Churchill had het al lang opgelost.

[Libro]

https://x.com/RussiaIsntEnemy/status...14559999721973

Ik moet de Dwerg hier jammer genoeg gelijk geven. Europa en haar lidstaten zijn al decennia vooral bezig met de micromanager uit te hangen met als doel het continent in een inclusief en ecologisch Bokrijk te veranderen, met als gevolg dat defensie, veiligheid en economie worden verwaarloosd.

[Vlad]

Churchills apologie van de kampen tijdens de boerenoorlogen:

Sir, In his rejoinder to Lord Hugh Cecil, Lord Crewe deals chiefly with two questions. First, if the war in South Africa is being prosecuted by “methods of barbarism,” as Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman contends, are the generals responsible or only the Government? Now, a military commander has nothing to say to the policy which leads to a war, nor to the conditions which it may be thought desirable to exact before peace is restored. But for the methods by which that war is waged he is certainly responsible equally with the Government at home.

If the methods are of the general’s own choosing, the balance of responsibility, if any exist, rests with him. No one can relieve him of it; for no authority can justify an inhuman act. And the contention that the soldier is absolved of any portion of his responsibility for the methods by which warfare is conducted would be extremely mischievous were it not altogether absurd. The ethics of slaughter are naturally obscure; but one clear principle cannot be overlooked; and the civilized combatant is obliged, at peril of being classed a savage, to avoid unnecessary cruelty to his enemy. Unless there has been unnecessary cruelty, whatever the suffering, there can be no barbarity. If there has been unnecessary cruelty, all who are in any way responsible for it are infected with the taint of inhumanity.
***

When, therefore, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman speaks of “methods of barbarism,” his charge applies to generals abroad not less than to Ministers at home. When he declines to press his charge against the generals, it is evident that either his logic or his courage is at fault; and when Lord Crewe, hastening to succour his leader, informs us that “public opinion will not burden Lord Kitchener, but will lay heavy responsibility upon the Government,” he merely affords a rare and pleasing example of party loyalty in the Liberal ranks.

The second question which Lord Crewe raises, but which he does not answer, is of much more importance. Is the policy of concentrating the civil inhabitants barbarous? As Lord Hugh Cecil pointed out, the privations of the women and children in the refugee camps are nothing in comparison to those endured by the civil inhabitants of a fortified town during a siege. Nevertheless, as the death-rate shows, they have undoubtedly been severe.

“The essential fact,” says Lord Crewe, “is not in a distinction between fortifications and no fortifications, but between the results involved by active resistance on the one hand, and passive submission on the other.” As a matter of fact, the resistance of a hardy population scattered over a vast region and continually supplying the enemy’s army with food and information is plainly more formidable than the resistance—if it can be called resistance—of the unhappy inhabitants of an invested town. In the former case the non-combatants undoubtedly prolong the operations; in the other, by eating up the food of the garrison, they terminate them.
***

It is difficult to understand why Lord Crewe calls the former condition “passive submission” and the latter “active resistance.” His expressions would be better chosen if their application were reversed. But, putting all this aside, I would venture to observe that “the essential fact” lies neither in the question of fortifications nor in that of resistance, but in the actual suffering inflicted on helpless human beings. If women and children are dying of disease and want, whether they have offered technical resistance or not is a minor consideration.

The supreme question is—Was there any alternative action by which this suffering might have been diminished without impeding the military operations? Lord Crewe is silent. He does not tell us—others, less careful of their words than he, do not tell us—whether they would have faced the alternative to the concentration camps. Would they have refused to accept any responsibility for the Boer women and children left in the devastated districts? Would they have said that their case was primarily a matter for the Boer generals to consider? Would they, having trampled the crops—the enemy’s commissariat—or destroyed the houses—often his magazines—have left the women sitting hungry amid the ruins? The mind revolts from such ideas; and so we come to concentration camps, honestly believing that upon the whole they involve the minimum of suffering to the unfortunate people for whom we have made ourselves responsible.

I am, Sir, Yours faithfully
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL