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

[Michate]

So the Germans once comitted were willing to fight it out till the bitter end, however in the back of their minds they wanted to create reserves and free up troops and withdraw to shorten their lines - something they waited a long time to do so.

But what made them decided to do this...

PS: I was assuming that Falkenhayn was the chap in charge in the west from your previous postings although i take it thats the wrong idea to have. Why would the entry of Rumania result in his sacking?

Sorry, I feel not the least drive to educate you on the basics of WW1. Look for someone else.

[glenn239]

Chronos - source for that quote is British Strategy and War Aims, 1914-1916, David French.

[The_Enigma]

If there ever really was a 'Judaeo-Christian' society in Europe then slavery would always have been an anathema as well as an obscenity.
I don't think that 'context of the times' will wash when it comes to slavery because that would absolve the Germans enslaving people during the nazi dictatorship.

What can't be swept under the carpet by 'context of the times'? Wife beating? Child brides? Inflicting war on China to keep on trafficking opium? Massacring Cherokee people? Irish catholics? Iraqis? Abortion?

Attrition you raise a good point however i feel that in regards to slavery this was something that died out within European during the 18th or 19th Century when the final slave ships sailed (its been about six months since I studied it cant remember the exact date or what country was the last to stop – Portugal?).

Something that has been pointed out that during this period, before people started to raise concern and fought for its seizure, was that generally people believed that it was perfectly acceptable; if I recall correctly the bible could be used as support for it, the Africans being viewed as the biblical sodomites (I do hope that is the correct term for the people of Sodom). Not to mention that eastern Europeans had been for a long time engaged in the slave trade via the developed trade linking central Africa to the Med and Arabian Sea. To generalise what happened was the exploitation of an already constructed industry.

But any rate, how does one “justify” that and not the Nazi’s actions because the European nations had halted the trade over a century before hand and even the Americans, although not initially, fought a war over it (a huge generalisation of the ACW I know!).

So while cruel and inhumane it was acceptable at the time (to a certain degree), however by the time the Nazi’s started using slave labour I don’t believe anything of the sort was being used or had been used in Europe for a long time. So I do believe that the “context of time” is very relevant.

[Attrition]

The moment that you start looking into the context of the times you find that there was never unanimity, sincere misunderstanding or decent peple going off the rails (a la Kurtz). What you find are cruel bastards doing it because they can. Have a look at the European witch craze and you'll find that instead of a craze there was a deliberate lessening of institutional restraint on peoples' behaviour - admission of hearsay, guilt by association, torture....Sound familiar?

Chattel slavery ended before the nazis existed. Was that because Euros and their transcontinental offspring had become civilised or was it because colonialism was more efficient? Surely Hitler's only crime was to do in Europe what Europeans had been doing to everyone else for the previous 500 years? Listen to the filth being spouted on COMbbc about operation Bloodbath in Afghanistan and compare it with German newsreels from the early 40s. Notice much difference?

[The_Enigma]

Attrition I agree with you, I am not attempting to condone what took place. I found my previous topic and the figures I presented, perhaps that would be a better place to carry this discussion on? 11 ½ million people were transported, and I have a feeling that was probably more than those via the Arab pans Africa-Med trade but no figures to prove or disprove that, and huge numbers more were born into slavery and not to mention the natives also pressed into work – am not under any illusion that this was all done for anything but for the greed of increasing ones personal wealth (i.e. plantation owners in the New World, the Africans on the west coast, or the various Europeans during the middle voyage.) and done so because they could; they exploited something that was there and to the nth degree.

But with that said and done we British halted, as the major player, between 1826 and 1850 while the other main players and the Portuguese, who became the major traders following the British withdrawal, were through by 1867. The ACW had ended a few years before than and with it slavery in the states. Politically most of the European powers during the late 1800s up to the First World War were generally becoming more liberal – in the west at least and Germany to an extent.

Excluding the likes of the emancipation of the serfs in places such as Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s, as far as I know slavery was not widespread outside of the Med area the Atlantic slavers had closed down business nearly a century before the NAZIs decided to incorporate it into their industry; the latter had no excuse, it was something that had been addressed, overcome and destroyed – it was not something of our time, there was no context of slavery in Germany during the periods before this to even justify what took place. Hence why I see that one can justify the actions of one set of “evil men” over the actions of others; context of time.

