I genuinely suspect that we wouldn't see this in this present day Britain. I totally agree that we shouldn't meddle in another Country's affairs, but there are grey areas such as where ethnic cleansing is taking place etc. Plus, we went to war in 1939 because another Country had been invaded. It's not always clear cut imo.
Wasn't it liberal lefties (along with many 'ordinary' people, of course) that took on the fascists in this country and in Spain before going to war with the Nazis at a time when much of the British establishment, including the former King, sympathised with them? King and Country eh?
Care to be a bit more specific here ? Involvement in World War 1 was questionable - there was no more justification than there would have been for British involvement in the Franco Prussian war in the late 19th Cent. Other means should have been tried with the Falkland Islands, involving international mediation or the UN. there were other possibilities rather than going in with guns blazing straight away. Can you think of another which was completely justifiable from a British perspective - Napoleon ? I think not. All I can see apart from that is a succession of colonial adventures or, in later times, backing up American aggression like a tame poodle. Our colonial adventures having included the use of concentration camps (yes, the Germans got the idea from us) and ethnic cleansing involving the most vile torture - read up on the histories of Malaysia, Aden, Cyprus, South Africa, Iraq (in the 20's) etc.
The extremes at either end of the political spectrum were grim. Many of the liberal lefties were communists that supported Stalin, who later went on to kill over 20 million.
Just how successful do you think pleading to the limp and toothless UN would have been in the face of Galtieri's aggression and occupation of the Falkland Islands? How can you make a case that taming a rampant Napoleon was British colonialism? Maintaining a balance of power in Europe was essential. You make the point about the camps with civilians during the Boer war, but unlike the Nazis, these were never intended to be death camps, and the diseases that took lives were taking the lives of British soldiers at the same rate.
At least we all seem to agree that it’s a stupid question, as phrased. Might be a first for this thread. World War One was the result of a network of treaties which, had we ignored them, would still have lead to war, except with a much more powerful adversary, one that controlled most of continental Europe. The Falklands was a war with an openly, genuinely fascist junta, easily justifiable, and getting rid of that regime would never have happened with negotiation - if anything it would have strengthened it with thousands more ‘disappeared’. I’ll give you that Argentinian regime change was not necessarily Thatchers objective, but it was a ****ing brilliant result. Napoleon planned to invade the British Isles, our economy was on a war footing for the first time ever, the threat was real. The colonial wars, and the aftermath conflicts, are the result of history, times when empires were thought of as good things. If you judge the past by the values some people have today, you will be whipping your ancestors forever. Fact is that until relatively recently war was a routinely used instrument of policy. The justification is whether the means would achieve the objective. Only the slaughters of the last century have changed that. Regard it as progress if you like. And I am aware that I am in a small minority on this but I’m still happy with us getting rid of the genocidal Saddam and trying to crush the tyrannical theocrats of the Taliban and Al Quaida. Execution and results crap, perhaps some motives wrong, but intent solid. I hope, once ISIS is ****ed, we can do the same with Assad. Though I wouldn’t volunteer to fight.
Cause more important than country for me. Our recent history shows those that would send us to war would do so with debatable motives. That said, and despite my globalised sentiment, I think direct threat is the other key factor. I suspect many Europeans are also affected by their respective countries' overseas incursions hence their low percentages.
I wasn't talking necessarily about the concentration camps in South Africa - although 48,000 civilians died in them (more than the combined total of soldiers who died). More about the 500,000 in British Gulags in Malaysia and the systematic tortures which occurred there - read up on where Harry Roberts (the one we used to sing about in the 60s) developed his taste for murder. Or the internments in Cyprus. Or the 100,000 who died in British concentration camps in Kenya. Or the crushing of the Iraqi revolution in the 1920's where chemical weapons were use by the British and where whole villages were exterminated randomly. The British still suffer from a historical amnesia when it comes to the human rights violations of the British Empire - many are still even proud of it. With regard to Napoleon - it is worth remembering that the first battle of the Napoleonic wars was fought before the gates of Paris, and had the goal of exterminating republicanism from the map of Europe. The Napoleonic wars were not about keeping a balance of power in Europe - but rather preserving the monarchies of Europe. Concerning the Falklands, I am not sure about this - there were other possibilities than the ones chosen. All of the Western powers were on our side and economic pressure could have been tried first. I am not saying that the use of force was wrong in this case - only that other avenues should have been tried first.
I refer you to Stan's answer, which, as in most cases, he puts far more eloquently then I could. Re the Falklands............Argentina invaded a sovereign British territory. It was they who went in all guns blazing, believing, wrongly, that we would just sit back and do nothing. Our response was 100% justified. We won't agree on most of these issues as you tend to always see the worst in Britain and I tend to rather like my own Country, whilst acknowledging the terrible parts of our history (which applies to all Nations historically).
Empire is frowned on now, and rightly so. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, it was an internationally accepted norm, and part of the duty of the British occupier was to maintain law and order. The Mau Mau in Kenya were butchering their own people. Nobody comes out of that dispute smelling of roses. It's easy to point the finger at the British for using chemical weapons, but again, it was an accepted norm. Those fighting on the Western Front found this out. You cannot judge British colonialism by 21st century standards. Name me a colonial power that behaved better than the British - the Germans? the French? the Spanish? the Japanese?
And London is full of Kiwis working in the pubs!! The Fijians not there for the RL World Cup? Heard there was some trouble between the South Pacific islanders over there this week?
I agree that you cannot judge history by modern standards - just as they cannot judge us. I cannot really judge anyone who is now dead and cannot answer for himself. However. I can say that Empire building was an internationally accepted norm only for those countries that were actually doing it. I cannot compare and say that the one was less brutal than the other - but some countries are more aware of the brutality of their history, particularly Germany.
I fully respect my country and those who remain loyal to the account they believe in. I do not however align myself to what the U.K. has become The last 30 years has installed a negative opinion towards our culture No one can change this and I grow less and less angry that I am unable to live in the area of my roots and carry on farming I have adjusted and found a better place imo for my family and I am just as proud as the people who geniuely think the U.K. is still great and I respect that but it’s not me any more My world is bigger today because I was forced to act On the subject of doing national service then I am proud that all my large family have served however I wasn’t allowed. My cynicism is born from the fact that all my cousins past and present all 100% now think their time was pointless and all feel used From the Irish troubles to recent tours only one remains in the forces and he earns massive money Now killing Africans freelance So no I wouldn’t fight in any scenario in a way . I am more and likely to fight our own QPR fans
The question 'would you fight for your country' conjures up a different vision everywhere it is asked. We may disagree as to some aspects of Britain's past, but you cannot deny that all of Britain's wars (apart from in the time of Cromwell) have been played out on foreign fields, for whatever reason. So our reaction to this question is likely to be different from those in Russia. For most people the question means - 'Are you prepared to got to a foreign land and kill a person who you do not know, and have nothing against personally, because your government says it is the right thing to do ' ? Express the whole thing in those terms and it all becomes very different. Well if my government says it is right - then they can lead the charge, like the Kings of the middle ages.
I fully understand the point you're making. Be prepared for it to be lost or ignored when people start pointing out that there were significant civilian casualties on UK soil in WW2 as a result of bombing missions (and boy, did that favour get returned by us to them later on). Not the same as what happened in Russia, I know, but you know how it is - you have to be correct all the time, otherwise people jump on your inaccuracy as a way of not dealing with (and ignoring) your real point.
Are you seriously suggesting that the armed occupation of a British territory - for that is what the Falkland Islands are whether you like it or not - should have been first dealt with via a UN Outreach Love-In?
