Massacre at Amritsar 1919

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#16

Post by R.M. Schultz » 05 Oct 2003, 02:06

Matt H. wrote:Palestine? I suppose you are unaware of the massive demands upon the British administration to allow open, free-flowing Jewish immigration, and how Arab and Jewish militants deliberately targeted British soldiers (see the King David Hotel bombing).
At the end of the Great War the British had promised the Arabs independence and they had also pledged themselves to the creation of a Zionist state. Instead of keeping either of these pledges, they grabbed huge slices of the Near East for themselves. By then allowing some Jewish immigration, they then destabilised the situation and created the conflict that persists to the present day.

What if — His Majesty's Government had just let the Arabs have their own countries in 1919?

What if — His Majesty's Government had kept the promise of allowing national self-determination that they had made when they accepted German surrender on the terms of Wilson's Fourteen Points?

What if — British imperialism had not gone and mucked things up in yet another part of the world?

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003, 19:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

#17

Post by Matt H. » 05 Oct 2003, 12:33

At the end of the Great War the British had promised the Arabs independence and they had also pledged themselves to the creation of a Zionist state. Instead of keeping either of these pledges, they grabbed huge slices of the Near East for themselves. By then allowing some Jewish immigration, they then destabilised the situation and created the conflict that persists to the present day.
I have nothing to say for the Zionist Pledge. At that time, I believe it was a mistake.

Grabbed land in the Middle East? Britain was given the former colonies of the Ottoman Empire as part of the League of Nations mandates pledge. Simple as.
What if — His Majesty's Government had just let the Arabs have their own countries in 1919?
The British did not agree to the plan for peace based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. Legally, they were not obliged to leave Palestine.
What if — His Majesty's Government had kept the promise of allowing national self-determination that they had made when they accepted German surrender on the terms of Wilson's Fourteen Points?
Britain did not accept Wilson's Fourteen Points as the basis for the Versailles Peace Treaty. Germany only did so after learning of Wilson's plan, so why would the Allies? Surely Britain had greater obligations to their French allies, whom had stood by our side for four years of bitter fighting.
What if — British imperialism had not gone and mucked things up in yet another part of the world?
What if you actually offered some sort of constructive questioning as opposed to mere Anglophobic blather?


User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#18

Post by Marcus » 05 Oct 2003, 12:43

Let's get back on topic.

/Marcus

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003, 19:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

#19

Post by Matt H. » 05 Oct 2003, 12:51

Marcus Wendel wrote:Let's get back on topic.

/Marcus
Sorry. I apologise for being forward and blunt, and wandering off on tangents.

Herr Schultz - let's put our differences aside and return to the topic, eh?
:)

User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:

#20

Post by John W » 06 Oct 2003, 00:36

Matt: I can understand wanting to withdraw troops after a costly war and much losses. My simple point is that it wouldn't have made a difference even if the Local government was allowed to make it's choices. The Partition was the inevitable result of years of Government policy. It didn't come about at just near the fag end of the war.

Although the voice for a "muslim" state was introduced fairly late by some Muslim leaders, the sentiment was around for much, much longer.

Thus, my statement that there was nothing the local Government could have done to prevent it. The country united to overthrwo the British (like the USSR and USA to destroy Nazi Germany, yes?) but with seething discontent within, it would have been near impossible to hold them together. And this discontent was the direct result of Government policy :)

John

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#21

Post by R.M. Schultz » 06 Oct 2003, 05:41

Matt H. wrote:Herr Schultz - let's put our differences aside and return to the topic, eh?
I take the central point as being that in order to maintain control of her Indian Empire, in the face of ever increasing resistance, Britain would have to resort to punitive actions (e.g. the Amritsar massacre) that ultimately would have become genocidal. Imperialism, if it is to be successful, inevitably leads to genocide.

User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:

#22

Post by John W » 06 Oct 2003, 06:35

Matt H:

As a side note, do you know anything as regards the fate of the men who ran the notorious prison of Kala Paani on the Andaman and Nicobar islands?

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003, 19:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

#23

Post by Matt H. » 06 Oct 2003, 10:24

As a side note, do you know anything as regards the fate of the men who ran the notorious prison of Kala Paani on the Andaman and Nicobar islands?
Sorry Sturm, I do not. And before you accuse me of negationism, that's the honest truth. I don't have all the facts, and I have never claimed to.

