(You know as well as I do where I am coming from but I will state it for the board)Matt H. wrote:The public in 1914 certainly did. Isn't that the topic of discussion here?Are you claiming the British had problems with executions of women?
The British Commander-in-Chief for India recommended that General Dyer be ordered to retire. This decision was put forward to both the Army Council and the Cabinet, both of which approved and backed the measures.Just what RMS said "executing women in Amritsar". This isn't false. Why didn't the "public" protest and raise a hue and cry about British treatment of women then?
Sir Winston Churchill wrote:Coming to the case of General Dyer, it will be seen that he was removed from his appointment by the Commander-in-Chief in India; that he was passed over by the Selection Board in India for promotion; that he was informed, as hundreds of officers are being and have been informed, that there was no prospect of further employment for him under the Government of India; and that, in consequence, he reverted automatically to half-pay. These proceedings were brought formally to the notice of the Army council by a letter from the India Office, which recommended, further, that he should be retired from the Army, and by a telegram from the Commander-in-Chief in India, which similarly recommended that he should be ordered to retire.
And, did the British judges at Nürnberg recommend early retirement for Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart or did they demand something more severe?Sir Winston Churchill wrote:Coming to the case of General Dyer …These proceedings were brought formally to the notice of the Army council by a letter from the India Office, which recommended, further, that he should be retired from the Army, and by a telegram from the Commander-in-Chief in India, which similarly recommended that he should be ordered to retire.
I will concede to you a vast quantitative difference, but not a qualitative difference. My larger point is that imperialism (if it is to be successful) always leads to genocide. Ultimately, when push came to shove, the British had not the stomach for genocide and thus were forced to liquidate their empire.David Thompson wrote:RM -- There's a difference between obviously poor judgment and a provable crime … I think an analogy between the Amritsar massacre and the crimes of Sauckel and Seyss-Inquart is misplaced.
Neither Churchill, nor any other member of the Cabinet or Army Council attempted to downplay what occured at Amritsar, but look into the British response before you condemn it. You'll see that many were involved in the process and that numerous bodies were consulted, political and miltary.Sir Winston Churchill wrote:However we may dwell upon the difficulties of General Dyer during the Amritsar riots, upon the anxious and critical situation in the Punjab, upon the danger to Europeans throughout that province, upon the long delays, which have taken place in reaching a decision about this officer, upon the procedure that was at this point or at that point adopted, however we may dwell upon all this, one tremendous fact stands out - I mean the slaughter of nearly 400 persons and the wounding of probably three to four times as many, at the Jallian Wallah Bagh on 13th April. That is an episode, which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire. It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event, which stands in singular and sinister isolation.
What he is saying here is that genocide does not go hand-in-hand with imperialism and that is just nonsense. The British have long pretended that their occupation of India was benevolent and that is just a hoax, as anyone who has studied the British conquest knows. Because of their divide-and-conquer techniques, the legacy of British Imperialism remains to this day in the fratricidal conflicts in Ireland, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Cyprus, Surinam, Iraq, Zimbabwe and South Africa. You can try to paper-over this with disingenuous speeches, but the record is clear: Imperialism means Genocide.Sir Winston Churchill wrote:… It is an event of an entirely different order from any of those tragical occurrences which take place when troops are brought into collision with the civil population. It is an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event, which stands in singular and sinister isolation.
I am willing to listen, otherwise I would not be replying. I am merely presenting my opinion based on evidence I have posted previously in this thread. I didn't know having differing opinions to you constituted a crime.Don't bother. I doubt the otherside is willing to listen.
The history of Ireland extends far beyond even the creation of Great Briain in 1707, all the way back to Edward II.Because of their divide-and-conquer techniques, the legacy of British Imperialism remains to this day in the fratricidal conflicts in Ireland, Palestine, India/Pakistan, Cyprus, Surinam, Iraq, Zimbabwe and South Africa. You can try to paper-over this with disingenuous speeches, but the record is clear: Imperialism means Genocide.
I should have followed that post of mine with a "Matt H. wrote:I am willing to listen, otherwise I would not be replying. I am merely presenting my opinion based on evidence I have posted previously in this thread. I didn't know having differing opinions to you constituted a crime.
" or a " 
"Here's where I think you are wrong mate. Even if Mountbatten was given complete freedom, there was nothing he could have done. The seeds had already been sown and the sapling was becoming a tree. When a man like M K Gandhi couldn't have stopped it, you seriously think Mountbatten had a chance?Matt H. wrote:India and Pakistan? Our government should have allowed Lord Mountbatten greater independence with which to assess and control the situation.
I concur. I never said that Lord Louis was all for the idea of Partition. All I said was that there was nothing much he could have done about it.Matt H. wrote:Mountbatten did not want the split to occur.That much is obvious
I somehow fail to see the relevence of this point (The US) or maybe I have not understood it.Matt H. wrote:but Labour's demands were uncompromising, look back to the situation Palestine if you need assurance - the US was also split on that issue, so the British administration were not alone in their convictions.