Although it is a little Eurocentric to see it as only a European crime :p

[Attrition]

I didn't think you were. It strikes me though that form and content rear their ugy heads. The British got rid of chattel slavery but didn't seem to mind enslaving countries instead. Was British imperialism that much less wicked than Hitler's or Bush's tyrannies?

[Terry Duncan]

Was British imperialism that much less wicked than Hitler's or Bush's tyrannies?

I am not aware of any case where the British empire industrialized a process to destroy a race? Not too sure about Bush either regardless of how people feel about his foreign policy decisions. The British tended to be far better colonial masters than many others, Belgium notably having a very bad record here - albeit under the guise of the land all belonging to the king himself.

[Attrition]

Process? Look at the product, mass death. The English and British Empires were rather good at that; Bush (and Obama) too. Oh and Jews aren't a race. Apropos, where are the Tasmanians?

Leopold and the Congo Free State? Compare with the famines of the Raj before 1914. They make Ukraine and Ireland look like birthday presents.

PS the British did industrialise a process to exterminate human beings but that was in the indian summer of liberal England (1967).

[The_Enigma]

I cant really comment that much on the empire to be honest however i would speculate from what i have read that it was allot more easier on the natives than others where; although equally harsh when putting down rebellions i.e. the Germans and the Hereo, i have read of huge numbers of Indians etc dying during the process of stumping out rebellion.

You suggest famine in the Raj; taking a look at the wiki (seems an ok sourced article) the British didnt create the famines that struck, nor did they really help allievate the first one under British rule. However the article does note that extensive work and money was poured in to ensure subsequent ones were not as bad and food was also imported. The death toll doesnt seem to be close to the those suffered by the Ukrainians under Soviet rule to be fair.

[Attrition]

Try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o ... to_1947%29

Hitler only had twelve years to work his evil, Bush eight. The English and British empires had about 300 years.

[The_Enigma]

Thats quite a few more, and allot more deaths, than the ones i read about early. Quite a hefty sum of people too!

[Terry Duncan]

Oh and Jews aren't a race.

Actually they are a race as well as a religion, and they had always been thought of as such up to and including WWII.

Apropos, where are the Tasmanians?

Somewhat extinct, though as you must also be aware - the subject is a little obscure to start with - this was not a deliberate act of government policy, unike that of Germany in 1933-1945.

Compare with the famines of the Raj before 1914.

Quite how you claim famine to be something to blame Britain for is amusing, the areas suffered famines before Britain administered the areas, and have suffered them afterwards too. The British Empire was powerful but it did not control the weather or crop yields.

Leopold and the Congo Free State?

Equating a deliberate policy of murder and mutilation over taxes to naturally occurring famine seems pointless.

PS the British did industrialise a process to exterminate human beings but that was in the indian summer of liberal England (1967).

Really? Where? Isnt 1967 somewhat after 1942?

[Attrition]

'Naturally occurring famine'? So a responsible government would be ready for it. The British Empire was powerful and singularly well equipped to alleviate famines (which was done on a few occasions) since it did control much of the distribution of food. All it took was will.

[The_Enigma]

And some good luck, from the article i read this morning it seems during one famine the Raj was able to ship in food to one province but not to another as its ports were closed off due to the monsoon. I think we are to carry on down this track we would have to hit the nail on the head of just which famines we are talking about as it seems some could have be sorted out quicker, avoided (perhaps), or were unstopabble etc

[Terry Duncan]

So a responsible government would be ready for it.

As the problem existed before the British Empire ever got to India, and has continued since, it is hardly a problem easily solved. Indeed before railroads became widespread it was probably impossible to solve. Communications took weeks until well into the late 1800's - the Indian Mutiny showed the limits of the poor communications in the area - so something London or Dehli heard about might well have been far too late to be of much use.

Even so, this is a hell of a long way from amputations for failing to pay taxes as practiced in the Belgian Congo, or the German policy towards the Herero people.