Originally Posted by redcoat

The myth that the concentration camp was invented by the British is actually WW2 Nazi propaganda.
The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78 )
At the start of the 20th century there was quite a fad for their use.
In fact, they were even used by America in the Philippines (1898–1901),

Hhmm... I didn't know that. But they were used by the Brits during the Boer War right?

Originally Posted by Ted

Hhmm... I didn't know that. But they were used by the Brits during the Boer War right?

Once again, concentration camps are necessary, an army won't fit in a jail. Death camps with custom built ovens to burn masses of people killed every day with poison gas, not even in the same catagory. There is not now nor will anyone ever convince me that Germany was not attempting to commit genocide as a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem."

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

My response:

(1) Stalin killed the following people in addition to the "Russians": Ukranians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Albanians, Finns, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Germans, Rumanians, Croats, Czechs, Slovakians, etc.

Sure he did. That's what monsters do. Throw in Catholics, Jews, Siberians, and just about everything else that breathed.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(2) Killing your "own" people? That is still a crime as bad as killing "other" people. Or do you think that Bundy was less a murderer because he only killed (and partially ate) Americans?

Ted Bundy wasn't a cannibal, I think you're thinking of Jeffery Dahmer. And the fact that they are both dead for their crimes should be explanation enough of what America thought of their extracurricular activities. As for your question as being relevant, it missed the target of the thread completely.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(3) "We can give as good as we get". This barbaric philosophy is still illegal and counter to world law and the laws of war. I have never seen the following caveat in the Geneva Convention or any other legal document: "The killing of civilians is permitted under the following circumstances...(a) as a tool of vengeance, (b) a demonstration of power, (c) for fun"....well, you get my point.
Ollie Garchy

Someone should have mentioned that little jewel to Hitler, then there wouldn't have been a war at all.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Once again, concentration camps are necessary, an army won't fit in a jail. Death camps with custom built ovens to burn masses of people killed every day with poison gas, not even in the same catagory. There is not now nor will anyone ever convince me that Germany was not attempting to commit genocide as a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem."

I know that you can't compare the concentration camps of the Brits to the extermination camps of the Nazi's. But the internment of women and children in these camps and the poor conditions which caused them to die, didn't quite make it a holiday camp either. And yes, Germany did try to achieve the extermination of a complete ethnic group via the usage of industrial mass murder...

But the internment of women and children in these camps and the poor conditions which caused them to die, didn't quite make it a holiday camp either.

Ted your usally pretty reliable for accurate information, but can I have a souce on this?

Originally Posted by Rabs

Ted your usally pretty reliable for accurate information, but can I have a souce on this?

I'll have a go at this:

The term "concentration camp" was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899-1902). Facing attack by Boer guerrillas, British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to 31 camps scattered around South Africa. This was done as part of a scorched earth policy to deny the guerrillas access to the supplies of food and clothing they needed to continue the war.
The camps were situated at Aliwal North, Balmoral, Barberton, Belfast, Bethulie, Bloemfontein, Brandfort, Heidelberg, Heilbron, Howick, Irene, Kimberley, Klerksdorp, Kroonstad, Krugersdorp, Merebank, Middelburg, Norvalspont, Nylstroom, Pietermaritzburg, Pietersburg, Pinetown, Port Elizabeth, Potchefstroom, Springfontein, Standerton, Turffontein, Vereeniging, Volksrust, Vredefort and Vryburg.
Though they were not extermination camps, the Boer camps were noted for their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high mortality rates (28,000 women and children died). The Boer situation was only relieved when Emily Hobhouse brought the conditions in the camps to the attention of the British public.

You'll find the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps or http://www.boer.co.za/boerwar/hellkamp.htm or http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...1/boerwar.html

I guess this will suffice. But I am not comparing them to the Nazi or communist camps..... I thouht I'd just add that to make sure.

Thanks Ted, at least the British citizens stopped it before things got really bad. The POW camps, at least in Texas were a joke. The Germans had things better than the people who lived around them. They could work on farms or service stations for pay and many either stayed after the war or returned to America later. There were a lot of widows in all of the countries involved so many former enemies married. Odd.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Sure he did. That's what monsters do. Throw in Catholics, Jews, Siberians, and just about everything else that breathed.



Ted Bundy wasn't a cannibal, I think you're thinking of Jeffery Dahmer. And the fact that they are both dead for their crimes should be explanation enough of what America thought of their extracurricular activities. As for your question as being relevant, it missed the target of the thread completely.



Someone should have mentioned that little jewel to Hitler, then there wouldn't have been a war at all.

The point is simple: Why declare Hitler evil when you act the same way!

I am not pro-Hitler, I am an anarchist!

I am not pro-Hitler, I am an anarchist!

Oh sweet jesus, I'd have more respect for you if you were pro-hitler hell pro-holocaust for that manner.

Originally Posted by Rabs

Oh sweet jesus, I'd have more respect for you if you were pro-hitler hell pro-holocaust for that manner.

If we want to know why WWII happened, we have to look at the dynamics of state power, definitions of power, etc. The issue of power is at the heart of the question. An anarchist is someone who believes in the restriction of the power process to many small groups or local communities. (A syndicalist). A dictator (whether leftist or rightist) is impossible in such an atmosphere. Why have no respect for a person who wants a system whereby the people regain the right to control their own destiny? Do you like living as a slave of the new order? I don't. Do you want people in one thousand years to remember the deeds of those who freed the human race from the bonds of slavery? I do.

WWII represented a clash of the global elite much more than Russians against Germans or Germans against Americans. The evidence here is striking. Ask Americans where Germany sits on the globe. They do not really know. Ask Germans about America. The same sort of thing. The mass of people believe the simplistic B.S. they see on t.v. Things were no different in the 1930s. Hell, most people do not even read. They know nothing. They are just chess pieces for the elite. Period.

The "Germans" of the period fall under the same category. They only knew what the government and elite wanted them to know. If that. Like all men of the west today, they were fed the information that made the government-sponsored course of action acceptable and possible.

We often hear that the "Germans" should have voted against Hitler (over 50% did) or have fought the nazi system. Again, come on. Most Germans were too busy trying to survive the depression. These people were also royally pissed off. Do you think that the British and French and Polish governments made things easy for Germany after 1918? Do you really think that the largest population in western Europe would just sit back and take Versailles up the butt?

Regarding the other comment that this has nothing to do with this thread, again, come on! All of these matters are at the heart of the issue. The German government of the period (many of the people for that matter) could not stomach living under a French/British dictatorship. Can you blame them? We all want to be free.

The schools and universities in both Germany and North America teach the same line of crap (I know I went through both systems): "the Germans of the period wanted world domination. They therefore went on the attack and were stopped by the holy alliance of the rest of the planet. The Russians, Americans and British (others as well) were all noble or whatever. The sun shone out of their asses". Come on. This is just propaganda. Sure. Right. Correct.

Ollie Garchy