# Which is the most evil episode in British history? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2010, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444 "2010-09-29T05:02:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/161 "2010-10-14T22:02:54Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I think that by making it a long war, the belligerent nations pretty much guaranteed social unrest. If it has been “over by Christmas”, the way people first claimed it would be, I don’t think you would have seen social unrest in any of the countries. > > And a victorious Britain did see substantial social change (although of course nothing near to what happened in Germany, Russia or Austria). The war led to the passage of the Fourth Reform Act, which gave pretty much all men over 21 and all women over 30 the right to vote, and the war led to the destruction of the Liberals and legitimization of the Labour party. Absolutely true. I think we are on the same page. I am claiming, though, that had Britain walked away in late 1916 without a victory, then you might have seen a revolution in the UK. Even with the victory, you saw the massive changes - and also saw overtly political strike action, such as the dockers refusing to load munitions to fight the Reds, and the police strike in London. Had the Entente won in 1914, then yes, I agree, no social unrest. But by late 1916, things were very different. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/162 "2010-10-14T22:22:55Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Point is, I don’t know what else it would look like to treat people as sub-humans to be destroyed. So, maybe these events deserve consideration as the winner. In order to establish that the British considered the native Indians to be sub-human you would need to come up with some evidence (any evidence at all) that anyone ever said or did anything that showed they held that viewpoint. Even your own quotes show that the British treated the Pequot as people with legal rights - > [@](#): > > The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Wintrhop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally “a vacuum”. The Indians, he said, had not “subdued” the land, and therefore had only a “natural” right to it, but not a “civil right.” A “natural right” did not have legal standing. It may be a bullshit rationale but it shows they considered the Indians to have legal rights the same as anyone else. As regards the war. The Pequot allied with the Dutch against the British which was a bad move. There was also a series of attacks from the Pequot against the settlers. Back then the British didn’t tend to lose wars and they did whatever was necessary to overcome the enemy. That usually meant using overwhelming force although they did allow several hundred women and children to leave the fight zone when they had the Pequot surrounded in a swamp near Fairfield. The Pequot could have surrendered at the swamp battle but they refused. So once again - evidence that they had a peaceful exit strategy should they wish to take it. Evidence that the British were not particularly set on destruction. Another factor is that the British never really got a proper hold on north America. The settlers that were there were all puritans who had extreme feelings about “heathens” typical of most religious extremists even today. These puritans exerted a lot of pressure on the small British force that was there. This pressure allied to the occasional maniac commanding officer led to excessive force being used against the Indians in the case of the Pequot. But the British army were never really in North America in great numbers. If they had been then the pressure exerted by the Puritans would have been easier to resist and they may have been able to use more reasonable amounts of force to subdue the enemy. Ultimately though, losing was not an option for the British. Whether that be against the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Indians or whoever. The British didn’t care who the opponents were. But they didn’t consider any of them to be sub-human and they weren’t hell bent on destruction unless absolutely necessary to win a war. Unfortunately the Pequot were up against three main opponents: - the british army who didn’t lose wars - the Puritans who considered them heathens - some maniac British officers who, far away from their base of command in Britain, acted on their own instincts It’s a very sad story but in terms of the actual numbers of people who died, I’m sure it’s nowhere near the top in terms of number of people killed by the British during the course of a war ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/163 "2010-10-14T22:29:18Z")
There weren’t really any British regular officers in the Pequot War. The soldiers were all colonial militia. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/164 "2010-10-14T22:36:15Z")
Yeah although John Mason was an officer in the army before he emigrated to America. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/165 "2010-10-14T22:47:25Z")
So was Myles Standish, and John Underhill in the Dutch army. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/166 "2010-10-14T22:50:49Z")
