This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations, as well as the First and Second World Wars in general hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research and Christoph Awender's WW2 day by day.
I do find it rather odd that what seem to be similar practices by the British and Germans get judged differently.
It also crosses my mind that it is unsurprising that the British had hgher losses than the Germans, when they had more troops in the area to become casualties.
I wouldn't put too much store in mechanistic predictions like that, particularly when I wasn't referring to density but quantity per se. Considering the invulnerability of much of the Germans' defensive works to all but the heaviest artillery, the Entente artillery superiority is more of a 'superiority'. Note also that German artllery had a much simpler task. This makes the British successes on the Somme all the more notable.
Terry Duncan wrote: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 some point, you need to show the British were accelerating the process.
Britain's imperial experience ranks more closely with the exploits of Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun than with those of Alexander the Great....
It is suggested here that the rulers of the British empire will one day be perceived to rank with the dictators of the C20th as the authors of crimes against humanity on an infamous scale.
Has there been an empire that left the colonials equal to or better off than the metropolitan hegemons?
Come off it, colonialism is organised looting, hence the locals resisting it and the imperials slaughtering them.
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 2 guests