British Empire was hastening the demise of its subjects? All people die at ome point, you need to show the British were accelerating the process.

Who's the judge? Torquemada?

[monk2002uk]

Really? Where?

In Germany, after the signing of the Armistice but before the Treaty of Versailles. Probably the best book on this is 'Victory must be Ours'.

Robert