Actually I wasn’t very clear above. I was kind of combining the whole North America adventure with the specific Pequot thing in one post. I meant that if the proper army had been there in more numbers then things might have panned out differently and also that the soldiers who were there (ex-soldiers) still had the same mentality of British superiority. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/167 "2010-10-14T23:06:17Z")
I don’t know if the British Army in the 1630s was the same sort of thing it would go on to be, though. This was even before the New Model Army. There wasn’t the kind of professionalism yet that there would go on to be. ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/168 "2010-10-15T06:02:33Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > > [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](#): > > > > **It all sounds cruel and stupid enough to be true** (and I’m a Brit saying that) but I’m not very familiar with this period of history and I’m not willing to take it as true on your say-so. > > Nobody’s asking you to. But, to paraphrase a SDMB cliche, your post is my cite: as a Briton you can’t conceive of your country acting so arrogantly after 96 years of evolution resulting from its having been so. As an American, I wish I could say the same. Actually, if I couldn’t conceive of it being true I would have flat out denied it. I asked for cites because I CAN imagine it being true, but I’m not willing to accept it as such without some evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/169 "2010-10-15T14:29:32Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > In order to establish that the British considered the native Indians to be sub-human you would need to come up with some evidence (any evidence at all) that anyone ever said or did anything that showed they held that viewpoint. Well, **BrainGlutton** ’s [reply](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13004799&postcount=135) to my initial post in this thread refers back to one of Cecil’s columns. In that column, Cecil quotes a letter sent from Colonel Henry Bouquet to Lord Jeffrey Amherst, dated July 13, 1763: _“P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard’s Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove **that Vermine**.”_ I think referring to them as “vermin” satisfies your request for evidence in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/170 "2010-10-15T14:54:30Z")
> [@villa](#): > > My point wasn’t to claim that German civilians didn’t starve. Though I will admit to failure to feel a great degree of sympathy, given starving British civilians had been a German war aim. It may have been a German war aim, but it was one which utterly unrealized. Besides - who started trying to starve whose populace first? Moreover, by the same logic, as the quest for _Lebensraum_ was one of Germany’s war aims in WW2, the Allies would have been morally justified in enslaving and exterminating the Germans in the spring of 1945. > [@](#): > > But they didn’t starve because of the blockade. And whose navy was it that enforced the prohibition on Baltic fishing in the months subsequent to the Armisitce? :dubious: > [@](#): > > And surrender was, of course, always an option for the Germans, but one they chose not to take. It was an option that was never offered, as far as I am aware. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/171 "2010-10-15T15:47:17Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > My point wasn’t to claim that German civilians didn’t starve. Though I will admit to failure to feel a great degree of sympathy, given starving British civilians had been a German war aim. > > It may have been a German war aim, but it was one which utterly unrealized. Besides - who started trying to starve whose populace first? > > Moreover, by the same logic, as the quest for _Lebensraum_ was one of Germany’s war aims in WW2, the Allies would have been morally justified in enslaving and exterminating the Germans in the spring of 1945. That’s more than a little unfair. I said I don’t feel a lot of sympathy - not saying whether it is right or wrong based on that. And naval blockades are, I believe, within the accepted rules of war. Enslaving and exterminating populations isn’t. Don’t understimate too the privations suffered by the English working class as a result of the war and the U-boat blockades, as well as the diversion of fuel in particular to the military. So I wouldn’t say utterly unrealized. And I have never understood the argument (that’s made a lot about bombing in WW2) that seems to excuse the Germans for not being as good at something. That Coventry was an order of magnitude significantly lower than Hamburg & Cologne doesn’t reallys eem relevant to me - it’s simply because the Luftwaffe had limited numbers of crappy bombers. > [@Fuji](#): > > And whose navy was it that enforced the prohibition on Baltic fishing in the months subsequent to the Armisitce? :dubious: I am sure the Royal Navy. And looking back, I’ve learned things in this discussion and probably suffered a little bit of knee jerk reaction on this. Looking back at it, with the benefit of hindsight, continuing the blockade agaisnt civilians wasn’t a good thing to do. However, I don’t think I’d