British Army War Crimes???

[Salonen]

Max hastings writes in the Daily Telegraph, 12-3-06.

In fairness, we should acknowledge that when Britain was "top nation" in the last days of empire, the British Army was sometimes less good at "hearts and minds" than we delude ourselves. Things happened in Kenya during the Mau Mau insurgency, in Cyprus, Aden and elsewhere that would today result in an orgy of war crimes trials.

So what did the British Army do in Kenya, Cypres, Aden and elsewhere which today would result in war crimes trials?

[DeltaWhisky58]

I would guess that British troops did the same things that the troops of other nations, e.g. France, Belgium, The Netherlands, the USA etc., etc., did when overseas in those days which would now be considered non-PC, and breach of human rights etc., etc.

If for example, we were allowed to use the tactics in Iraq, that we employed to defeat communist guerrilla forces in Malaysia in the 1950s/60s, then we might get the job done more quickly, but would the modern PC-oriented world tolerate this - I think not.

As for what they actually did - well that doesn't take too much working out does it?

[Lurps]

I would guess that British troops did the same things that the troops of other nations, e.g. France, Belgium, The Netherlands, the USA etc., etc., did when overseas in those days which would now be considered non-PC, and breach of human rights etc., etc.

If for example, we were allowed to use the tactics in Iraq, that we employed to defeat communist guerrilla forces in Malaysia in the 1950s/60s, then we might get the job done more quickly, but would the modern PC-oriented world tolerate this - I think not.Malaysia was a big succes by its result, can you tell more of the strategy and tactics used?

[DeltaWhisky58]

I'm afraid I am no expert on the Malaysian campaign by any means, but suffice to say that sound military tactics combined with a good hearts and minds campaign resulted in a total defeat of communist insurgents.

[TheKiwi]

Two big parts of success in Malaya:

1): The government passed some very strict "State of Emergency" laws (which were only repealed in the late 1980's from recollection). This meant that you could be locked up without trial on suspiscion on belonging to the Communist party. I'm sure that the Malay police also used some fairly coercive techniques to extract data.

2): Relocation of support. Whole villages were relocated to zones outside of where the Communists were operating and into "secured" towns. This dennied the Communists any local support (including food and shelter).

There's excellent coverage of this and other actions of the late 40's, 50's and 60's by the British Army on the "Britain's Small Wars" website:

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/

Coverage of:

India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and many more.

[TheKiwi]

Yes, and at least half of them were too young to have been even born during the time British troops were in Kenya. That's africa, everyone wants a fast $.

[DE6]

If you can stretch back to the turn of the century;

The British set up the first concentration camps in South Africa during the Boers War. An estimated 30, 000 civilians dies in the 31 camps.

It's still a controversial debate in certain circles. You can't really argue it was worthy of war tribunals (as we now define them) though, because the colonial period was full of "things" that would be scandalous today but were the norm at the time. In the case of the Boers camps, for instance, it's impossible to attach genocidal motives to them. It was a heavy-handed attempt at fighting an insurgence, then again, standards were different back then. Put in perspective, you'd have to go after every colonial power. Kinda pointless, it'd be like indicting modern Germany today for the holocaust, had it not been done in 1945.

One big difference, beyond non-PC public perception of the colonized' status, between the beginning of western interventionism/colonialism and the late 20th century is that back then, the people had much less direct access to the reality on the ground (or at least the reality the media wants to portray).

[Laworkerbee]

Well didn't the Brit's invent the "concentration camp" during the Boer war in S.Africa ?

crap didnt see the last post sorry DE6

[DeltaWhisky58]

If you can stretch back to the turn of the century;

The British set up the first concentration camps in South Africa during the Boers War. An estimated 30, 000 civilians dies in the 31 camps.


There is no doubt about this it is historical fact, however the reasoning behind this was to concentrate the Boer non-combatants in specific areas to prevent them from supplying the Boer commandos (fast moving fighting units) with food etc.

Yes, many died - especially women/children - however this was largely due to sickness and overcrowding, and despite being tragic it was never the intention of their British captors.

A war crime? That is a matter of opinion, however it pales into insignificance when compared to the actions of so many other so-called civilised countries, especially in recent years. Whilst I am not trying to justify the actions of the British Armed Forces and Government over the years, and have little doubt that atrocities did occur, I would say that Britain was only one of many nations similarly guilty. Some so-called civilised nations are still openly running concentration camps in 2006 - think about it!

[TheKiwi]

Apparently Belmarsh prison in the UK is your Guantanamo. Do you know that:

The prison fails to welcome new inmates in the requisite cheerful fashion. Indeed, not only is "the environment in reception bleak and stark", but, inexcusably, "reception staff addressed prisoners by their surnames only". As if that were not bad enough, "the holding room for induction had seating, but not information posters, reading material or television." The inspectorate reminds the governor that "reception staff should provide a welcoming, calming and safe atmosphere to new receptions and should be respectful in how they speak about and address prisoners."

Some prisoners complain that searches are not carried out "in a sensitive and understanding way". In general, prisoner complaints aren't handled in a timely fashion - the report notes, disapprovingly, that "less than 90% of complaints were answered in three working days". Nor do staff appear in a timely fashion when summoned - some cell call bells go unanswered for as long as 10 minutes!

The environment in reception is not the only one that's bleak. As the report somberly states, "some cells looked scruffy and needed redecoration". The prisoners' jobs are unacceptably "repetitive and mundane", and the food isn't too good either. In fact, "food was routinely placed in the trolleys in 10:30am and remained there for at least an hour before it was served".

All of the above is clearly bad enough, but what's really upsetting is the way in which staff relate to the prisoners.
"Although relationships between staff and prisoners had improved since our previous inspection, they were not yet pro-active or engaged. Staff responded politely to prisoners' queries, but interactions tended to be instructive and reactive. We did not see many staff freely conversing with prisoners in their care. During exercise periods, staff grouped together in a corner by the gate rather than interacting actively with prisoners."

