Who Killed More?

Well the Brits were on the winning team, so they were able to go through the post war prosecutions of the Nazi leadership in the Nuremberg trials, criminalizing the German top brass. Which to be fair was justified :rolleyes: the Nazis had concentration camps for political opponents, jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally disabled etc. etc and committed genocide on a wide scale not just in Germany but in a lot of what became the Eastern Bloc. Look at Warsaw ghetto for example. The British could be held accountable for stuff like the bombing of Dresden but I'm not sure if that qualifies as a war crime. It's moot in my opinion anyway because the Germans started the whole area bombing fiasco.

And also you don't limit a certain time period for the British? Are you talking about in WWII or since the establishment of a British state?

Basically, the British were quite justified in giving Germany a right kicking and even if you were right in that the British killed more (which I highly doubt, considering Britain's capabilities I find it far more likely that more casualties were inflicted by the Americans operating out of Britain and the Soviet advance), it wouldn#t change the fact that those casualties were caused by legitimate military action instigated by the Germans as opposed to Hitler being a massive scumbag.

And to address the negative portrayal of Britain, against western, developed nations, Britain's conduct has been pretty normal. They were never known for committing an extraordinary number of atrocities and their conduct was generally pretty par for the course. You may have an arguement to make for conflicts to do with indigenous populations in the colonial era but the French, Belgians, Germans and Dutch were all doing it too and you have to look at it in context as a less civilized time where these people were looked on as less than human.