Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's pretty hostile...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if we apologise for that then the Natives have to apologise for Syphilis and all the Settlers they scalped.

Scalping was a pretty universal practice, and done as much by the settlers as anyone else.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if we apologise for that then the Natives have to apologise for Syphilis and all the Settlers they scalped.

Scalping was a pretty universal practice, and done as much by the settlers as anyone else.

IIRC, Scalping was started by settlers to claim local bounties on Natives.

No, Britain shouldn't apologise. I mean, there's a case to apologise for specific horrible things that were done, but not for invasion or occupation as a whole. So you apologise for Amritsar massacre, but not for the occupation of India as a whole.

I mean, the whole question is just loaded with the idea that putting armed forces in someone else's country is always morally wrong, and that's just way too simplistic. Germany isn't on the list of occupied countries because British troops invaded it in 1944, and I don't think you'd find too many people claiming that was something that had to be apologised for.

 Grey Templar wrote:
China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Man, you really, really need to read about the history of British involvement in India and China. The idea that British engagement brought them forward technologically is pretty god damn funny, to be honest.

I mean, it is now generally believed that over the course of British rule in India their GDP actually declined in real dollars.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

You don't think the social pressures in Russia caused by WWI led to the collapse of the Tsar and the eventual Communist coup?

Seriously dude, I'm not saying this to be mean but read a book.

in all honesty, it always have marveled me how such a tiny little place could do so much damage



94,525 square miles kicked major ass back in the day


but there are open spaces full of nothing but bugs in Canada bigger than that.

Palindrome wrote:
The main driver for the start of WWI, aside from the usual territorial squabbles, was the rivalry between the UK and Germany. Without the British Empire, and more importantly the navy its funded, Britain there would have been much less of a threat. There would probably have still been a war but it wouldn't have been anything like on the same scale and its probable that Imperial Germany would have won by 1916.

Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable. The performance of the Allied nations in general make it very hard to argue they could have won an offensive war against Germany, even more so without Britain. That means the path to German defeat really only lies with starvation, resource shortage and industrial collapse, and without the British blockade of shipping that was never going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
We didn't pick up a small continent to use as a prison colony.

Actually, for a fun fact - America was a penal colony. There were about 50,000 convicts sent to the USA.

In fact, Australia only became a destination for prisoners in 1776... after something happened in America and it wouldn't take convicts anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Right to a Trial is also certaintly not a basic human right.

Wow. Human rights aren't just something you get to make up for yourself. I mean just fething seriously, read a book before you just go spouting whatever nonsense that pops into your head.

Anyway, here are the actual list of human rights agreed to by basically any document on the subject you'll find;

Right to life
Freedom from torture
Freedom from slavery
Right to a fair trial
Freedom of speech
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since when does the united nations matter

They can say it till they are blue in the face. But it doesn't change what is and isn't a basic human right.

Umm, the only thing that decides what is universally deemed human rights is universal agreement.

Anything else is you just making up noise inside your brain juice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Basic human rights are impossable to define because there isn't anywhere they are spelled out. And we certaintly can't have a human organization arbitrarily defining them.

Umm, they're spelled out. A lot. And quite clearly.

And the only way in which a basic human right is something more than 'stuff I'd like to think people should have' is to have it protected by the governments of the world.

And calling a democratic, legal process 'arbitrary' is unbelievably ridiculous.


fething read something before you go making gak up. Seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Translation: they are only rights if you have the legions to make them legal.
ALways has been, always shall be .

Absolutely, which is why it is important to make sure that whoever has legions agrees they are worth having.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
I don't really think we should apologise at all, actually. The only people we should have apologised to, the Irish, we as a nation have already apologised to - or rather, our representative HM Queen Elizabeth II has. Our economic policies caused the deaths of many thousands of Irish people, and it is rightly a source of shame for us. Particularly those of us (like myself) who have joint heritage.

I for one am glad that HM took the time to express our collective regret regarding this matter, as it is a stain on our national character. But as for everyone else? Nah.

Your economic policies caused a famine in India that could have killed as many as 10 million. Any reason that's any different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think it might be worth apologising to India and Bangladesh for the famine during WW2. That certainly happened in living memory, which is one of the important considerations, as Whembly says.

The all India famine in the late 19th century and the Bengal famine in 1943 are both the direct response of incompetent or uncaring British administration and failed economic policy, much the same as the Irish famine. I can't figure out why anyone would be willing to apologise for one and not the other.