[EsoognomEhT]

Apparently Belmarsh prison in the UK is your Guantanamo. Do you know that:

The prison fails to welcome new inmates in the requisite cheerful fashion. Indeed, not only is "the environment in reception bleak and stark", but, inexcusably, "reception staff addressed prisoners by their surnames only". As if that were not bad enough, "the holding room for induction had seating, but not information posters, reading material or television." The inspectorate reminds the governor that "reception staff should provide a welcoming, calming and safe atmosphere to new receptions and should be respectful in how they speak about and address prisoners."

Some prisoners complain that searches are not carried out "in a sensitive and understanding way". In general, prisoner complaints aren't handled in a timely fashion - the report notes, disapprovingly, that "less than 90% of complaints were answered in three working days". Nor do staff appear in a timely fashion when summoned - some cell call bells go unanswered for as long as 10 minutes!

The environment in reception is not the only one that's bleak. As the report somberly states, "some cells looked scruffy and needed redecoration". The prisoners' jobs are unacceptably "repetitive and mundane", and the food isn't too good either. In fact, "food was routinely placed in the trolleys in 10:30am and remained there for at least an hour before it was served".

All of the above is clearly bad enough, but what's really upsetting is the way in which staff relate to the prisoners.
"Although relationships between staff and prisoners had improved since our previous inspection, they were not yet pro-active or engaged. Staff responded politely to prisoners' queries, but interactions tended to be instructive and reactive. We did not see many staff freely conversing with prisoners in their care. During exercise periods, staff grouped together in a corner by the gate rather than interacting actively with prisoners."


hehehehehe

[Ubar]

There were plenty of ceoncentration camps used to gather slave labourers on the ivory coast etc owned by thedutch, belgians and germans etc. I don;t think there were many 'innocent' parties :P

[DE6]

There is no doubt about this it is historical fact, however the reasoning behind this was to concentrate the Boer non-combatants in specific areas to prevent them from supplying the Boer commandos (fast moving fighting units) with food etc.

Yes, many died - especially women/children - however this was largely due to sickness and overcrowding, and despite being tragic it was never the intention of their British captors.

A war crime? That is a matter of opinion, however it pales into insignificance when compared to the actions of so many other so-called civilised countries, especially in recent years. Whilst I am not trying to justify the actions of the British Armed Forces and Government over the years, and have little doubt that atrocities did occur, I would say that Britain was only one of many nations similarly guilty. Some so-called civilised nations are still openly running concentration camps in 2006 - think about it!

Yeah, that's what I meant when I pointed out it didn't have genocidal motives, or that indicting GB for crimes back then would require to lump in all colonial powers in order to remain intellectually honest.

A war crime? When you think about it, it's a pretty novel concept. Laws of war didn't appear until the late 19th century, basically all wars fought prior to 1945 were criminal in a way or another. Which is why I also said it'd be kinda pointless to indict GB for the camps, much less today.

[Kitsune]

If one wanted to discuss Brtitsh warcrimes the following three wars/uprisings could be considered:



1) The Mahdi uprising in Sudan (lasted basically from 1881 to 1898). Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmed
I could not find a reliable death-count, but quite few were killed.

2) The two Boer Wars. (1880-81 and 1899 to 1902). Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_war and decide for yourself wether excessive force was used by the British.

3) The Mau-Mau uprising in Kenia 1952 to 1960. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau and ponder the same question.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If one wanted to discuss Brtitsh warcrimes the following three wars/uprisings could be considered:



1) The Mahdi uprising in Sudan (lasted basically from 1881 to 1898). Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ahmed
I could not find a reliable death-count, but quite few were killed.

2) The two Boer Wars. (1880-81 and 1899 to 1902). Read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_war and decide for yourself wether excessive force was used by the British.

3) The Mau-Mau uprising in Kenia 1952 to 1960. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau and ponder the same question.
Maybe you should look up what you squareheads got up to in Africa during your own country's brief and unsuccessful colonial interlude before slinging mud at us matey :roll:

Oh of course I forgot you Germans are the eternal victims of European history aren't you. Let's face it when it comes to moaning about other peoples' past crimes you don't really have a leg to stand on do you.

[CMN]

Hmmm...there are much better sorurces than Wikipedia for the Boer War, unfortunately most of them need to be bought.

The Boer war however is a great study of the 'birth' of small unit tactics, which the Kommando's used. Hit and run, fantastic, what my ancestors deemed to be "bad form"!

Also whilst it is true that there are good stories of Boer families in internment being fed glass, the Boer's where no angels especially in regard to their treatment of the native people's.

Sadly today, and for the last few years, I have seen the black-Marxist backlash these past 'crimes' have now created...

[Vandervahn]

Maybe you should look up what you squareheads got up to in Africa during your own country's brief and unsuccessful colonial interlude before slinging mud at us matey :roll:

Oh of course I forgot you Germans are the eternal victims of European history aren't you. Let's face it when it comes to moaning about other peoples' past crimes you don't really have a leg to stand on do you.
*Sigh*

I advise you that if you choose to post in a thread, you should also read the opening post to get a clue of its synopsis. I will quote the thread start personally for you here and highlight the important sentence:

Max hastings writes in the Daily Telegraph, 12-3-06.

In fairness, we should acknowledge that when Britain was "top nation" in the last days of empire, the British Army was sometimes less good at "hearts and minds" than we delude ourselves. Things happened in Kenya during the Mau Mau insurgency, in Cyprus, Aden and elsewhere that would today result in an orgy of war crimes trials.

So what did the British Army do in Kenya, Cypres, Aden and elsewhere which today would result in war crimes trials?
Kitsune answered to this request, do you want to crucify him now? :cantbeli:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Kitsune answered to this request, do you want to crucify him now? :cantbeli:

Yes because his past postings indicate he's a not very subtle Nazi 'apologist'

[Asheren]

Yeah, that's what I meant when I pointed out it didn't have genocidal motives, or that indicting GB for crimes back then would require to lump in all colonial powers in order to remain intellectually honest.

A war crime? When you think about it, it's a pretty novel concept. Laws of war didn't appear until the late 19th century, basically all wars fought prior to 1945 were criminal in a way or another. Which is why I also said it'd be kinda pointless to indict GB for the camps, much less today.

