The British Empire Thread

MarchDub

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

His support for Irish independence :eek:. I don't think that any British govt offical at the time did as much to block Irish independence than that criminal. Part of the cabinet that put down the 1916 rising, sent in the Black and Tans and Auxillary's, defended the indiscriminate murder, looting and burning by the British army across the country, negotiated and forced through the Treaty with direct threats.

Yes - I was about to make the same comments about his attitude to Ireland during the War of Independence.

Fratton Fred

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

His support for Irish independence :eek:. I don't think that any British govt offical at the time did as much to block Irish independence than that criminal. Part of the cabinet that put down the 1916 rising, sent in the Black and Tans and Auxillary's, defended the indiscriminate murder, looting and burning by the British army across the country, negotiated and forced through the Treaty with direct threats. I'm afraid son you need to read a history book sometime.

He also invaded Iran in WW2 to take hand in hand with Joe Stalin's Red army. Like Dev said, " to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count….this same code is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars… "

you call Churchill a criminal and then quote Dev....oh the irony.:rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

His support for Irish independence :eek:. I don't think that any British govt offical at the time did as much to block Irish independence than that criminal. Part of the cabinet that put down the 1916 rising, sent in the Black and Tans and Auxillary's, defended the indiscriminate murder, looting and burning by the British army across the country, negotiated and forced through the Treaty with direct threats. I'm afraid son you need to read a history book sometime.

He also invaded Iran in WW2 to take hand in hand with Joe Stalin's Red army. Like Dev said, " to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that this, if accepted, would mean that Britain’s necessity would become a moral code and that when this necessity became sufficiently great, other people’s rights were not to count….this same code is precisely why we have the disastrous succession of wars… "

You support your opinion that Churchill is a criminal with a quote from De Valera. Another quote from De Valera from 1965 at Churchills passing, "Sir Winston Churchill was a great Englishman, but we in Ireland had to regard him over a long period as a dangerous adversary".

If Dev thought he was a 'great Englishman' I suppose you would agree???

who the fug

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes - I was about to make the same comments about his attitude to Ireland during the War of Independence.

Yes but once he accepted it had to be done, he pushed it through, as a member of the Liberal party in a government lead by Lloyd George whose only support was the Tory party.


Also I think you will find he was not a member of cabinet in 1916


Read Roy Jenkins book about him, I agree with Jenkins that on the whole he was a good egg

If ye want a Churchill to hate, suggest ye go with the father, who left religion get out of the bag, which is the worst thing anyone can ever do

InTheTrees

MarchDub wrote: »

The question before historians is this - and I'm not looking to shake things up here, just reporting on where the history narrative seems to be going - was he actually 'called upon' to fight or did he manipulate the situation where he got what he wanted, which was war. And then live to regret it when he saw the outcome?

Well he wasnt prime minister when war was declared so did he manipulate or influence the declaration of war? Maybe. He probably knew more about war and had more experience and so could push himself to the front to be "called upon".

I have no doubt he was an insufferable, arrogant, knowitall but most wartime leaders/generals were.

Denerick

MarchDub wrote: »

Churchill himself had grave misgivings about WWII when it became obvious what the cost was - he wrote that when he was asked by President Roosevelt what the war - WWII - should be called he replied cynically, '''The Unnecessary War' - there never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle".

Just what did Churchill mean by this? A huge question.

Given his earlier calls for re-armament and his desire for a more combative and confrontational foreign policy, and his well documented and ferocious opposition to the policy of appeasement, he probably means what is self evident to most historians and people who take an interest in this stuff; that the allies walked themselves into trouble by refusing to deal with a jumped up Austrian thug the way a great nation should have.

Yes, that was an un-necessary rhetorical flourish, but we are talking about the most Tolkienesque historical figure of all time here

MarchDub

who the fug wrote: »

Yes but once he accepted it had to be done, he pushed it through, as a member of the Liberal party in a government lead by Lloyd George whose only support was the Tory party.


Also I think you will find he was not a member of cabinet in 1916


Read Roy Jenkins book about him, I agree with Jenkins that on the whole he was a good egg

If ye want a Churchill to hate, suggest ye go with the father, who left religion get out of the bag, which is the worst thing anyone can ever do

I was referring to his role as Secretary of State for War during the Irish War of Independence. It was another poster who said he was a cabinet member in 1916.

Yes - I know about the father, "Ulster will Fight" Randolph Churchill.

