My first thought on seeing that photo was 'that's a mental golf course'.
+1
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:49 pm
by fishfoodie
inactionman wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:22 am
My first thought on seeing that photo was 'that's a mental golf course'. It must be utterly terrifying to be bombarded by naval guns..
But that's about it; otherwise it's ineffectiveness was shown in the Pacific, after the Americans bombarded the shit out of every island, but ultimately the marines had to go ashore & when they did, the Japanese emerged from their bunkers & they fought on till they were eliminated.
Lesson; artillery no matter how big is mostly useless against prepared positions, unless it's very, very accurate.
inactionman wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:22 am
My first thought on seeing that photo was 'that's a mental golf course'. It must be utterly terrifying to be bombarded by naval guns..
But that's about it; otherwise it's ineffectiveness was shown in the Pacific, after the Americans bombarded the shit out of every island, but ultimately the marines had to go ashore & when they did, the Japanese emerged from their bunkers & they fought on till they were eliminated.
Lesson; artillery no matter how big is mostly useless against prepared positions, unless it's very, very accurate.
inactionman wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 9:22 am
My first thought on seeing that photo was 'that's a mental golf course'. It must be utterly terrifying to be bombarded by naval guns..
But that's about it; otherwise it's ineffectiveness was shown in the Pacific, after the Americans bombarded the shit out of every island, but ultimately the marines had to go ashore & when they did, the Japanese emerged from their bunkers & they fought on till they were eliminated.
Lesson; artillery no matter how big is mostly useless against prepared positions, unless it's very, very accurate.
e.g. The Somme
It's incredible that more than a century later the Orcs didn't get the memo that just firing inaccurate artillery against an entrenched opponent isn't going to do anything more than keep them sleep deprived, & given the relative levels of support, the Ukrainians are better fed, warmer, have better kit, & most importantly, have leaders who know this and give a shit !!!!
... if you're an Orc soldier, you're much better off as a POW than in the line !, you've more people giving a fuck that you are alive or dead.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:09 am
by Monk
Boer prisoners of war, Hawkins Island, Bermuda, 1902.
Please enlarge the pic to get a good look at these miscreants
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:47 am
by Sandstorm
Monk wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:09 am
Boer prisoners of war, Hawkins Island, Bermuda, 1902.
Please enlarge the pic to get a good look at these miscreants
They all look very over-dressed for Bermuda weather. Probably why they look so happy.
Monk wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 11:09 am
Boer prisoners of war, Hawkins Island, Bermuda, 1902.
Please enlarge the pic to get a good look at these miscreants
They all look very over-dressed for Bermuda weather. Probably why they look so happy.
Just homesick children
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
They all look very over-dressed for Bermuda weather. Probably why they look so happy.
Just homesick children
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Well it's not like the UK Government has moved significantly along.
Now they're just planning on shipping children from Syria, or Afghanistan of whereever to Rwanda, POW or no.
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
My great grandfather was shipped to a British POW camp in Ceylon and TBF he was treated a lot, and I mean a lot better than his fiancee, my great grandmother, who was kept in a British concentration camp back in the Orange Free State.
Monk wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 3:39 pm
Just homesick children
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
A rather odd thing to be morally outraged by. They were a citizenship militia, of mostly farmers whose country was being invaded, homes burned down and where the children faced the prospect of being interned in a British concentration camp. It would have been pretty unusual if teen boys were not involved in the resistance.
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
A rather odd thing to be morally outraged by. They were a citizenship militia, of mostly farmers whose country was being invaded, homes burned down and where the children faced the prospect of being interned in a British concentration camp. It would have been pretty unusual if teen boys were not involved in the resistance.
Service in Boer kommandos started at 16. The kommandos were supported in the field by younger teenagers from the age of 12 who were too young to fight but cared for the spare horses etc.
Without having any context for why those in that photo were prisoners, it is quite possible they were captured as combatants.
Probable rather than possible here but so what?
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
Ah come on. British behaviour in that conflict was appalling.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
by Monk
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
A rather odd thing to be morally outraged by. They were a citizenship militia, of mostly farmers whose country was being invaded, homes burned down and where the children faced the prospect of being interned in a British concentration camp. It would have been pretty unusual if teen boys were not involved in the resistance.
I am not morally outraged, all the above is perfectly true.
I am pointing out that if they are involved in the conflict, it is a bit rich to be appalled when they are taken prisoner and removed to somewhere they are safely out of the way.
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Sending POWs overseas was a matter of policy for the British. There was no provision for POWs in SA, and it was far easier to guard and provide for prisoners outside SA where they had no chance of escape, there was no chance of the Boers attempting to free them, and there was no supply or other burden on the operational forces. Removing POWs from the combat zone so they are not a distraction seems a pretty sensible thing to do. All evidence points to the POWs outside SA being with well treated.
The Boers brought children into combat or combat support roles. But when the British capture them, move them someplace where they are safe and well cared for, apparently it's the British who are in the wrong. If there is an appalling truth here it is the Boers use of children in the first place.
Ah come on. British behaviour in that conflict was appalling.
See my post above.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:38 pm
by weegie01
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 12:36 pmYou are / were in the British Army ? I think.
Nope.