Well i don't think term war crime is a good idea to call thing that happen before they were any kind of international law. It would be like calling ancient Romans war criminals and slavers.

[oldsoak]

The idea of concentrating people or forcibly deporting them to another area is not new - it predates the Brits by a few thousand years - the ancient empires of the middle east did the same. A very common tactic used to ensure that support for your enemy is broken up.

[martinexsquaddie]

but we invented the turn concentration camp
last time we were in iraq we dropped poison gas on uppity villagers instead of just buying them off.
you don't get to paint most of the world pink by being nice

[Ruledbyjames]

Yes the British caused war crimes in their past but so did all the former empires. What I do have to say is I think they are far too willing to forget the criminal acts they perpetrated.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Yes the British caused war crimes in their past but so did all the former empires. What I do have to say is I think they are far too willing to forget the criminal acts they perpetrated.

How exactly are the British forgetting? It's all there in the bleeding history books ffs. :roll:

It's not like Japan where denial is institutionalized in the education system.
Maybe we should say that a certain strand of Irish Republicans are too willing to deny the criminal acts they have perpetrated all too recently.

[DE6]

Well i don't think term war crime is a good idea to call thing that happen before they were any kind of international law. It would be like calling ancient Romans war criminals and slavers.

But that's exactly what I' m saying. Did you read my post, or just a few words here and there?


Originally Posted by DE6
Yeah, that's what I meant when I pointed out it didn't have genocidal motives, or that indicting GB for crimes back then would require to lump in all colonial powers in order to remain intellectually honest.

A war crime? When you think about it, it's a pretty novel concept as in, no laws existed therefore no war crimes per se. Laws of war didn't appear until the late 19th century, basically all wars fought prior to 1945 were criminal in a way or another. Which is why I also said it'd be kinda pointless to indict GB for the camps, much less today.

[Asheren]

I read whole it somehow mixed in my head with other posts, went to bed today at 2:30 am and was trying to post and work at same time, soo you know accidents might happen in such conditions.

[oldsoak]

but we invented the turn concentration camp
last time we were in iraq we dropped poison gas on uppity villagers instead of just buying them off.
you don't get to paint most of the world pink by being nice

PINK !? - Its RED man, RED !! as in redcoats and blood !
aaah, bring backs the days of stability fuelled by exploitation and we wouldnt have half the trouble we have now...mutter, mutter, mumble, mumble...:-P

[Ruledbyjames]

A very ex stab, I am in no way a supporter of the modern IRA and what they have done ( so please dont play that card). What I meant by my statement was that alot of what the British empire did (not in Ireland alone) is wanted to be forgotten . Since I am no expert on International history I will tell you what I know.

During the early 20th in Ireland there there were countless acts of what we would call "war crimes". The army firing upon crowds etc. etc. If you want I will give you names and dates. I have alot of respect for Britain (being half British) but I do think they protect themselves alot by saying it was in the days of the empire.

I do agree with DE6 that a war crime is a novel aspect but are we not interpreting actions of the past into the fields of what we know is a war crime now?

[oldsoak]

I think you have to be aware that the 20th century saw a major change in what was considered "acceptable" behaviour. The incidents to which you refer ( one of which was the Croke park massacre ) do belong to the age of Empire, because the arrogance of Empire is what shaped the pysche of the Government of the time. It certainly shaped attitudes to natives in the colonies. Unfortunately, until those in power retired from governement, the attitude persisted. Another Croke park in this day and age would result in an instant investigation and court-martials for those involved - as opposed to the sweeping under the carpet that happened at the time. ( it was viewed as a tit for tat in reprisal for the first bloody Sunday ) . All this has happened in living memory ( well, almost ). The British or Irish soldier in 2006 does not have the same attitude to "natives" that was prevalent in 1906 or 1956.

[Ruledbyjames]

I thought we were taking past incidents ( Bloody Sunday 1920) and putting modern rules of war on them. Of course the modern British army wouldnt drive into a packed stadium and fire into a crowd. The snobbery of the Empire is dead and gone.

[USGRANT64]

What the British did wrong is that the war they were fighting in Africa and elsewhere was not universally popular. This time the enemy was not German fascists but "oppressed" natives.

War is never a good thing and to think that in the 1950/60's Britain suddenly started committing human rights violations is nonsense. You do not win wars by being a "nice guy." It's just that as I said the "enemy" was not PC.
Now when the enemy is a Kenyan rather than a German the press does not look the other way but instead puts the magnifying glass on the British army tactics.

Looking at the British army's conduct by and large in the past century is fairly clean. Why? Because the British Army has always relied on well-disciplined volunteers as opposed to draftees. Draftees tend to hate army life and discipline and are just doing their time until they get out. They make problem soldiers when they have too much time on their hands and especially so if the war is unpopular.

Career soldiers on the other hand are looking toward remaining in Army and are much more inclined not to "dirty" their own house. So they are less a discipline problem when it comes to rapes and robberies perpetrated on a subjugated populace.

BTW when I was with the 4th infantry regiment in Germany during the 1980’s we used to be the aggressor force for the NATO LERP School in Weingarten, Germany from time to time. The students of the school were from all over Europe. The final phase of the course was for individual teams to try and perform scouting missions without being detected or captured by the aggressor force.
I will not say here which countries were the easiest to catch. Although, I must confess US Army cadets (VII or V Corps Lerps, Rangers, or Green Berets from Bad Tölz did not fair well.) The British troops were always the best we rarely caught any of them before the last day. Typically, the ones caught were SAS reservists (guys in their 30’s) and dead tired. The Royal Marine commandos and Para’s- Forget it!!! They were GOOD!!! We usually relied on helicopters and Dragon thermal sites to catch them at night.

Oh the Greek cadets were good too. Because they were lunatics!!!