The reason, of course, that no apology for India has come is because India has not sought one, looking to move on from British administration. But why someone would not consider an apology necessary if one was sought, but think the apology to the Irish was necessary, is more than a little baffling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glorioski wrote:
Does every British person need to apologise? Or, in the same sense that the Daily Mail article you linked to speaks for the nation by littering the word 'we' amongst it's bs, can someone else do it for me? If so I imagine you and your nationalist newspaper will decide for me.

No, the head of state of the time apologises, on behalf of the government and the people.

These things happen quite often. Australia recently apologised to the Aboriginal population for the Stolen Generation and the other things we've done to them.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The Soviet Union pulled out of WW1, they didn't start it. They were formed part way through from a unrelated cause.

You don't think the social pressures in Russia caused by WWI led to the collapse of the Tsar and the eventual Communist coup?

Seriously dude, I'm not saying this to be mean but read a book.

You still havn't answered my question.

How did the British Empire lead to WW1 starting?

 Ahtman wrote:

Scalping was a pretty universal practice, and done as much by the settlers as anyone else.

Yeah, scalping wasn't universal among the Indians, and many groups only picked it up from bounty hunters who scalped Indians to collect a bounty for the kill. That history came to regard scalping as an Indian thing is basically the classic case of revisionism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You still havn't answered my question.

How did the British Empire lead to WW1 starting?

I wasn't answering your question. I think the claim that Britain's involvement caused WWI to be highly dubiour (their involvement certainly changed the outcome, but whether or not there would have been a war, let alone a similarly bloody war, is a whole other issue).

I was just pointing out that you were making claims about Soviet Russia when it was clear you knew little about the subject. It was one of many instances in this thread where you have appeared to be happy to form an opinion when it's clear you knew little about the actual issue.

And then you didn't answer any of my other points, on your mistaken claim that England advanced India and China technologically, nor your nonsensical claim that the right to a fair trial isn't a human right. I mean, it really feels like you're just trying to narrow the issue down to the one thing where you have a defensible claim, to avoid having your ego pricked. And that's a shame, because it seems like you're interested in history, and if that's the case wouldn't it make sense to be interested in learning what's actually true?

 sebster wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
Does every British person need to apologise? Or, in the same sense that the Daily Mail article you linked to speaks for the nation by littering the word 'we' amongst it's bs, can someone else do it for me? If so I imagine you and your nationalist newspaper will decide for me.

No, the head of state of the time apologises, on behalf of the government and the people.

These things happen quite often. Australia recently apologised to the Aboriginal population for the Stolen Generation and the other things we've done to them.

Yeh. You've missed my point. It was just a sarcastic jibe at the nationalistic nature of the original post.

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
China and India would be backwards countries from a technological standpoint. Which would probably mean Soviet Russia would have invaded and taken over most of Asia.

Man, you really, really need to read about the history of British involvement in India and China. The idea that British engagement brought them forward technologically is pretty god damn funny, to be honest.

I mean, it is now generally believed that over the course of British rule in India their GDP actually declined in real dollars.

Actually/ummm/wow/fething read/ (or any one of the various other puerile phrases you use to belittle someone's argument and make yourself feel good about yourself) ....India would undoubtedly be in a worse state today if they didn't have the English language. That doesn't excuse anything but contradicts your idea British rule did nothing for India.

 Glorioski wrote:
Yeh. You've missed my point. It was just a sarcastic jibe at the nationalistic nature of the original post.

Ah, fair enough then. My mistake. Too long on the internet has basically killed my sarcasm meter.

Actually/ummm/wow/fething read/ (or any one of the various other puerile phrases you use to belittle someone's argument and make yourself feel good about yourself) ....India would undoubtedly be in a worse state today if they didn't have the English language. That doesn't excuse anything but contradicts your idea British rule did nothing for India.

That 'read' comment and all the others were in response to a lot of comments thrown out that came from basically a complete vacuum of knowledge on the subject. Maybe it sounds a little arrogant to you, or something, but I'm gonna stand by my guns and say that people should have some knowledge on the subject before they give an opinion on it.

And note I didn't say that English rule did nothing for India. I said that, looking at the economic figures, overall the economy of India declined under British rule.

That doesn't mean you gave them nothing (I would never claim that because you gave them cricket, and there is perhaps no greater gift), but overall the impact was not beneficial.

And if you want me to clarify further - this doesn't mean all colonisation was negative to the colonised. I live in Australia, a fantastic example of the benefits of a powerful country floating boats halfway across the planet and putting a flag down. The point is that the issue is complex, and more than anything else it requires people to actually have read and learned about each case before they start sounding off an opinion.

