Was the British Empire worse than the Nazis?

Post Reply New Topic

I like history but I do at times find it problematic. I do think it quite ridiculous that the British Empire was as worse the Nazi Third Reich. I know Britain was involved in the slave trade and there were horrible incidents involving racism, mistreatment and killings of people in places under British control and the British had concentration camps for the Boers in Africa but the weren't extermination camps like the Nazis had to deliberately murder Jews and other people deemed inferior to them. I don't British did the same thing to the purpose wiping out people they didn't like and inferior to them. I myself don't always agree with everything about Britain's empire. But would the world be a better place if the Nazis had won the war or if Britain and its allies had won the war, which they did. You may say 'Well, we wouldn't have had a choice and history would have been written differently.' I just find it quite irritating some people try to make other figures like Churchill, Blair and Bush look and seem worse than Hitler and the Nazis, when really there is nobody more worse and controversial than him, and seem more focused on trying make other people's lesser known genocides from other parts of the world in history seem much worse because to them it is being ignored when they are all bad and should be remembered like the Holocaust in schools around the world. They say we are not taught the terrible stuff we in Britain did, which is in some way is true and it is not taught enough and I think we should, but I seem to remember at school talking about some stuff about the slave trade.

What with everything from "The Irish Problem", to the establishment of the North American slave trade, to the exploitation of India, and their policy of global imperialism by conquest and genocide, I would say that the Nazis were the successors to British Imperialism well before the end of the "British Empire" in 1997.

The Brits figured out that slavery was bad years before the US was its own thing, much less had had a whole war over it. I don't think it's a fair standard to compare what the Brits did in 1640 to what the Nazis did in the 1940s.

As for India, I'll hardly call its conquest a justified and moral thing, but I think India would not be one country and the region would much more resemble the middle east today if not for British influence.

Well sure, but all that's saying is that the British Empire was imperialistic (and so was Nazi Germany), and compared to several of their contemporaries not even a particularly vicious one compared to, say, the Ottoman Empire or the Kingdom of Belgium (Congo being an example that stands out).

The British Empire was not a "nice" Empire.

But their atrocities do not match the Nazis' atrocities in most aspects.

But try telling that to someone who was smothered in the Black Hole of Calcutta, or stampeded during the Sepoy Rebellion.

I was being facetious.....

Okay? So you do think the British Empire was a "nice" empire?

It was probably "nice" to a middle-class to rich Great Britain resident----but no one else.

peaches to pears.

The Britain became an empire around 1600, grew, had its high plateau from maybe 1870 to 1945. Then it gradually disappeared after WWII as its colonies became independent, and when Britain became eclipsed by the US and the USSR as powers.

Four centuries of the British Empire vs the 12 years that the Third Reich existed.

Hitler managed to cram a lot of evil into those 12 years. You might argue that the evil he did was about the same as the amount of evil done by the Brits over their 400 years as an empire. But the Brits did a lot of good as well. Hitler didn't cram very much good into his 12 years to offset the evil.

At least the Brits gave us Petula Clark and Dr. Who.

well you know, winners write history and all that.
churchill was a despicable person.