Phil

[Kitsune]

@a_very_ex_STAB :

I don't know what your problem is. Many Brits seem delighted every time they can point an accusing finger against Germans because of the Nazi past. Or, while their at it, because of the Wilheminian one. Basically like you did: Germanies "brief and unsuccessful colonial interlude". What was so unsuccessful about it anyway? The German colonies were not worse off than those managed by other European nations. Of course, Britain and France used such accusations to annex each and every German colony in 1919. But the truth is, that Germany has done nothing what Britain (or France, or Belgium...or others) would not have done. Or have done, for that matter.
In any case I have just answered the question posed in this thread. If you have any issues with this, try to have it closed because it would hurt your feelings.

Good Luck.

[DE6]

I read whole it somehow mixed in my head with other posts, went to bed today at 2:30 am and was trying to post and work at same time, soo you know accidents might happen in such conditions.

All cool, no harm done, was just making sure I wasn't starting a flamewar out of a misunderstanding.

Cheers

[Johnny_H]

Max hastings writes in the Daily Telegraph, 12-3-06.

In fairness, we should acknowledge that when Britain was "top nation" in the last days of empire, the British Army was sometimes less good at "hearts and minds" than we delude ourselves. Things happened in Kenya during the Mau Mau insurgency, in Cyprus, Aden and elsewhere that would today result in an orgy of war crimes trials.

So what did the British Army do in Kenya, Cypres, Aden and elsewhere which today would result in war crimes trials?
Define War Crimes?

I mean here is why I ask my question.
There was often very little regard for POW's in Victorias "Little wars" quater was given on nethier side. However most notably in the Anglo Zulu war of 1879 Orders from Lord Chelmsford himself were strict in that Zulu non combatents IE Women and Children or old men were NOT to be harmed in any fashion.

That being said, over half of the Zulu casualties were men the British regiments and the NNC tracked down after a battle, hiding, running away, or trying to surrender. No POW's were taken, on ethier side at Islandlwana 800 british soldiers of 1st Battalion 24th 1/24 Warwickshire Reg were wiped out, no quater asked or given.

At Rorkes Drift when 100 soldiers of the 2nd Battalion 1/24 Warwickshires held against four thousend Zulu's its estimated they killed 400-500 in action, and then a further 400-600 possibly when they and the relief column from Helpmaaker went in pursuit of Zulu stragglers hiding in caves or trying to make thier way back to Uluindi. The Wounded Zulus were bayoneted and buried, this in todays context would constitute a war crime, yet the Zulu war was fought on both sides with the respect that Non Combatents would not be harmed, there was just no quater on the Field.

So make of that what you will, obviously the British "Camps" for Boers were a small pretext of things to come, the camps often suffered from disease etc, this could be considered a "Crime" or the British Rule in India which held the masses down again could be considered a "Crime" the thing about hindsight is its always 20/20 and todays rules dont apply to yesterday nessecarily, because the terrible things that happend in the past enable us to make these rules so that they dont re-occur. So finger pointing Britain now for Crimes of a hundred, two hundred or more years ago.... seems pointless to serve nothing or no one but people "out to get something"



( 1/24 Warwickshires Later became the 24th South Wales Boarderers but NOT untill 1881 )

[oldsoak]

@a_very_ex_STAB :

I don't know what your problem is. Many Brits seem delighted every time they can point an accusing finger against Germans because of the Nazi past. Or, while their at it, because of the Wilheminian one. Basically like you did: Germanies "brief and unsuccessful colonial interlude". What was so unsuccessful about it anyway? The German colonies were not worse off than those managed by other European nations. Of course, Britain and France used such accusations to annex each and every German colony in 1919. But the truth is, that Germany has done nothing what Britain (or France, or Belgium...or others) would not have done. Or have done, for that matter.
In any case I have just answered the question posed in this thread. If you have any issues with this, try to have it closed because it would hurt your feelings.

Good Luck.

Kitsune, it is unfortunate for modern Germans that WWII is still in living memory, which is why Germans get a lot of triumphalistic cra*p thrown at them about episodes of German history over which most living Germans have had nothing to do with. Our Empire had been gone almost as long as WWII and we still get the accusing finger, so we are pretty much in the same boat.
The annexation of German colonies had nothing to do with the allegations of mismanagement - German colonies were actually well organised, they had to be in order to make them economically viable - it was to do with ensuring Germany stripped of influence and power and increasing the holdings of the allies.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

@a_very_ex_STAB :

I don't know what your problem is. Many Brits seem delighted every time they can point an accusing finger against Germans because of the Nazi past. Or, while their at it, because of the Wilheminian one. Basically like you did: Germanies "brief and unsuccessful colonial interlude". What was so unsuccessful about it anyway? The German colonies were not worse off than those managed by other European nations. Of course, Britain and France used such accusations to annex each and every German colony in 1919. But the truth is, that Germany has done nothing what Britain (or France, or Belgium...or others) would not have done. Or have done, for that matter.
In any case I have just answered the question posed in this thread. If you have any issues with this, try to have it closed because it would hurt your feelings.

Good Luck.

I was merely pointing out indirectly that German colonialists indulged in the kind of massacres etc (notably in what is now Namibia) that you seem to feel were the exclusive habit of us evil British imperialist baby murderers.
Why are you alway so keen to keep trying to point out the past evils of the British Empire - are you trying to divert attention from the millions your lot murdered only 60 years ago?

[XShipRider]

That's africa, everyone wants a fast $.
Gauging from the unrelenting poverty and warring throughout
Africa, one would conclude there is only one (1) fast $ to be had
continent-wide.

[Knutsen]

By no means i'm an expert in British war crimes, but as pointed out, the brits essentially did what everyone else did in their colonies which with today's standards (which i'm happy to have) would be considered as genocide in some cases and war crimes in others.
It's just a pity these crimes commited in the past are used as a (not very smart) debate tool around this board. Germans= Nazis, Spaniards= slaughtered milions of indians, etc etc.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

By no means i'm an expert in British war crimes, but as pointed out, the brits essentially did what everyone else did in their colonies which with today's standards (which i'm happy to have) would be considered as genocide in some cases and war crimes in others.
It's just a pity these crimes commited in the past are used as a (not very smart) debate tool around this board. Germans= Nazis, Spaniards= slaughtered milions of indians, etc etc.