MarchDub

Denerick wrote: »

Yes, that was an un-necessary rhetorical flourish, but we are talking about the most Tolkienesque historical figure of all time here

Agree about that!

jonniebgood1

Denerick wrote: »

Given his earlier calls for re-armament and his desire for a more combative and confrontational foreign policy, and his well documented and ferocious opposition to the policy of appeasement, he probably means what is self evident to most historians and people who take an interest in this stuff; that the allies walked themselves into trouble by refusing to deal with a jumped up Austrian thug the way a great nation should have.

Yes, that was an un-necessary rhetorical flourish, but we are talking about the most Tolkienesque historical figure of all time here

He was proven correct on his thoughts on appeasement, thats not to say that a more combatitive approach would have worked. Chamberlain went with the popular route as the public had no appetite for war. Not a great advert for democratic choice. Then again as Churchill might say “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” It may be arrogance but it is also possibly true.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If Dev thought he was a 'great Englishman'

Dev himself was a real cute hoor and careful about his words. Saying Churchill was a 'great Englishman' was a deliberate choice of words. He didn't say he was a great man. The 'English' moniker implies that Churchill was good for England - and little else. Knowing Dev - that's how I would read what Dev said.

Fratton Fred

Churchill always put his country above all else ( even his family pride). Could the same be said of Dev?

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill always put his country above all else ( even his family pride). Could the same be said of Dev?

Do you have an example for your implication?

posted by marchdub - Dev himself was a real cute hoor and careful about his words. Saying Churchill was a 'great Englishman' was a deliberate choice of words. He didn't say he was a great man. The 'English' moniker implies that Churchill was good for England - and little else. Knowing Dev - that's how I would read what Dev said.

The statement seems well thought out in that it can be interpreted in several ways which I think would have been the aim. Its actually the type of clever wording that is associated by many with Churchill himself. Is it just me who sees some obvious similarities between the 2 men?

walrusgumble

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Churchill always put his country above all else ( even his family pride). Could the same be said of Dev?

I too call for you to back your statement up.

Fratton Fred

I was thinking of the affair his daughter in law had with the US diplomat. Some claim he even engineered it. Either way, he knew all about it but didn't want to jeopardise the lend lease programme.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was thinking of the affair his daughter in law had with the US diplomat. Some claim he even engineered it. Either way, he knew all about it but didn't want to jeopardise the lend lease programme.

So what was that? "Close your eyes and think of England" - ?:D

who the fug

MarchDub wrote: »

So what was that? "Close your eyes and think of England" - ?:D

The Empire dear boy The Empire

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was thinking of the affair his daughter in law had with the US diplomat. Some claim he even engineered it. Either way, he knew all about it but didn't want to jeopardise the lend lease programme.

It is unlikey that it was engineered given that the daughter in law ended up marrying the diplomat. Its quite a jump though to claim that had Churchill jumped in that the lend-lease agreement could have been jeapordised. It was a very important agreement that kept Britain in arms for periods of the war. Actually to say that it could be jeopardised in this way is a very innocent view of the situation. Perhaps there is proof that this program could have been harmed by Churchill interfering in the affair??

ISAW

In Ireland or elsewhere.

I can post later about "democracy " but to continue from a discussion in the "why did Bobby sands Die?" thread
Here is the australian example where I was told was "genocide" was an "An Phoblacht" view

Fratton Fred wrote: »

"British Redcoats committed genocide in Australia".

You really need to stop getting your history from an phoblacht

Before British colonisation in 1803, there were an estimated 3,000–15,000 Parlevar.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/522350

the Black War is one of the earliest recorded modern genocides

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/f6fa372655dcc15fca256c3200241893?OpenDocument

At the time of British colonisation the Aborigines were formed into nine tribes, each of which had between six to fifteen ‘bands’. The population is thought to have been in the range of 4,000 to 10,000.

Today there aren't any! Not one? Not since 1905! All of the Indigenous Tasmanian languages have been lost. How come that tell me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim_massacre
In general, Aboriginal men were shot on sight and the women seized to serve the needs of shepherds and sealers, many of whom took two Aboriginal women each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#Australia

deise go deo

British Imperialism(And all other forms of Imperialism) Are rooted in racism, I dont think its effect here or anywhere has been positive on the whole.

The British Empire(Along with most Empires) Was run to suit Britain, not the Colonies(The Famine is as an Example of the results of this in practice) and as such the claim that it was of Benifit to Ireland when it was never intended to be are odd.

Claims have been made that Empire has had benifits(The what have the Romans ever done for us argument) But This argument relies on the assumption that the British Imperial System was better than what could have been created By the Native population given the Chance. Now Ireland without the British Empire would have been a Small Independent Nation in a European context, and as such We need only look at other small European Nations at the time to see the kind of Administrative system that is reasonable to Expect to have been created by the native Irish population. (Portugal or Bravaria would be comparable nations over the course of the relevant time). I think in this context we can see that any supposed 'British' Improvement in Ireland would have probably occurred anyway and as such Imperialism in Ireland was a negative thing overall.