No. If anything the French should apologise to the Vietnamese for the unneeded First Indochina war.

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I don't really think we should apologise at all, actually. The only people we should have apologised to, the Irish, we as a nation have already apologised to - or rather, our representative HM Queen Elizabeth II has. Our economic policies caused the deaths of many thousands of Irish people, and it is rightly a source of shame for us. Particularly those of us (like myself) who have joint heritage.

I for one am glad that HM took the time to express our collective regret regarding this matter, as it is a stain on our national character. But as for everyone else? Nah.

Your economic policies caused a famine in India that could have killed as many as 10 million. Any reason that's any different?

Oh, because I'm a massive racist.

I mean, that's what you're driving at, so why not have the balls to actually come out and say it?

No never.

Half of these invasions were pirates, which was commonplace at the time.

A lot of them have also invaded us.

Apologise?!?!?!?!?! NEVER unless you mean apologising for abadoning the Empire. That was a bad move ill admit

Allright we will only apologise if the US apologises for justin beiber(cursed and dammed be its name) first.......

Pretty sure everyone who built the Empire is dead. Not sure what the justification is for asking a country to apologise for things down outside the lifetime of all of its citizens, and thats only impact in said lifetimes is recuperative and reparational.

I've got Norman facial features, so I should probably apologise to the Anglo-Saxons. Oh wait, I've got an Anglo-Saxon surname - I should apologise to the Romano-British.

Daft.

 nomsheep wrote:

A lot of them have also invaded us.

It really depends on what you mean by Britain. Even so after 1066 England was only invaded by the Scots, French, Spaniards and the Dutch with only the latter being succesful.

The united kingdom has never been invaded (aside from a few French troops that fought in the Jacobite rebellion).

 htj wrote:
Pretty sure everyone who built the Empire is dead.

Nope. It only ended last century, after all.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Apologise?!?!?!?!?! NEVER unless you mean apologising for abadoning the Empire. That was a bad move ill admit

Allright we will only apologise if the US apologises for justin beiber(cursed and dammed be its name) first.......

Justin Bieber is Canadian.
Now the UK must apolagize to the US for that statement.

 Albatross wrote:

 htj wrote:
Pretty sure everyone who built the Empire is dead.

Nope. It only ended last century, after all.

I'm talking active builders rather than maintainers here, but accepting that as the case, I'm happy for those few to issue a formal apology for their actions.

Palindrome wrote:

 nomsheep wrote:

A lot of them have also invaded us.

It really depends on what you mean by Britain. Even so after 1066 England was only invaded by the Scots, French, Spaniards and the Dutch with only the latter being succesful.

The united kingdom has never been invaded (aside from a few French troops that fought in the Jacobite rebellion).

this list goes back to 200ad apparently, so vikings, Anglo-Saxons, ww2 germany etc

and I mean Britain as in England, Scotland and wales.

And Northern Ireland.

 Albatross wrote:
And Northern Ireland.

as far as I understand great britain is them three. the u.k is the all of them.

Ireland is one of the British isles and Northern ireland is part of the United Kingdom so I don't see why NI shouldn't be considered part of Britain.

I apologise for starting this thread

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I apologise for starting this thread

Considering the subject its actually stayed realatively civil without too much hyperbole and trolling.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I apologise for starting this thread

Eggs and beans for breakfast? You SHOULD apologize.

Palindrome wrote:
Ireland is one of the British isles and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom so I don't see why NI shouldn't be considered part of Britain.

I'm not sure either, i think it's cos the first three are on the same island.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I apologise for starting this thread

Could have been soooo much worse.

 Frazzled wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Apologise?!?!?!?!?! NEVER unless you mean apologising for abadoning the Empire. That was a bad move ill admit

Allright we will only apologise if the US apologises for justin beiber(cursed and dammed be its name) first.......

Justin Bieber is Canadian.
Now the UK must apolagize to the US for that statement.

What-Damn!!!!

[Redirects orbital bombardment to canada]

Well you still have to apologise for the jonas brothers

 nomsheep wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
And Northern Ireland.

as far as I understand great britain is them three. the u.k is the all of them.

Ah, yes. I thought you were referring to 'Britain' as the UK, which is how it's most commonly used, but yeah, Great Britain is the largest of the British Isles and comprises of (as you correctly stated) England, Scotland and Wales.

I think the British should apologise to the 20 countries who have not had the pleasure of entertaining the fine body of men and women that comprise the RN, army and RAF.