Precisely
The difference between the Brits and the Germans being that the Germans were committing massive war crimes/genocide during a fairly recent period of history in which such acts were widely considered to actually be crimes against humanity.

[Knutsen]

Precisely
The difference between the Brits and the Germans being that the Germans were committing massive war crimes/genocide during a fairly recent period of history in which such acts were widely considered to actually be crimes against humanity.

Of course, but that Germany of 70 years ago is not the same Germany today and yet many people don't realise it.

[Para]

Yes Britain brought in the first actual Concentration Comps during the Boer War, the idea behind them was good, to stop flow of information to the Boer Troops and cut of their food and remounts horses. It fell down due the some of the Senior Officers who were appointed to run the run the camps failed to to their jobs. When the problems about the camps became known in Britain it brought about the downfall of the Government.
Now back to Small Wars after WW2 now I was involved in some of these and they were nasty bloody little affairs and the last thing you wanted to do was to fall into their hands, as I have seen the bodies of our soldiers that did have the misfortune to be captured. Now I never saw any of of troops torture any one but there once a fire fight started there were very few prisoners ever taken. Some thing you can check on is just how many British POW of war were exchanged at the end of any of these conflicts.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Of course, but that Germany of 70 years ago is not the same Germany today and yet many people don't realise it.

I realise that. I go there frequently as my wife has relatives there.

[Atlantic Friend]

@a_very_ex_STAB : Of course, Britain and France used such accusations to annex each and every German colony in 1919.

And Japan (Tsingtao and some Pacific islands in the Bismarck Sea). And the United States (Samoa).

As for the short German colonial era, there's the question of the repression of the Herero uprising.

But of course we can debate whether other colonial powers would have done the same. Considering what we know of the French and Spanish Rif campaigns, the American repression of a Muslim rebellion in the Philippines, Great Britain's heavy hand in the Boer War, in Ireland and India, I guess we can safely assume that Germany operated within normal imperial standards.

[yyzkfaz]

British War Crimes

Jallianwala Bagh massacre,


The gathering

On April 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_13), thousands of Punjabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjabi) Indians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian) gathered in the Jallianwala Bagh in the heart of Amritsar, one of the major cultural, religious and commercial towns of Punjab state. The occasion was Baisakhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baisakhi) Day, a Sikh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) religious day. A tradition had been established for Sikhs to gather in Amritsar to participate in the Baisakhi festival. Those coming from the rural areas of Amritsar District were unaware of the events in Amritsar as communications were inadequate and highly underdeveloped in Punjab. According to the legal niceties, the gathering in the Bagh was in violation of the prohibitory orders banning gatherings of five or more persons in the city, a term of martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amritsar_massacre&action=edit&section=3)]
[/URL]
The massacre

A band of 90 soldiers armed with rifles and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukri"]kukris (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/) marched to the park accompanied by two armoured cars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_cars) on which machine guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_guns) were mounted. The vehicles were unable to enter the Bagh through the narrow entrance.
The troops were commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer) who, immediately upon entering the Bagh and without the slightest warning to the crowd to disperse, ordered his troops to open fire, concentrating especially on the areas where the crowd was thickest. The firing started at 17:15 and lasted for about ten to fifteen minutes. The Bagh, or garden, was bounded on all sides by brick walls and buildings and had only 5 narrow entrances, most of which were kept permanently locked.
Since there was only one exit except for the one already manned by the troops, people desperately tried to climb the walls of the park. Some also jumped into a well inside the compound to escape the bullets. A plaque in the monument says that 120 bodies were plucked out of the well alone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Dyre.jpg/200px-Dyre.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dyre.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dyre.jpg)
Reginald Dyer. The Butcher of Amritsar according to Nigel Collett (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nigel_Collett&action=edit)


After the firing was over, hundreds of people had been killed and thousands had been injured. Official estimates put the figures at 379 killed (337 men, 41 boys and a six week old baby) and 200 injured, though the actual figure was almost certainly much higher (see above); the wounded could not be moved from where they had fallen, as a curfew had been declared. Debate about the actual figures continues to this day.
Back in his headquarters, Brigadier-General Dyer reported to his superiors that he had been confronted by a revolutionary army, and had been obliged to teach a moral lesson to the Punjab.
In a telegram sent to Dyer, British Lieutenant-Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant-Governor) of Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O%27Dwyer) wrote: "Your action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves" [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_Massacre#_note-9).
O'Dwyer, requested that martial law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law) be imposed upon Amritsar and other areas; this was granted by the Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Thesiger%2C_1st_Viscount_Chelmsford), after the massacre.
Brigadier-General Dyer's rank was non-substantive, only a temporary rank, held because he was commanding 45 Brigade at Jullundur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jullundur).
Dyer was called to appear before the Hunter Commission, a commission of inquiry into the massacre that was ordered to convene by Secretary of State for India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_for_India) Edwin Montagu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Montagu), in late 1919. Dyer admitted before the commission that he came to know about the meeting at the Jallianwala Bagh at 12:40 hours that day, but took no steps to prevent it. He stated that he had gone to the Bagh with the deliberate intention of opening fire if he found a crowd assembled there.
"I think it quite possible that I could have dispersed the crowd without firing but they would have come back again and laughed, and I would have made, what I consider, a fool of myself." — Dyer's response to the Hunter Commission Enquiry
Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop firing when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep firing until the crowd dispersed, and that a little firing would do no good.
He confessed that he did not take any steps to tend to the wounded after the firing. Certainly not. It was not my job. Hospitals were open and they could have gone there, was his response.

[yyzkfaz]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Amritsar_Massacre.jpg

[a_very_ex_STAB]

British War Crimes

Jallianwala Bagh massacre,


Yawn

1919 Gurkha troops under British command kill 379 people in Amritsar. General Dyer sent packing in disgrace with his reputation and career in tatters.

