How did the British memory hole the GENOCIDE they did against us in 1809? Thousands of women and children starved to death in an entirely preventable man-made famine created by the blockade of the British navy. Everyone knows about their crimes in Ireland and South Africa but this particular genocide has been entirely memory holed for some reason.
>>18013097Always remember the victors write the predominant history and this will, obviously, have some slant. I suppose if you wanted to learn the actual truth of things you would want to read perspectives by people who weren't directly involved in these conflicts.
>>18013158The Ibsen story Tierje Vigen is only place I’ve ever seen this man made famine mentioned which is strange when UK’s actions in Ireland, Scotland and even South Africa get more attention.
>Ally with napoleon>Be surprised when you get blockadedNoone to blame but yourself.
Britain was at war with Napoleon and the only real advantage they had was naval superiority. This allowed them to restrict Napoleon's access to global trade and put pressure on him economically, as well as deny him oceanic logistical routes for his army, which hampered his military campaigns in Europe.There were several countries in Northern Europe which felt Napoleon wasn't really a threat to them, and so tried to continue trading with France as though nothing had changed. Britain saw this as materially aiding an existential threat to itself, and to its continental allies. Russia, while nominally an ally of Britain against Napoleon, still relied on free trade through the Baltic and North Seas which it wouldn't get from the Scandinavian nations unless Russia agreed to back their "Armed Neutrality" pact, which Paul, the Tsar at the time, agreed to.So the result was a League of Armed Neutrality which included most of Scandinavia and Russia, which was essentially meant to stiff-arm Britain from blockading trade with France. This convinced the British government that Denmark, Norway, etc were already in Napoleon's pocket. Even if they did not offer direct support to him in his war effort their free trade with France would materially abet it, and it was only a matter of time for Napoleon swept into the north and added their kingdoms to his collection, and with their fleets he could then challenge Britain's naval supremacy in the North Sea. So Britain acted to prevent this with the Gunboat War which led to the blockade of Norway-Denmark trade, which caused the famine OP talks about, among other economic hardships though starvation was understandably the most dire for regular people. Britain's intent was really to cause famine, but to destroy the Danish and Norwegian fleets which it saw as eventual Napoleonic weapons rather than potential allies. If Norway and Denmark wanted to throw-in with Napoleon so badly, Britain would render them useless as allies.
>>18013097>not selling food to people you're at war with is genocideHow many English women and children did the Vikings kill, anyway? Should we still be butthurt about that?
>>18013097Revenge for what the vikings did
>>18013269It was more blocking grain shipments from Denmark to Norway that led to it, and that was a deliberately hostile act meant to cause harm to Denmark and Norway to force them to capitulate and end the "armed neutrality" pact.
>>18013176these days the Bengali famine of the 1943 gets some attention. because that was a year the harvests should have been good, unlike earlier famines (under the British or otherwise) when the harvests were not good.
