View Full Version : You may be surprise to know that...


Rambuchan
Apr 20, 2005, 08:29 AM
Let's face it, as Civ addicts we all love the little gems of historical fact that surprise people. The more obscure the better, the more subtle and far reaching the more we relish dropping them on our fellow history buffs and Civ addicts.

A now classic and well known example would be "You may be surprised to know that Erik the Red landed on the North American continent some 500 years before Christopher Columbus" or "You may be surprised to know that the much loved hymn 'Amazing Grace' was in fact written by one of England's most prolific and successful slave traders, John Newton." These are well known now because they've been distributed with regularity but what about all the other bits of so called trivia which haven't been heard so much and actually change our perspective on the world, if only a little?

Well these forums are littered with them. So I'd like to create a place for us to drop these gems, impress each other and inform each other. Let it be here. I'd also like the posts to be based on fact wherever possible and each one fairly brief. The rumours and conspiracy theories are all great but the hard facts are better, and yes, I accept it's all been doctored by some loving historian's hand at some point.

I'm going to begin with two surprising facts. Both are taken from the same, EXCELLENT book which I read a few months ago "Empire - How Britain Created the Modern World" by Niall Ferguson. Much of what is said is directly quoted from his own words.

So without further ado "You may be surprised to know that..."

At the time of the American War of Independence Britain was far more interested in preserving its Caribbean holdings than it was in the 'low yeild' North American regions. At the end of the Seven Years War (Britain vs. France) William Pitt the Younger, the British Foreign Minister and later to become Prime Minister, had to weigh up what Britain's priorities were across the Atlantic. In conclusion he said: "The state of the existing trade in the conquests in North America, is extremely low; the speculations of their future are precarious, and the prospect, at the very best, remote." His opinion was shaped by the following facts: At the time, 69% of British emigrants went to the Caribbean, not to North America. That was where the money was. In 1773 the value of British imports from Jamaica were five times those of all the American colonies. Sugar, not tobacco, was big business in the 18th century. In 1775 total sugar imports accounted for nearly a fifth of of all British imports. In conclusion the American colonies of the north were viewed as 'little more than economic subsidiaries of the sugar islands', supplying them with the basic foodstuffs they needed to churn out the real cash. This is a secret reason behind why the war of independence was lost so quickly.

"You may be surprised to know that..."

The British were the first to systematically use the concentration camp as a means of killing its enemy non-combatants. During the Boer War (1899-1902) the British faced stiff competition from the well armed descendants of Dutch settlers in South Africa, the Boers. These farmers knew their home terrain far too well for the British to ever outdo them in open combat and, as mentioned, they were far better equipped than the Zulus who had previously clashed with British interests in the region - these 'farmers' had stocked up with the deadly MAXIM GUNS, which Britain had recently used to slaughter thousands of Islamic jihadis at the Battle of Obdurman near Cairo. The Brits were embarassed at Spion Kop when they were allowed to take a hill only for the mist to clear in the morning to find that they were exposed and surrounded on all sides by the Boer guerilles (that's what they were in effect) whose way of life had turned them into hardy, crack shots. Slip ups like these were proving costly with public opinion and the press at the time was awash with headlines such as "Greater Britain beaten hollow by 30,000 farmers." It is not for no reason that the Boer War is often referred to as the British Vietnam.

It was deemed prudent therefore to destroy the Boer's means of existence - his farmlands - in order to assure victory quickly. A proactive campaign to destroy the lands and farmhouses of the Boers was successful (total of 30,000 razed) but also left British soldiers with many homeless women and children on their hands. What was to be done with them? Well put them to work was the answer for the Chamberlain govt of the time. And a good deal of malnourishment and poor sanitation was added to the mix to get rid of them quick, it was far too costly to keep them alive. All told, 27,927 Boers (the majority of them children) died in these British camps. 14.5% of the entire Boer population. In fact more adult Boers died by these means than in combat. It's also worth noting that a further 14,000 of 115,000 black internees (again 81% children) were killed in separate camps.

To highlight all this: Sir Neville Henderson, British Ambassador to Berlin in the 30s, remonstrated to Goering about the brutal Nazi camps. In response the later reached for his German Encyclopedia and turned to Konzentrationslager and read out "First used by the British in the South African War."

Note: Although the Spanish had used hard labour camps in Cuba in 1896 there is not much evidence that they did so on such a grand scale and not in the same systematic fashion that the British implemented them as a policy from government.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. So what gems are you not sharing?

Grand Cadfael
Apr 20, 2005, 08:34 AM
This realy belongs in the world history or off topic section.