1985 Indian security forces kill 700+ people in Amritsar. Tea and medals all round.

Seems that its only a crime if colonialists do it but not if the natives do it to each other:roll:

[oldsoak]

Each generation brings its own values. My Grandfather came from a generation where hanging a murderer was seen as totally right. Our generation view hanging as an infringement of human rights and totally wrong. Dyer was found wrong by the standards of his time and he was in effect sacked. Nowadays he'd be heading for a long stretch in prison. Events are best judged at the time - its how we are now that matters.

[yyzkfaz]

Yawn

1919 Gurkha troops under British command kill 379 people in Amritsar. General Dyer sent packing in disgrace with his reputation and career in tatters.

1985 Indian security forces kill 700+ people in Amritsar. Tea and medals all round.

Seems that its only a crime if colonialists do it but not if the natives do it to each other:roll:

1985 ....700 Killed
now that i had no idea about ,,,,,,,
was it a peace rally or something?
any info you can provide as i was in Punjab in 1985 and
i was not aware of it.

thanks

[a_very_ex_STAB]

1985 ....700 Killed
now that i had no idea about ,,,,,,,
was it a peace rally or something?
any info you can provide as i was in Punjab in 1985 and
i was not aware of it.

thanks
Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. Think the leader of the Sikh rebels in the Temple was called something like Sant Bhindranwale

[yyzkfaz]

well sir that is kind of diffrent.
The people were criminals, do you know how many innocent poor people were pulled out of busses and traines and shot by them and off course all the bomb's in train and bus bombs in Delhi.

There is some diffrence between shooting people at a peace rally who had no weapons and going into a temple taken over by peple who have machine guns and yaada yaada yaada....

[yyzkfaz]

By mid May 1984 Punjab had been gripped by terror for nearly three years. The Pakistan-backed terrorist movement had acquired monstrous proportions. Not a day went by without massacres of Hindus, Sikhs, migrant workers and those who opposed the terrorists diktats. From Golden Temple, the most sacred symbol of Sikhism and seat of its religious power, hit lists were drawn up and death squads were dispatched under the guidance of the malevolent figure Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

At H-hour, the men of 10 Guards, under Lt. Col. Mohammed Israr geared up to maintain their reputation as one of the world's finest troops. At 10:30 pm, the leading elements of the 10 Guards moved in through the main gate. Immediately they came under heavy and accurate machine gun fire, cleverly sited through wired enclosures on either side of steps. While some troops broke through the trap and reached the ground floor, others cleared the machine gun nests.
For those who made it across the steps, another nightmare awaited. For the couple of minutes they were caught in the open, before taking the cover of the Parikrama,they were fired upon from the Parikrama itself. 20 soldiers were mowed down in the initial assault.
The troops started inching their way towards the Akal Takht but were fired upon from the southern side.
Meanwhile each room had to be cleared along the Parikrama, many by hand-to-hand combat. Militants would come out and lob a few grenades and rush back in. As troops cleared a room and moved forward they found militants again appearing from the rooms. Unknown to the Army, was an elaborate structure of concealed manholes and underground passages connecting the rooms. Meanwhile a machine gun sited about 12 inches from the ground opened fire. This low siting meant that even the crawling troops were hit.
The Parikrama was exposed to fire from all four sides. Realising their predicament, the Commandos dashed from pillar to pillar trying to cut off the opressing fire. As they reached the Akal Takht their misery was compounded by the devastating machine gun fire from the fortified Akal Takht, as well as the Harmandir Sahib and the area of Darshani Deori-Toshakana. Caught between the Sarovar on one side and the fortified concrete building on the other, the commandos had no option but to inch their way forward by fire and movement.
The Guardsmen were asked to bring down fire on the northern side from whatever portions of the northern side they had secured. By midnight the Guards had secured the eastern half of the North Wing but the Western side was only 75% secured. Due to the severe casualties suffered by the first two companies, the third company was pressed in. One platoon climbed to the first floor using aluminum ladders. They then moved methodically clearing the rooms one by one by lobbing grenades and spraying it with fire. Another platoon likewise moved from the first to the second floor and started clearing the rooms. Troops moving up from the ground floor were suddenly fired upon by militants through an opening in the wall next to the stairs. Some casualties resulted, but the troops quickly wiped them out. By now 145 militants lay dead along with 19 Guardsmen. By 1 am, the Guards had secured their objective and could provide covering fire to the beleaguered commandos.