RichieC

Positive for England...

Einhard

British imperialism did have some positive aspects, but then again, so did Nazi rule in Germany. The massive negative aspects of any form of imperialism, British or otherwise, far outweigh any positive factors.

cavedave

What is the comparison here? As in do we try pick the best coloniser? Or decide what the murder rate of the colonizers was in comparison to each other or to local rates?

There is an interesting article here that gives a comparison of the different colonial powers.

The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France.* Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese.
There is no disputing that thousands died in the wake of European explorers' discovery of the New World. That's bad. But we can still give a small cheer for Columbus, because European colonization brought riches in its wake

What would the British have to have done to be a positive influence?

southsiderosie

cavedave wrote: »

What is the comparison here? As in do we try pick the best coloniser? Or decide what the murder rate of the colonizers was in comparison to each other or to local rates?

There is an interesting article here that gives a comparison of the different colonial powers.

What would the British have to have done to be a positive influence?

I'm not sure about that article. Puerto Rico is in the Caribbean, not the Pacific. And it was a Spanish colony until the end of the 19th century. Actually, there are quite a few colonies that changed hands, so how exactly are we to judge? Plus how far back are we supposed to go - for example, is Brazil's success today to be attributed to them being a former Portuguese colony and not a country with vast and abundant natural resources and relatively stable macroeconomic policies?

PeterIanStaker

The British Empire continues to give employment to deluded buffoons like Myers long after its collapse.

Seriously though, all empires are parasites that consume and use up resources both human and material for their own needs.

Dirk Gently

I don't think any system where a foreign power, out of self interest suspends the local indigenous authority and assumes responsibility for civil, political and economic affairs to their own ends can be described as positive. In most cases nationalistic and insular movements spearhead the push for independence and tend to govern the post imperialism nation, which in itself creates its own problems. The natural evolution of nations, relative to their general geographic region is perverted under imperialism. Post imperialism, nations can have difficulty if they dismantle the old systems or indeed if they continue and try to maintain the former colonial systems themselves.

I think people who view imperialism as positive often compare newly emerging post colonial nations to when they were under imperialist rule. They fail to account for the difficulties of nation building caused by being a colony in the first place though. Lack of experienced leaders, underdeveloped industry, reduced trade opportunities, lack of indigenous entrepreneurs etc, all of which is a symptom of the foreign imperialist power pulling out, problems which exist because the local development had been suspended during the colony term in favour of achieving the best return for the imperialists.

Ireland is a classic example of this, amplified by partition of the north of the country which denied the new state access to the most industrialised and productive counties in the island at the time. If connemara had a high loyalist population and the 6 counties full of nationalists, I somehow doubt the partition of the Island would look much different to what is now. The problems of imperialism itself, and the mess left post imperialism could all be avoided without imperialism happening in the first place.

I don't think the question is "has imperialism been positive", I think the real question is which is more destructive, the colony period or the post colony period. How many 100's of years after the overt imperialist age ended will all those straight lines on maps be causing problems.

Fratton Fred

There's no Aborigines left in Australia? When did that happen?

Asking if British colonialism isn't a relevant question, because no colonialism is/was. A far better question would be was being colonized by the British better than being colonized by, for examp, Spain.

If it hadn't been Britain, it would have been someone else.

later12

Overall I would say that it has had a positive influence. But I would be careful about any hypotheses as regards influence... The influence upon society of basically deleting indigenous Tasmanian languages has probably been ,well, pretty minimal. I would reluctantly say the same about groups of Australasian peoples... the influence of their demise upon society has also, probably, been minimal. That is not to say that the human cost has not, in itself, been great.

In other words I just think that the question is poorly posed.

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There's no Aborigines left in Australia? When did that happen?

Asking if British colonialism isn't a relevant question, because no colonialism is/was. A far better question would be was being colonized by the British better than being colonized by, for examp, Spain.

If it hadn't been Britain, it would have been someone else.

There's none left in Tasmania, because they were all massacred.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

There's none left in Tasmania, because they were all massacred.

Massacred? By who?
There are no pure blooded Tasmanian aborigines left, a lot were killed in the black war, the vast majority died from smallpox and a lot married into other communities.

That is a massive, massive step from the OP's claim that the redcoats killed them all, which is why I questioned where his history came from

Iwasfrozen

While all things including Imperialism have their negitive effects, such as the massacres in Tasmania I think that overall Imperialism has been good for the world and the ops post was obviously biased. i.e focusing only on the bad rather then the good.