3 ms·
Their fathers might have lied, but their nephews lived a jolly good life, donchathing? (Afghanistan was a waste of time of course, other colonies not so much)
by jojobas 6y ago
Their fathers might have lied, but their nephews lived a jolly good life, donchathing? (Afghanistan was a waste of time of course, other colonies not so much)
No general wants his compatriots dead, but the will to sacrifice some for benefit of others seems to advance countries big time.
- 082349872349872 6y agoIn the general case, I doubt fraternisation was a thing in the turn of the century brit army, so while enlisted men may have been compatriots ("people who share a fatherland") of their officers, they literally were neither potes ("mates at the pub", compare symposium) nor copains ("messmates"). In this particular case, there were to be no (in the narrow sense) nephews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsie_Bambridge (née Kipling) > "On her death, in 1976, having no children, she bequeathed her property and its contents to the National Trust."
- jojobas 6y agoIn an even more general sense, there were many more people staying in Britain than dying or in fact participating in any war. They got the spoils of war (some more than others for sure). Second Afghan war was mostly fought by Indians too, how's that for benefiting.
- 082349872349872 6y agoColonised with benefits? Emperors (and Empresses) gonna empire. Victoria: Let's you and him fight. Caesar: Divide et impera Phillip: Διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε I wonder how the sentiment was expressed in Sumerian? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221