Lt Kije Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Camps have been used since roman times, the Spanish used them against Cubans and the Americans used them against the Indians, but neither were used as permanent solutions, it was the British who coined the term and moved who populations into them, the first modern concentration camps. The Spanish just used barbed wire and put it round towns to stop the cubans leaving. It was the British who first made purpose built camps, and by the way many boar women and children starved to death in them. Is that ok for you I also have books on the Boar war, I will pass on the titles if you want, but googleing it brings up thousands of snippets, Now you pass on your evidence for Damacus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Totally missed the point again: You originally inferred that concentration camps were an Imperial act against the native peoples of Africa (as a criticism of the British Empire). I merely pointed out that they were used against the Boars to starve out their Commandos, and unfortunately (probably through incompetance), starved the women and kids too. However, it was a tactic that won that war - so perhaps the end justifies the means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 10, 2012 Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Totally missed the point again: You originally inferred that concentration camps were an Imperial act against the native peoples of Africa (as a criticism of the British Empire). I merely pointed out that they were used against the Boars to starve out their Commandos, and unfortunately (probably through incompetance), starved the women and kids too. However, it was a tactic that won that war - so perhaps the end justifies the means. Obs, I have been following this post and in my eyes 'the end NEVER justifies the means', if Adolf had succeeded, his final solution to the Jewish problem as he saw it was to exterminate the Jews plus any other poor unfortunates that didn't conform to his 'master plan', he would have claimed that the extermination of the Jews would have 'justified the means', the eradication of innocent people can never 'justify the means!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2012 Concentration camps were invented by the British to "concentrate" the Boar population and prevent them supplying their menfolk; the tactic was used again in the Malayan Emergency against the communist insurgence. In both instances it contributed to winning the war. Niether had anything to do with exterminating jews,the term "concentration camp" was a later abuse of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obs still waiting for your evidence, Agy completely agree with you, the end never justifies the means, when Women and children are killed.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 If your fighting a war, presumably you fight to win - otherwise there's no point in fighting it in the first place. Big boys games - big boys rules! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obs still waiting for your evidence, Agy completely agree with you, the end never justifies the means, when Women and children are killed.. That is precisely where I was coming from Lt. To Quote you obs " Big Boys games Big Boys rules", I couldn't agree more, but don't drag women and children into the game!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obs, what was the point in putting them in concentration camps, then to let them starve to death, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Alg, don't tell me that you think women and kids wern't involved in the N/Ireland troubles or any of the other civil/sectarian conflicts going on around the world? btw women now have equal rights - and in the M/East that can include wearing a suicide vest! The point of concentrating insurgent populations in controlled areas was to starve out their menfolk from re-supply. In S/Africa, it appears the British were incompetant at re-supplying these concentration camps. However, the strategy worked, as it did later in Malaya, and had the Yanks adopted similar tactics, the story of Viet-Nam may have been slightly different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 The truth of the matter is the yanks were no match for the viets and left with a bloody nose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Obs You avoided using the word genocide, are you saying you support it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Nope - your trying hard to introduce it! Actually Cleo; the Yanks were winning the war militarily - they gave the Viets a drubbing during their Tet Offensive - however, it was a TV War which they lost politically on the home front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 The yanks were winning the war and that is why they decide to give up and call it a day because too many of their troops were being slaughtered without any sign of a victory. You been watching hollywood movies again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 11, 2012 Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 I'd have just nuked 'em all!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2012 Errm, yes actually Cleo; they as a society couldn't endure the loss of over 50,000 young soldiers; while the Viets were prepared to endure the loss of millions - they obviously had the stonger belief and moral fibre, and of course were fighting for their own homeland. Not movies btw, documentaries. Think they considered nukes Baz, but three times the tonnage of bombs dropped during WW2 is everything but! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Which all adds upto the americans losing the war - not winning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 You really need to read posts before diving in Cleo - the term I used was "were winning militarily". The climax came with the Tet Offensive, which involved attacks throughout the whole Country, notably at the ancient City of Hue and in Saigon, where a suicide squad entered the gardens of the US Embassy. All this was closely covered on TV News; and although the Yanks quickly restored the situation, decimating the VC in the process; the impression was to totally deflate any remaining political will to continue the war by the US public; as summed up by a famous Walter Cronkite report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The end result, whatever you say, is that they lost and left with a bloofdy nose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 As a new member I read with interest the whole thread, and I also wastched the tv programme about Afghanistan,and Ihave to say that Britain's role in their history did not fill me with pride. Someone also mentioned thr Tamils. I feel that the present problems in Sri Lanka were caused by the British Empire's 'importation' of Tamils from India to work in their tea plantations in Ceylon as it was called then. I feel that a lot of the present world problems have their roots in the meddling of the old colonial powers A belated welcome to the forum Scottie - hope to see you posting on a regular basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 I'd have just nuked 'em all!!! South Vietnam was on the side of the Americans, firing a nuke would have killed many allies, not to mention the damage to Countries that border Vietnam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 50,000 dead out of a population of over 200million V around 2million dead out of a population of around 50million - some bloody nose. What it does illustrate however, is that they won precisely because they had the moral capacity to endure such losses, something no Western State or Ideology could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 They were fighting for their country Obs, The west could take those losses if they were fighting for their own country. Still waiting for your proof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 South Vietnam was on the side of the Americans, firing a nuke would have killed many allies, not to mention the damage to Countries that border Vietnam. collateral damage..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The Americans lost the war because they were unable to fight the VC in the jungle. Biggest is not always best when smartest is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 The Yanks lossed that particular war on the streets and in the living rooms of the US; guerilla warefare is principally about politics, sapping the political will of the enemy to continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.