I did however live in SA for 10 years and had to learn the history, especially since I had two Afrikaner girlfriends when I was there.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:52 pm
by weegie01
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
They usually starved them to death in concentration camps If I am not mistaken. No need to ship them oversea to do that.
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
They usually starved them to death in concentration camps If I am not mistaken. No need to ship them oversea to do that.
I'm sure some wealthy ship-owners in England in 1900 saw a good opportunity to make even more money offering to transport these children back to Rwand....I mean Bermuda.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
They usually starved them to death in concentration camps If I am not mistaken. No need to ship them oversea to do that.
I'm sure some wealthy ship-owners in England in 1900 saw a good opportunity to make even more money offering to transport these children back to Rwand....I mean Bermuda.
Of course. Though i wouldn't be surprised if the boer child in bermuda was far healthier and better fed than the working class child in london. The living conditions for the urban poor were horrific. The boer war led to significant changes as the health of recruits to fight was so poor. This was often missed when history was taught at school and in historical programs and when such things (and slavery) are bought up you can see the push back from our elites many of whoms position and wealth comes from such exploitation.
Monk wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2024 2:28 pm
I had a look.
Apparently the youngest of the Bermuda POWs was aged 6.
Given that there is significant literature stating that boys from the age of 12 were supporting the kommandos I would expect there to be quite a few early teens captured and imprisoned, and I would not be in the slightest surprised if some who should not have been there were swept up as well. But I have seen nothing to suggest the British were picking up very young children in numbers and shipping them overseas. If you have some reference that suggests this is the case then I'd be interested to see it.
weegie -
Where do your sympathies lie ?
With the facts.
You have produced a photo of Boer children in a POW camp. You have given no explanation of how and why they are there and just went straight for the 'British doing appalling things' trope.
Children in Boer POW camps is not a specialist subject of mine. However, I do have enough knowledge of the Boer war to understand why they may have ended up there, even those as young as six. Whilst children in POW camps are never good, that may well have been the best of a bad set of alternatives.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:19 pm
by Monk
Do you think that you lot were justified in starting this war?
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:54 pm
by inactionman
Well, this is fun.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:57 pm
by Margin__Walker
inactionman wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:54 pm
Well, this is fun.
Personally, I think what this forum was really missing was a Boer War shit fight.
inactionman wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:54 pm
Well, this is fun.
Personally, I think what this forum was really missing was a Boer War shit fight.
we are nothing if not current.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:04 pm
by Monk
You are right - it is silly
it was not my intention in posting that pic to start a Boer war kerfuffel. It is the first time I have seen a pic depicting so many young Boer POWs together and it was a bit of a shock.
But it seems I saw only the narrow picture - I had omitted the context.
I’m just a little bit perplexed in this stance that says we can rock up burn your fucking house down kill your cattle burn your crops and ship your kids to a prisoner of war camp on the other side of the Atlantic
And lest you post a pic of those kids you should be aware of the context that your kids got in the way and in any event are better off than many others in the circumstances, including ours.
And anyway it was our policy
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:40 pm
by inactionman
Monk wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:19 pm
Do you think that you lot were justified in starting this war?
I'm not going to get involved except to say the Transvaal and the Orange Free state declared war.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:58 pm
by inactionman
Anyway, I'm a fan of the photographer Don McCullin, and some of his most impressive shots have been of soldiers in Vietnam - he really captured the shock, bewilderment and trauma. They're not always easy viewing but they are compelling.
This is a bit dated but its an interesting read - an article in the Times where the reporter has tracked down some of the soldiers McCullin photographed.
Monk wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 3:04 pm
You are right - it is silly
it was not my intention in posting that pic to start a Boer war kerfuffel. It is the first time I have seen a pic depicting so many young Boer POWs together and it was a bit of a shock.
But it seems I saw only the narrow picture - I had omitted the context.
I’m just a little bit perplexed in this stance that says we can rock up burn your fucking house down kill your cattle burn your crops and ship your kids to a prisoner of war camp on the other side of the Atlantic
And lest you post a pic of those kids you should be aware of the context that your kids got in the way and in any event are better off than many others in the circumstances, including ours.
And anyway it was our policy
You posted a picture, and went straight to 'the British are appalling'. There was no nuance, no attempt to contextualise beyond 'it is a sad picture therefore it must have been because of British wrong doing'.
The British did many reprehensible things in the Boer War., but not everything they did was. Sadly you appear to believe that it is axiomatic that everything the British did was evil and have no interest in any other viewpoint.
I have little knowledge of the detailed facts surrounding the presence of children in Boer POW camps. However I provided contextual reasons why it is not that surprising (and there are others) and why it may not actually be as tragic as you immediately assumed it to be. Notwithstanding that children in POW camps are never a good thing.
At no point have I attempted to justify the wider war or the things that happened in it. I have only mentioned matters of British policy to contextualise why the POW camps were overseas.
Re: The Military Pictures Thread
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:59 pm
by Monk
No.
I simply described them as homesick children.
You felt the need the need to provide a context.
Look at the timeline above.
So I did not go straight in with the British are appalling angle as you so dishonestly assert here.
So I did not go straight in with the British are appalling angle as you so dishonestly assert here.
Please.
Monk wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 4:48 pm
Context does not detract from the appalling truth of children being shipped off to Bermuda as POWs - why would the British do that?
Fair enough, it took a couple of posts. You got me, you win at the internet.