Rambuchan
Apr 20, 2005, 08:50 AM
Thanks Grand Cadfael, didn't know that/this part of the Forum existed!

thetrooper
Apr 20, 2005, 08:52 AM
...didn't know that/this part of the Forum existed!

Welcome to the purgatory!

Edit: I see that this thread has been moved from OT to history. The purgatory thing doesn't make sense here of course. This is a friendly place :D

classical_hero
Apr 20, 2005, 09:02 AM
Welcome to the purgatory!
No! Welcome to Hell. :evil:

HamaticBabylon
Apr 20, 2005, 04:43 PM
No! Welcome to the resurrection of Evil. :evil:

Double Barrel
Apr 20, 2005, 04:56 PM
"You may be surprised to know that the much loved hymn 'Amazing Grace' was in fact written by one of England's most prolific and successful slave traders, John Newton." [/I]

That is a bit misleading.

From Snopes.com (http://www.snopes.com/religion/amazing.htm):

Amazing Grace was penned by a slave trader immediately after he survived a horrific storm at sea, his survival prompting him to foreswear his former evil ways and accept God into his life. False.

Amazing Grace was penned by a former slave trader, but only many decades after he'd left slave trading and seafaring behind and had become a minister of God. True.

I am skeptical about Great Britain benig the first to systematically use the concentration camp as a means of killing its enemy non-combatants. I would venture that this kind of action has happened throughout mankind's violent history.

Verbose
Apr 20, 2005, 05:33 PM
I am skeptical about Great Britain benig the first to systematically use the concentration camp as a means of killing its enemy non-combatants. I would venture that this kind of action has happened throughout mankind's violent history.
You should be.
Britain was first to set up concentration camps, but the intention wasn't to kill anybody.
It was part of the tactics of the later stages of the Boer war. The Boer commandos could no longer fight an open war, and instead opted for guerilla tactics. With a helpful population they had no problems hiding, finding supplies etc.
To stop that the Boer civilians were rounded up and placed under armed guard in camps.
Then their kids started dying due to poor sanitation. Everyone was terribly upset, as this effect hadn't been intended. (Though one might think it would have been an at least half obvious outcome.)
In any case the British military did try to fix the sanitary problems and the death rates decreased.

Yom
Apr 20, 2005, 07:03 PM
You should be.
Britain was first to set up concentration camps, but the intention wasn't to kill anybody.
It was part of the tactics of the later stages of the Boer war. The Boer commandos could no longer fight an open war, and instead opted for guerilla tactics. With a helpful population they had no problems hiding, finding supplies etc.
To stop that the Boer civilians were rounded up and placed under armed guard in camps.
Then their kids started dying due to poor sanitation. Everyone was terribly upset, as this effect hadn't been intended. (Though one might think it would have been an at least half obvious outcome.)
In any case the British military did try to fix the sanitary problems and the death rates decreased.
People seem to forget about what happened right before the Spanish-American War of 1898, too. The Spanish put Cuban Revolutionaries in Concentration camps (not to kill) in order to separate them from their base: the people (they were guerillas).

The Spanish government did not have the financial resources or the manpower to deal with these revolts and thus turned to expedients of building concentration camps (in Cuba) to separate the rebels from their rural base of support.

CivGeneral
Apr 20, 2005, 09:49 PM
Thanks Grand Cadfael, didn't know that/this part of the Forum existed!
You could PM a freindly mod to have him/her move it to the history forum for you :).

Knight-Dragon
Apr 20, 2005, 10:40 PM
Moved to History.

rilnator
Apr 21, 2005, 12:06 AM
Welcome to the purgatory!

No, welcome to a lot of pointless arguments and threadjackings!

Plotinus
Apr 21, 2005, 01:40 AM
We've had the "Did Britain invent concentration camps?" argument here innumerable times before. The general conclusion always seems to be, "Yes, sort of, but not like what we now think of as 'concentration camps'".

rilnator
Apr 21, 2005, 02:28 AM
We've had the "Did Britain invent concentration camps?" argument here innumerable times before. The general conclusion always seems to be, "Yes, sort of, but not like what we now think of as 'concentration camps'".

You mean a conclusion was actually reached? Wow!

Rambuchan
Apr 21, 2005, 03:59 AM
No, welcome to a lot of pointless arguments and threadjackings!

Quite. Now what about contributions rather than deviations and arguments?

privatehudson
Apr 24, 2005, 11:02 AM
It should also be pointed out that the British eliminated the mortality problems in the camps after the scandal was revealed properly. It may have been a direct policy of Kitchener's to intern women and children, and therefore by extension the British government, but it certainly was not a policy to deliberately kill women and children. Had it been the conditions they were kept under would not have improved, and the mortality rate would have stayed the same. Instead it dropped to around 6% in February 1902 and soon after 2%. Ignorance of the situation caused the problem, regretably I presume neither Kitchener or the government bothered to find out or think too much about it until then.