The commandos were still inching their way to the Akal Takht. This five-storied building was heavily fortified with all windows, balconies and other openings closed with brick masonry and sandbags, with small loop holes through which machine guns were being fired and grenades being lobbed. Together with a double storied building, the Nishan Sahib building and the Darshani Deori, they transformed the quadrangle into an ideal killing field. The leading team of para commandos made a desperate dash for the Darshani Deori. The foothold was needed to launch the CS canisters. Of the 35 men, only 12 made it. The remainder including, team leader Major Prakash Chand Katoch, were cut down. The SFF started with 50 men, had already suffered 17 casualties (3 dead).
Serai Entrance - Eastern Side
On the eastern side, the 26 Madras was expected to enter and then sweep the southern side of any resistance. The entry from the southern side was ruled out because of the narrow passage not allowing for entry of any vehicle. But two companies of 9 Garhwal were stealthily brought in, as backup near the Southern entrance. But they had been delayed by a steel gate which was much more formidable then expected. It needed a tank to ram it down.
At H-hour, 26 Madras started to move in but came under a withering fire from atop the Langar, Guru Ram Das Serai, SGPC building, Manji Sahib and Gurdwara Baba Atal Rai. In addition the steel gate was proving difficult to break. 30 metres from the gate they came under fire from medium machine guns from the Deori itself. A section went ahead to lob grenades and clear it, but could not succeed. The committing of the reserves was decided based on the fact that the Guards were now more or less in control of the northern side. Garhwalis moved with little difficulty and by 1:30 am had secured the ground and upper floors of the southern gate.
At 2 am the overall picture was as follows:
1. The 10th Guards after suffering heavy casualties, had more or less secured the northern wing. Sporadic militant activity from concealed chambers was still a problem.
2. 26 Madras operation had stalled, but was now gaining ground between the eastern and southern wings. However there was still heavy opposition.
3. 2 companies of 9 Garhwal had secured a foothold in the southern gate.
4. 1 Para Cdo and SFF operation had bogged down within reach of the Akal Takht.
Reorganising
Meanwhile Maj. Gen. (retd.) Shahbeg Singh (advisior to Bhinderanwale) realising that the only way to win was to hold of the Indian Army till dawn, poured in an even higher volume of fire. Brar now sought Sundarji's permission to use tank fire to neutralise the Akal Takht's concrete defenses. Sundarji watching the proceedings from the Divisional Tactical HQ, agreed and relayed the request to New Delhi. Meanwhile reports started trickling of volatile Sikh masses gathering on the outskirts of Amritsar.
In the meantime, in order to help the SFF and Paras, a tank was brought in and asked to switched on its search light. It was hoped that this would temporarily blind the defenders as well as allow the SFF and Paras locate some of the defences. But unfortunately this move failed as the Xenon lamps filament burned out in a couple of minutes. When this happened, another tank was moved in followed by a third. Thus all 3 tanks were in the Parikrama. At about 4 am, a Skot APC was moved in. The APC was supposed to take a squad right up to the Akal Takht.The Guards were asked to fire a few 84mm Carl Gustaf rocket rounds at the Akhal Takht to precede the arrival of the APC. As the APC was approaching the Akal Takht, it was hit by an RPG-7 anti-tank rocket from the Akal Takht. This came as a complete shock as none had been expected. As the APC squad dismounted and retreated, the driver was shot by a sniper.
By then dawn was approaching and soon the troops in the Parikrama would become sitting ducks. At 5:10 am the clearance to use tanks came from Delhi. The first assault was led by 'A' Company of 15 Kumaon. Led by Major B.K. Mishra, a group of men reached the footsteps of Akal Takht, the first group to make contact. As they climbed the stairs, a machine gun opened up from the inside and all seven men were mowed down. More machine gun fire rained from the base and the buildings on both side and the Kumaonis were thrown back with heavy casualties.
It was clear that the tank machine gun fire was not enough.One group led by Subedar K.P. Raman Ravi and 4 ORs was to destroy the bunker covering the stairs by hurling pole charges. Another led by the Lt and 4 ORs was to rush the first floor and silence the machine gun there.
As the groups reached the Akal Takht, 8-9 fortified machine guns opened up. Valiantly the two groups moved forward. Subedar Ravi and his men reached the bunker and were about to launch their charges when they were cut down by machine gun fire. Lt. Dang and his men also managed to reach the first floor only to be cut down by machine gun fire. Two of the wounded men managed to crawl back.
Lt. Dang, although wounded, tried to pull the wounded Subedar Ravi with him but had to give up due to the heavy fire. The barbarism of the terrorists now came through. Subedar Ravi was dragged back, attached with sticks of dynamite and blown up in full view of the other troops. In spite of this, discipline still held. 26 Madras had suffered 14 dead and 49 wounded.
Progress of Operations