User avatar
John W
Member
Posts: 9088
Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 08:12
Location: United States of America
Contact:

#24

Post by John W » 07 Oct 2003, 05:09

Matt H. wrote:Sorry Sturm, I do not. And before you accuse me of negationism, that's the honest truth. I don't have all the facts, and I have never claimed to.
:D Aye! fair enough. It was a simple question because I myself do not know! Since you know quite a lot about the sub continent history, I was wondering if you have some links up your sleeve :)

Oh well, guess I must keep looking then :(

John

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2065
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
Location: Israel

#25

Post by Von Schadewald » 24 Sep 2005, 19:54

Is it correct that at Amritsar there were just two white British officers and 50 Gurkhas and Baluchi soldiers?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#26

Post by David Thompson » 24 Sep 2005, 20:50

(1)
Gen. R.E.H. Dyer was sent with troops from Jullundur to restore order, and, though no further disturbances occurred in Amritsar until April 13, Dyer marched 50 armed soldiers into the Jallianwallah Bagh (Garden) that afternoon and ordered them to open fire on a protest meeting attended by some 10,000 unarmed men, women, and children without issuing a word of warning.
http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/landow/p ... sacre.html


(2)
An aircraft briefly hovered overhead as five speeches were completed before Dyer arrived at Jallianwala Bagh, along with two young officers, Briggs and Anderson, 50 Indian and British rifle-men, 40 Gurkhas, and two armoured cars. The armoured cars were left on the road outside the maiden, for the sole entrance was too narrow to accommodate them.
http://allaboutsikhs.com/events/jwbagh.htm


(3)
When Dyer learned that this meeting was going ahead he interpreted it as active defiance, of himself and of the law. Dyer gathered 90 men, Gurkhas from the first battalion of the Ninth Gurkha regiment, only fifty of them armed with rifles. Accompanied by two armoured cars and only four European assistants (Sergeant Anderson, his bodyguard, Captain Briggs, his Brigade Major, a subaltern, and Mr Plomer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police), Dyer proceeded to the Bagh around 5:00pm. He discovered, making his approach, that the alleyways were too narrow to admit the armoured cars, and so continued with his infantry only.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucrassh/

(4)
At the time the meeting (which was attended by families and others—estimates range from almost 10,000 to over 20,000 people) was beginning, Dyer was on the way there with 50 riflemen (mostly Indian and Gurkha troops) and two armored cars. There was no attempt made to disperse the meeting by other means or warn the participants who were busy (peacefully) announcing resolutions to demand the repeal of the Rowlatt Acts and condemning the shooting into the crowd on 10 April. The sole entrance being too narrow to allow the cars to pass through, they had to be left outside. The soldiers marched in. It was 5:15 PM.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1347553

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2065
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
Location: Israel

#27

Post by Von Schadewald » 24 Sep 2005, 21:08

In your informed opinion, do you think an all white troop of 50 UK-born soldiers would have obeyed the order and opened fire, or might some of them have balked in that post WW1 era?

"I will not open fire on innocent women & children!" (Arnold Schwarznegger in "The Running Man").

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#28

Post by David Thompson » 24 Sep 2005, 21:59

Von Schadewald -- You asked:
In your informed opinion, do you think an all white troop of 50 UK-born soldiers would have obeyed the order and opened fire, or might some of them have balked in that post WW1 era?
My opinion in this area isn't that well-informed. In my experience, the moral qualities of individuals vary considerably, depending on the man and on the circumstances, without regard to race. Even if every soldier present opened fire, there's no way of telling how many aimed high, low, at the crowd, or at all.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2065
Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 00:17
Location: Israel

#29

Post by Von Schadewald » 24 Sep 2005, 23:35

1650 rounds were fired, killing 379 and wounding 1200, so accuracy must've been good!
Image
http://www.indhistory.com/img/jallianwala-bagh-1.jpg

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#30

Post by David Thompson » 25 Sep 2005, 00:04

Von Schadewald -- You remarked:
1650 rounds were fired, killing 379 and wounding 1200, so accuracy must've been good!
I saw those figures too, but for purposes of answering your question, it wasn't clear to me whether the casualties included people killed by trampling in the ensuing panic or were limited to those killed by gunfire alone.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”