Comparing that to the holocaust camps in Germany were systematic and deliberate slaughter quite obviously was government policy doesn't wash I'm afraid. I have seen some rather interesting claims like that by Boers online though.

Verbose
Apr 25, 2005, 02:09 AM
The only possible connection between British 'concentration camps and Nazi 'KZ-lager' may be the fact that the Nazis could point to the British ones.

At which point lots of people in the 1930's thought: 'Oh well, that's not too bad then.'

privatehudson
Apr 25, 2005, 03:17 AM
Regretably yes, because at that stage the difference wasn't quite so obvious as it would become later.

DAv2003
Apr 25, 2005, 11:36 AM
"You may be surprised to know that..."

The French used tickling as a means of torture. By locking someone in the stocks, removing their foot wear the gaolers would then proceed to cover the victim's feet with salt water and let a goat lick the water off the victim's feet. A torture most probably prefferable from being put on the rack.

Louis XXIV
Apr 25, 2005, 01:44 PM
As for concentration camps, some could argue that the Spanish had them in the Philippines (Spanish colonization is well known for their brutality). In 1896, they were used to hold suspected supporters of the revolutionaries. They were often underground prisons, and would run out of air.

How about mine:

"You may be suprised to know that..."

Soon after 1783, the American commercial fleet became the second largest in the world.

Serutan
Apr 25, 2005, 04:52 PM
[QUOTE=Rambuchan]At the time of the American War of Independence Britain was far more interested in preserving its Caribbean holdings than it was in the 'low yeild' North American regions.

And also India. If Britain had been *really* serious
about the American Revlolution, their top-flight military
talent would have been sent there, rather than second
stringers like the Howe brothers....


Another lesser know fact:

One of the unknown aspects of the Trent crisis
at the beginning of the American Civil War was that
the Union was wholly dependent on saltpeter imported
from British India. The fact that British government
halted all shipments of saltpeter to the North helped
speed the resolution of that issue.

Verbose
Apr 26, 2005, 02:14 AM
At the time of the American War of Independence Britain was far more interested in preserving its Caribbean holdings than it was in the 'low yeild' North American regions.
They did it for the same reasons France let their colonies in N. America go. The Carribean suger islands were major cash cows in the 18th c. The king of France was happy to hold on to Martinique, Guadeloupe etc. with its slave labour, and the English could have all those Frenchmen up in Quebec.

Rambuchan
Apr 26, 2005, 02:19 AM
As for concentration camps, some could argue that the Spanish had them in the Philippines (Spanish colonization is well known for their brutality). In 1896, they were used to hold suspected supporters of the revolutionaries. They were often underground prisons, and would run out of air.

I've acknowledged the Spanish camps in smaller fonted footnote.

How about mine:

"You may be suprised to know that..."

Soon after 1783, the American commercial fleet became the second largest in the world.

:eek: :eek: See now that I didn't know.

Boutte
May 04, 2005, 11:54 PM
Adolph Hitler wasn't German (born Ausrtia)
Joseph Stalin wasn't Russian (Georgian)
Napolean was'nt French (Corsican)

Doc Tsiolkovski
May 05, 2005, 04:07 AM
Most surprising:
Mozart was no Austrian. Salzburg didn't belong to Austria at that time, and even his family originates to Bavaria (his father Leopold was born and raised in Augsburg).

Unrelated:
Hitler was not only born in Braunau am Inn, he also was granted the German citizenship in the city of Braunschweig (Brunswick - and 'braun'/'brown' is not a common part of location names in German). Everyone knows which color the SA uniforms had, and which color was the symbol of his party. And, he of course married an Eva Braun.
Coincidence? A sound plan? Scatology?

thetrooper
May 05, 2005, 04:47 AM
Definitely scatology.

I knew all these facts except for the Braunschweig = Brunswick.
In Norwegian: brun = braun.

Doc Tsiolkovski
May 05, 2005, 04:54 AM
The Braunschweig part is really the oddest one. 'Braun' is a quite common surname, and the uniform colors...not that many choices; red/black/grey/blue were out (red is obvious, black was taken by Mussolini, grey was the German Army, and blue symbolic for the Erbfeind France).

But that city...Hitler lived in Munich for years already. And Brunswick isn't anywhere near.

thetrooper
May 05, 2005, 05:10 AM
I'll see Der Untergang sometime soon. Good to pick up a few talking points beforehand.

I've seen Bruno Ganz in Der Himmel über Berlin so I know that the cast should be good.