Alternatively, the British knew which fights to pick and when to cut and run, while the Germans were utterly clueless and tried even when it was hopeless.
The truth, one presumes, is somewhere in between.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The truth, one presumes, is somewhere in between.
These are not exclusive explanations. The Germans were foolish to pick the fights they did but performed quite well considering the odds. The Brits were wise when picking fights but often performed worse than their material advantage would imply.
I find the thought that the British just accidentally into Empire rather funny.
In 1763:
"Hey, Ol' chap, why is most of India in our color on that map?"
"We conquered it somehow."
"Blimey...!"
In 1763:
"Hey, Ol' chap, why is most of India in our color on that map?"
"We conquered it somehow."
"Blimey...!"
The British lost many of the wars it lost for one reason, imho.
They were unwilling to commit atrocities. They were willing to give independence rather than descend to barbarous actions.
They were unwilling to commit atrocities. They were willing to give independence rather than descend to barbarous actions.
One counter-example does not invalidate the displacement, starvation, neglect, and wholesale genocide inflicted by the biritsh on others.
Besides, the alternative to Ghandi wasn't no dissent, it was armed dissent.
What, in your opinion, would be the biggest atrocities British forces have committed?
What's there to white wash?
It was a counter-insurgency action in the 1950s against an opponent (the Mau Mau) who were extremely nasty and deliberately killed more civilians than the British did.
Certainly, things got bloody and there were crimes committed. People were tortured, massacres happened (not to my knowledge officially sanctioned however). This tends to be the case in counter-insurgency and when the foe is not particularly pleasant. What the British did was nothing particularly stand out either for the time, or for the type of warfare being practised. In comparison one may look to the many occasions when insurgencies have been put down with even harsher methods.
The thing as well is that it comes down to 'the British' when in actual fact this is somewhat of a misnomer. The bulk of British forces, including some of those committing crimes, were in fact local troops. This is really a common occurrence in colonial history, people like to forget that most of the people fighting for empire were actually 'natives' themselves.
Amateurism does not imply that the army was weak or lacking in any way. Consider the the strict enforcement of amateurism within the American collegiate sports system.
The emphasis has always been on the voluntarism of British forces. Rather than the mass conscription of levies seen in Europe, British forces have tended to be free men fighting under their own volition in the interests of Britain (generalisation of course).
Please could I have a list of examples of wars where Britain underperformed than what their "material advantage" would imply.
Also be wary of that line of thought. It is much easier to surprise when you are the underdog than when you are favoured. As the underdog naturally you have desire for a decisive battle to even the material odds and hence win the headline catching battles that catch our collective memories in a striking way. For example during the Napoleonic Wars our blockade of Europe allowed us to suffocate French trade, ultimately forcing Napoleon into desperate measures (an invasion of Russia). All the meanwhile conducting a meticulous, highly effective campaign in the Peninsular. However history has largely remembered Napoleon and his striking campaigns on the continent rather than British military actions during that war. The same parallel can be said of our highly successful blockade of Germany in WW1 which ultimately drove them to negotiations.
Exemplary strategy indeed, but not front page of the papers.
American Revolution, Revolutionary wars, Napoleonic wars, WW1, WW2. During all of these wars Britain and her allies had much larger empires, populations and economies than the opponent at the start. If we exclude the American Revolution they have the common element of starting with significant territorial advances and military victories by the opponent. It probably has a lot to do with the size of the British standing army at the begining of the war and the difficulties of mobilizing the resources of the Empire
In the ARW and very quickly in the revolutionary wars, Britain had a dodgy or even non-existent material advantage, though. Remember that at some points Napoleon was allied to Austria or Russia as well as Spain, while the ARW was 'France gives all of Europe the cue to pile on Britain'.
Yes but those changes in advantage didn't spring out of nowhere. France only joined in the ARW after some victories by the Americans that made the revolution look viable. The "alliances" Napoleon achieved were forced on the participants by his military victories over them.
Maybe so, but that pales compared to say WW1 where the British side had consistently greater resources, or WW2 where there was only a short window where resources could be somewhat equal (June 1940-June 1941).
Medieval siege, standard thing.
Cromwell in Ireland? Again pretty standard for the time period. Also somewhat overstates, given that Cromwell was pretty clear on the whole "Surrender or die" thing and a lot of the accounts feature artistic license.
Again, standard both before and since. The death sentence was given for far lesser crimes at the time, and was the correct penalty for mutiny.
Military measure, and again nothing special by the standards of the day. It's also worth noting that part of the reason conditions became so bad was because of the logistical difficulty of supplying the camps over an undeveloped country whilst Boers raided the supply routes.
Indeed, not a good thing. Then again, not a world apart from contemporary events in Europe.
It's also worth noting Dyer lost his career over it, and that contrary to that picture, the troops were not British but rather Indian themselves.
Another thing that's very much standard for the time. Also very little problem behind it. There was a war to be won, strategic bombing helped win it.
I've already dealt with the Mao Mao.
Well again, it's a case of counter-insurgency being a messy business.
As with most of these I'm not suggesting it's a good thing. But the thing about these atrocities is that they really aren't that out of line with standard happenings for the time. That's not me advocating for them (aside from strategic bombing, which I still suggest was the right thing to do), but it does mean they're hardly so massive as people sometimes make them out. The trend in modern interpretations is to make the British (and every colonial) Empire seem like some pseudo-Nazi genocidal maniac state, which simply doesn't fit with what occurred.