The Wrong Nations Won WW2
Options
Comments
-
"(Nazis for the win)"kingblaze84 wrote: »Pretty good list all things being considered, but why isn't Britain number one?
and this final part is why we have to say "well, hold on there." trying to have a SLIGHT distinction between ? governments and ? people here.kingblaze84 wrote: »Also, didn't America ? off way more then France's empires did? I mean as bad as France was, Americans did commit genocide against the natives on a widepread scale and basically almost took a whole continent. I understand many of those killings weren't sanctioned by the American govt-
regimes like the Nazis and the USSR had a desire to expand direct physical control over more and more nations and then export their less-savory ways to them (see also: the Warsaw Pact). the US can at least say in the modern era that it wasn't trying to physical absorb all these nations into their empire.kingblaze84 wrote: »With Russia you used body count and desire to expand, so America should fit the bill in your top 5 list somewhere.
sounds like a bit of a cherry-picked figure; and not that this makes it much "better," but most Native American deaths after the arrival of Europeans are going to be inadvertent deaths due to disease.kingblaze84 wrote: »Some sources say an estimated 20 million natives were killed by Americans (another 50 million by Europeans who came before or weren't Americans yet)
the Roman Empire was much more inclusive and frankly, at this remove, the brutality is probably overstated in scope (not the specific acts, though). and here's the thing: i presume long ago brutality is "not as bad" as modern day brutality if everything else is equal.kingblaze84 wrote: »And no mention of Italy? Roman Empire less brutal then the French ones?
-
however, since we're attributing blame for murderous actions, we SHOULD make a distinction between "Europeans killed these natives" and "these natives were killed by European-introduced diseases before Europeans ever set foot where they lived"FuriousOne wrote: »To be honest, most of those people died from unchecked disease. I guess you can give them the body count since europeans bought the disease well before the United States was established. Intentional or not, they were the cause.
so let's pick the one example that Romans often cited as an existential threat instead of the myriad of nations who WERE included in the Roman Empire?The romans only included outsiders that they deemed necessary ask the people of carthage how roman inclusion worked for them.
originally? no. it's a Second Boer War development. the worst aspect of them was the British government basically not giving much of a ? about how they were run, which did lead to problems. but they were not designed along ? -style lines.FuriousOne wrote: »Was the British Concentration Camps meant murder people? You have to school me on those..
of course, to REALLY split hairs, there's also a distinction between ? concentration camps and ? EXTERMINATION camps. but both are worse than the British concept.
-
What America did to the Indians predated the Boer wars. Maybe they can be compared to Ghettos rather then concentration camps but the Natives were relocated and restricted to the confines of a particular land which was enforced through arms. They also suffered many deaths early on through various purposeful means in those camps\reservations.
-
Rome actually absorbed several nations peacefully. Pergamon, the Kingdom of Numidia (after Roman supporters won a civil war) , some Moorish tribes, a few barbaric tribes and Rhodes. I wish I could find a list of the nations Rome annexed peacefully. Romes biggest period of expansion was at the end of the Republic (Late 2nd century BC to late 1st BC ) to the first 80 or so years of the Empire. While there was of course a lot of conquering goin on, it wasn't all blood and guts. Some chieftains and kings which were long standing allies of Rome "bequeathed" their realms to Rome.
-
right, but "concentration camps" as a term literally starts with the British during the Second Boer War. it's also about the purpose: reservations were, for better or worse, supposedly about resettlement to prevent conflict; concentration camps were for "safely" concentrating populations for the duration of the conflict in order to facilitate it.FuriousOne wrote: »What America did to the Indians predated the Boer wars. Maybe they can be compared to Ghettos rather then concentration camps but the Natives were relocated and restricted to the confines of a particular land which was enforced through arms. They also suffered many deaths early on through various purposeful means in those camps\reservations.
either way the downsides were not planned but clearly there. either way, different than the ? schemes.