call it “the most evil episode” given the uncertainty about the possibility of Germany merely trying to wait out the winter (lets remember in Spring 1918 Operation Michel got within shelling range of Paris). Again, with hindsight, that offensive crippled the German Army, but in the 100 Days Offensive leading up to the Armistice, the Allies had suffered over a million casualties. It wasn’t clear to anyone the German Army was broken beyond repair. And there’s also the unpleasant, but real consideration that the British and French populace wasn’t going to accept mollycoddling the Germans. > [@](#): > > And surrender was, of course, always an option for the Germans, but one they chose not to take. > [@Fuji](#): > > It was an option that was never offered, as far as I am aware. I’m not sure it was either, but it could have been offered by the Germans, or indeed unilaterally undertaken. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/172 "2010-10-15T17:27:57Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > I think referring to them as “vermin” satisfies your request for evidence in this case. I dunno. He was a military man and no doubt an unpleasant piece of work but that is very weak evidence of an official British view of the Indians as sub-human. I’m sure he didn’t like the Indians and spoke in strong terms about them but that’s just one guy. From [here:](http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=6be3484c-c6f3-494d-825e-60de2da52ab6&p=2) > [@](#): > > Captain Simon Ecuyer of the Royal American Regiment, commander at Fort Pitt, held a parley with two native leaders from the Delaware tribe - Turtle’s Heart and Mamaltee. This pair had previously destroyed two other British forts on the frontier, and they warned Ecuyer that if he didn’t abandon his post, he would face annihilation. > > Ecuyer bravely replied that anyone who attacked his fort would be “chastised” but this was clearly bluster. He was cut off from his supply sources and facing an enemy holding the whip hand. To buy himself some time, he hatched a devilish plan. “We gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the Small Pox hospital. I hope it has the desired effect,” William Trent, a trader trapped at Fort Pitt, wrote in his journal for June 24, 1763. > > The impact of this manoeuvre has never been entirely clear. Indians in the region did succumb to smallpox around that time. On the other hand, the besiegers were able to mount a large ambush on the British relief column two months later in the Battle of Bushy Run. > > So what was Amherst’s role in all this? In July 1763, Amherst exchanged a series of letters with Colonel Henry Bouquet, who was mounting the relief column to Fort Pitt. “I will try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets that may fall into their hands, taking care not to get the disease myself,” Bouquet wrote. On July 16, Amherst replied favourably to the notion and said that “extirpating this execrable race” sounded like a good idea to him. > > Not the most pleasant conversation. But crucially, this entire correspondence occurred a month after Ecuyer handed the blankets and handkerchief to the Delawares. There are all manner of wild accusations, but this is the only recorded case of British soldiers ever giving smallpox-infected blankets to natives. > > So it happened once. And Amherst had nothing to do with it. He might have expressed support for the controversial idea, and his opinions seem racist today. But this is hardly sufficient evidence to put him in the same category as Hitler, or demand that his name be stricken from the historical record. > > In fact, not just the British were accused of dirty tricks and biological warfare in colonial North America: > > In his three-volume History and Description of New France, Jesuit historian Pierre-François-Xavier de Charlevoix recounted a story, like the Fort Pitt one, from the War of Spanish Succession (1702 - 1713). That time it was the natives who were the perpetrators. An English army, he wrote, “was encamped on the banks of a little river; the Iroquois … threw into it all the skins of the animals they flayed, and the water was thus soon all corrupted.” Contemporary accounts said more than 1,000 soldiers died after drinking the poisoned water, according to Charlevoix. Perhaps Amherst was just looking for a little payback. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/173 "2010-10-15T17:46:24Z")
Also here’s an excerpt of a letter from a subordinate of Amherst’s, Henry Bouquet: [![](http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_289_p1.jpeg) ](http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_289_p1.jpeg) > [@](#): > > “till you think proper to order us to act in conjunction with the rest of your forces to extirpate that Vermine from a country they have forfeited, and with it all claim to the rights of humanity” Couple of things here: - note that no order to extirpate was actually given - Bouquet claims that they have forfeited their rights to humanity. This means he accepts that they have rights to humanity but that they have forfeited them by their actions. By contrast, Hitler reckoned the Jews didn’t even have rights to humanity in the first place. I’m still not seeing a genuine doctrine of sub humanity, just bluff and bluster from angry straight talking military men. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/174 "2010-10-16T20:59:27Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > Also here’s an excerpt of a letter from a subordinate of Amherst’s, Henry Bouquet: > > [http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34\_40\_289\_p1.jpeg](http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_289_p1.jpeg) > > > [@](#): > > > > “till you think proper to order us to act in conjunction with the rest of your forces to extirpate that Vermine from a country they have forfeited, and with it all claim to the rights of humanity” > > Couple of things here: > > - note that no order to extirpate was actually given > > - Bouquet claims that they have forfeited their rights to humanity. This means he accepts that they have rights to humanity but that they have forfeited them by their actions. By contrast, Hitler reckoned the Jews didn’t even have rights to humanity in the first place. > > I’m still not seeing a genuine doctrine of sub humanity, just bluff and bluster from angry straight talking military men. Incredibly disingenuous answer, but fitting with your other contributions to the thread. So the guy says they are vermin that cant be considered part of humanity, but to you that seems as rather benign stuff. I am often irked by people going back on centuries away treks through history to find something to be mad at (granted, the framing ot the topic kind of leads to that), but the only thing that surpasses it is people actually defending those same atrocities. P.S: “The British Army doesnt lose any wars”. Just lol. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/175 "2010-10-16T21:20:39Z")
I didn’t defend any atrocities I just said they didn’t think the Indians were sub human > [@](#): > > P.S: “The British Army doesnt lose any wars”. Just lol. There was this thing called the Empire which involved fighting (and winning) lots of wars all over the world. Admittedly in the time period we’re talking about the military expansion was just getting going but it was still gradually and inexorably becoming formidable. ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/176 "2010-10-18T17:03:02Z")
> [@villa](#): > > That’s more than a little unfair. I said I don’t feel a lot of sympathy - not saying whether it is right or wrong based on that. And naval blockades are, I believe, within the accepted rules of war. Enslaving and exterminating populations isn’t. OK. Sorry if you thought I was being unfair - I was just going off what I read in your posts. I didn’t mean in any way to imply that you were tolerant of genocide. > [@](#): > > Don’t understimate too the privations suffered by the English working class as a result of the war and the U-boat blockades, as well as the diversion of fuel in particular to the military. So I wouldn’t say utterly unrealized. Oh sure, they had rationing. But when I meant “unrealized”, I meant specifically deaths directly attributable to starvation. I’m fairly certain that no Britons starved to death because of German U-Boats (in either war). > [@](#): > > And I have never understood the argument (that’s made a lot about bombing in WW2) that seems to excuse the Germans for not being as good at something. That Coventry was an order of magnitude significantly lower than Hamburg & Cologne doesn’t reallys eem relevant to me - it’s simply because the Luftwaffe had limited numbers of crappy bombers. I didn’t make that argument, and I never would. I fully agree with what you wrote here. The Germans started civilian aerial bombardment (again, both wars), and then had to “reap the whirlwind”. Much like I don’t feel that bad about the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the Luftwaffe really did have shit for bombers. [“Flying Pencils”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_17)? Are you kidding me? 😉 > [@](#): > > And looking back, I’ve learned things in this discussion and probably suffered a little bit of knee jerk reaction on this. Same here. I probably wouldn’t even had posted at all had not the provocative thread title got me ithcing to make my own contribution. > [@](#): > > Looking back at it, with the benefit of hindsight, continuing the blockade agaisnt civilians wasn’t a good thing to do. However, I don’t think I’d call it “the most evil episode” given the uncertainty about the possibility of Germany merely trying to wait out the winter (lets remember in Spring 1918 Operation Michel got within shelling range of Paris). Again, with hindsight, that offensive crippled the German Army, but in the 100 Days Offensive leading up to the Armistice, the Allies had suffered over a million casualties. It wasn’t clear to anyone the German Army was broken beyond repair. > > And there’s also the unpleasant, but real consideration that the British and French populace wasn’t going to accept mollycoddling the Germans. Agreed that it’s not even in the top 20 of the Evil British Deeds list. But most of the other ones were already taken by the time I posted. Still disagree that “it wasn’t clear to anyone the German Army was broken beyond repair,” but not enough to pursue it any futher. And I also agree that the British and French citizenry probably wouldn’t have tolerated a lenient peace (thought I doubt that many were aware of the on-going blockade). > [@](#): > > I’m not sure it was either, but it could have been offered by the Germans, or indeed unilaterally undertaken. I’m not sure there was even much of a functioning German government on 11 November 1918. And without established precedent, how is any fragile coalition even going to conceive of taking this step? ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/177 "2010-10-18T17:07:19Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > Also here’s an excerpt of a letter from a subordinate of Amherst’s, Henry Bouquet: > > [http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34\_40\_289\_p1.jpeg](http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_40_289_p1.jpeg) > > Couple of things here: > > - note that no order to extirpate was actually given > > - Bouquet claims that they have forfeited their rights to humanity. This means he accepts that they have rights to humanity but that they have forfeited them by their actions. By contrast, Hitler reckoned the Jews didn’t even have rights to humanity in the first place. > > I’m still not seeing a genuine doctrine of sub humanity, just bluff and bluster from angry straight talking military men. I think this constitutes a moving of goalposts. Referring back to your original [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13026325&postcount=162), you asked for some evidence, and I provided some. I never made any comparisons to the Nazi conception of _Untermenschen_. I think most reasonable people can agree that referring to a group of people as “vermin” is to deny their basic humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/178 "2010-10-19T05:56:25Z")
Erm, why aren’t repeated acts of genocide (or, 'scuse me, _attempted_ genocide) regarded as a pattern of treating non-Brits as sub-humans? ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/179 "2010-10-19T09:44:52Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Erm, why aren’t repeated acts of genocide (or, 'scuse me, _attempted_ genocide) regarded as a pattern of treating non-Brits as sub-humans? TBH, it is a very minor distinction but it seems important here. I’d argue that the Brits saw other races not as sub-human but as sub-British. They looked down on other humans just for not being British, not for not being human. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444/180 "2010-10-19T15:00:01Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > OK. Sorry if you thought I was being unfair - I was just going off what I read in your posts. I didn’t mean in any way to imply that you were tolerant of genocide. That’s OK. I just think that given it was a German war policy to starve Britain out of the war, the fact Britain managed to do it more successfully to the Germans isn’t a cause for wailing and gnashing of teeth. > [@Fuji](#): > > Oh sure, they had rationing. But when I meant “unrealized”, I meant specifically deaths directly attributable to starvation. I’m fairly certain that no Britons starved to death because of German U-Boats (in either war)? I don’t know, and to run the risk of sounding like a lawyer, it depends on what you mean by starve. I have no doubt that the U-boat blockade caused deaths of civilians (apart from Merchant Seamen). Were they out and out starvation? Probably not - but I am certain (though have no proof at the moment) that people died from diseases that were they better fed they wouldn’t have died from. Especially the elderly and young. And it isn’t just food - there are photos of working class streets in London without front doors because people had to burn them to stop themselves from freezing. > [@Fuji](#): > > I didn’t make that argument, and I never would. I fully agree with what you wrote here. The Germans started civilian aerial bombardment (again, both wars), and then had to “reap the whirlwind”. Much like I don’t feel that bad about the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I always think Harris is treated badly. What people don’t recognize is that bombing cities developed as an idea to make war less likely. Not that it worked out that way of course. > [@Fuji](#): > > And the Luftwaffe really did have shit for bombers. [“Flying Pencils”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_17)? Are you kidding me? 😉 It’s why I don’t buy all the “what if Germany had got the bomb” scenarios. By the time it was possible to develop it, they had no way of delivering it, and no likelihood of developing a system to do it. V2’s couldn’t carry the weight, and I believe had a 50% failure rate on the launch pad. > [@Fuji](#): > > Still disagree that “it wasn’t clear to anyone the German Army was broken beyond repair,” but not enough to pursue it any futher. And I also agree that the British and French citizenry probably wouldn’t have tolerated a lenient peace (thought I doubt that many were aware of the on-going blockade). The immediate post-war period is fascinating to me. How they sold the intervention in Russia frankly boggles my mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-is-the-most-evil-episode-in-british-history/555444.md?page=10)