[/URL] [URL="http://www.sikh.com.au/blue/images/BluestarMap3_small.jpg"] (http://www.sikh.com.au/blue/images/BluestarMap2_small.jpg)


It was 7:30 am and daylight was well upon the troops. The temple complex marble was a sea of olive green and red as dead army personnel and terrorists lay sprawled all over. The Temple of God, was a full fledged fortress. With no other option the Generals authorised the tanks to use their 105mm main guns. The high explosive squash rounds smashed into the Akal Takht throwing up flames and masonry. This subdued the machine guns. Except for a few machine gun bursts it was now calm. All troops were asked to stay in the building they had secured and wait till dusk before launching an attack to clear the Akal Tkaht of any remaining militants. At 11 am a large number of militants rushed out of the Akal Takht on to the Parikrama and fled towards the gates. Most were cut down. Seeing that the troops were not firing on the Harmandir Sahib some of them jumped in the Sarovar and tried to swim towards it. They too were killed. This led to a group of militants emerging from the Akal Takht, waving white flags. Then the Akal Takht suddenly went silent. To the army commanders it was an indication that the top leadership of Bhindranwale, Maj. Gen. (retd.) Shabegh and Amrik Singh had either escaped or had been killed.
The Hostel Complex.
The main buildings of the Hostel Complex were:-
(A) Guru Ram Das Langar - double storied heavily fortified building commanding a view of the side entrances and open area leading to Parikrama.
(B)Guru Ram Das Serai (Akal Takht Rest House) - 3 storied building, 228 rooms and seven halls.
(C)Teja Singh Samundari - the office of SGPC, and was occupied by Longowal, Tohra, Ramoowalia and others.
(D)Guru Nanak Niwas - 4 storied building with fortified roof tops, 85 rooms and one hall.
(E)Other buildinds in the complex were Guru Nanak Niwas, Manji Sahib and Baba Atal Gurdwara.
As mentioned earlier the operations was in the hands of 9 Kumaon. The operation was to commence at 10 pm, with the simultaneous launch of the Paras and SFF. It had three Vijayantas, six BMPs and three Skot APCs to provide machine gun support. In addition they were to break open the gates to help 26 Madras to enter the eastern gate. On schedule, 9 Kumaon moved into the Guru Ram Das Serai. A company was deployed on each of the three floors with the fourth held in reserve. The troops encountered opposition from each of the floors although it was lighter than the Temple complex. At many a place hand to hand combat resulted. The troops secured all corners and stairwells, as the rooms were to be cleared later in mopping operations. By 1:30 a.m. the building was isolated from the rest of the complex. Two companies were left behind to secure it.
The rest of the unit led by Lt. Col. K. Bhaumik moved to clear the Teja Singh Samundari Hall. The building was isolated by 2:30 am and an emissary sent to establish contact with Tohra and Longowal. Both men had initially vowed to defend the Temple to their death but now agreed to surrender. Major H.K. Palta with a few men went into meet the leaders which also included Ramoowalia, Akali Dal secretary Gurcharan Singh, SGPC member Bagga Singh and head of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Bibi Amarjit Kaur. The leaders were fearful that they might be targeted and needed protection. As the troops started leading them out a group of 350 devotees rushed out to join them. At this, the terrorists threw hand grenades in the crowd and sniped at them. There were terrorists holed up in manholes, tunnels and concealed basements. The only area of resistance continued to be the langar. The militants continued to pour machine gun fire and hurl grenades. The Kumaonis fired back with everything at their disposal. At one point the wheat and kerosene caught fire sending huge columns of smoke. Gas cylinders caught fire and exploded intermittently. This fighting however was a rearguard action allowing some 40 Babbar Khalsa activists to escape. By the early hours of the morning on June 7th, the fighting suddenly died down. Perhaps they had learnt the fate of their leaders in the Akal Takht.
Mopping Operations, 7th - 9th June
At this stage the job of clearing the many rooms, concealed tunnels and basements began. A number of activists were captured and handed over to the Punjab Police and intelligence agencies. Meanwhile other units began cleaning the remains of the battle. The snipers continued to take potshots. When President Zail Singh was visiting the complex a sniper's round hit his bodyguard Lt. Col. M.P. Choudhary of the SFF in the arm. The sniper was spotted on the terrace and was gunned down.Two companies of 10 Dogra joined 9 Kumaon, in the flushing operations. At this point a burst of gunfire from the area around the bunga wounded four soldiers. While the rest fanned out to search for the militants, Captain Ramphal of the Medical Corps and his nursing assistants were attending to the casualties. Suddenly a group of militants emerged from a concealed tunnel and grabbed Captain Ramphal and 2 soldiers of 10 Dogra. As the alarm was raised, the SFF and 10 Dogra got into position to clear the tunnel. The militants were asked to surrender. Their responses was to ask for the Head Priest Giani Sahib Singh. When he was brought the militants demanded that he be sent in. The scared Head Priest refused to go in and troops got ready to blast their way in. A demolition party crawled up and fixed explosives to the grill at the entrance. When it was blown up the SFF charged in and in the firefight, killed 7 militants inside only to find that the three soldiers had been executed in a inhumane manner. Their limbs had been chopped of.
Search of various areas revealed cash, weapons and survival rations stashed away. Behind the Akhal Takht, a lone militant jumped down and tried to make a getaway. He was caught and his turban fell away to reveal a wad of currency notes. Further interrogation revealed him to be one of many criminal elements who had taken refuge in the Temple complex . He further indicated that many others had dumped valuables in the well behind the building during the course of the fighting. 12 Bihar and the Engineers lowered an anchor in the well. The first attempt pulled up 19 weapons and cash. As Naval divers joined the search it revealed Rs.20 lakhs in cash sealed in trunks, gold and silver biscuits, transmitters and weapons and ammunition. A weapons manufacturing unit was discovered in a room at the top of the Deori with grenades, country pistols and rifles in various stages of manufacture. All this added to the ability to convert the holy Golden Temple into an armed fortress.
The army suffered 83 dead and 248 wounded. A total of 492 terrorists and others were killed and 86 wounded. About 1500 people were captured,which included a number of Pakistanis

[a_very_ex_STAB]

By mid May 1984 Punjab had been gripped by terror for nearly three years. The Pakistan-backed terrorist movement had acquired monstrous proportions. Not a day went by without massacres of Hindus, Sikhs, migrant workers and those who opposed the terrorists diktats. From Golden Temple, the most sacred symbol of Sikhism and seat of its religious power, hit lists were drawn up and death squads were dispatched under the guidance of the malevolent figure Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

You're parroting the government version there. You and I both know that when badsh1t happens in India it NEVER happens on a small scale.

Then there's all the bad sh1t that's been going down in Kashmir over the last few decades. The Indian security forces are hardly blameless there either or in Gujarat a couple of years back. But like I said it's only a crime in India if it's evil British colonialists doing it innit

[Vandervahn]

... But like I said it's only a crime in India if it's evil British colonialists doing it innit
And you continue to hijack an otherwise informative thread placed in the "Military History" section and that precisely asks for examples of "British crimes", not German crimes (there are enough threads about that), Indian crimes (there are enough threads about the Indian conflicts, too), Japanese or Irish crimes or how much the british behaviour was in line with other imperialistic factions in their time.

Noone doubts that the standards the western world and the UK in specific holds today are a lot less discriminatory than they were 100 or 200 years ago - and there is no point in drawing any comparisons to other "bad deeds" like you do, people are merely giving examples of LONG GONE crimes done by troops acting under the crown.

I dont understand why you act so artificially offended.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I dont understand why you act so artificially offended.

err probably because I'm not:roll:

[DeltaWhisky58]

yyzkfaz - the account you have quoted appears very one-sided and biased, could you please give details of its source.

[yyzkfaz]

Hi,,,
A_Very_ex_STAB
I have no idea what your point is.
The British ruled India and they did what they had to do. The Indian Army has to do what they have to do. I dont think the India Army blames the British for Operation Blue Star. The british ruled the world at one point so they must have known what worked at that time.

DeltaWhisky58
I have tried to give the actual events of the operation not the politics involved. You can actualy read all that on Google. There are always 2 sides of the story and then there is the truth.
.............
My intrest are the military operation not to descide who was right or wrong and in my opinion any one who breaks the law is a criminal. So if a so called freedom fighter kills some he did break the law and he is a criminal whatever the justification of doing so.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Hi,,,
A_Very_ex_STAB
I have no idea what your point is.
The British ruled India and they did what they had to do. The Indian Army has to do what they have to do. I dont think the India Army blames the British for Operation Blue Star. The british ruled the world at one point so they must have known what worked at that time.


My point is that there is no point to these threads about war crimes. They always seem to be started by some revisionist who wants to divert attention from his own country's past or present massive misbehaviour by starting a thread about someone else's past or present misbehaviour.

[oldsoak]

I think we have to be realistic about how our values evolve and how we judge past events. We have far more rules regarding acceptable behavior in policing or war than we did. Colonial expansion was totally acceptable 200 years ago, its not now. You have to judge by the morals of the time.