I don't even know why you are asking that. This should be clear with small checking. Nazis of course were worse. Their only plan for Eastern Europeans was only just nearby total extermination. Europeans were pretty nasty for Africans but rarely genocidal.
Is Nazi rule worse than colonial conditions?
- Thread starter spoonzandforkz
- Start date
- Status
I don't even know why you are asking that. This should be clear with small checking. Nazis of course were worse. Their only plan for Eastern Europeans was only just nearby total extermination. Europeans were pretty nasty for Africans but rarely genocidal.
If somehow the Nazi's had managed to establish power from Lisbon to the Urals and say a decade of even a cold peace I believe the death totals would have been in the hundreds of millions.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
Nazi rule for the Germanic population would be great so if you were a Germanic, life's good. If you are a Slav or other Untermenschen, though, good luck. You'll need it. Nazi rule for the oppressed groups would be worse than European colonialism (I'll be focusing on Africa) since the Europeans replaced the system that already existed with a better system (might not be as good as what the whites had but it was better than what you had before). The Nazis, however, would have turned your life from normal to being a slave or dead.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
There's some stuff on his methods:http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/METHOD.HTM
Here's his source list for his book whereto chart came from:http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.REFERENCES.HTM
I'd argue that claiming that the systems the Europeans put in place was better is mostly inaccurate.
Colonialism is bad, but as many have likely said the Nazis plan was to wipe out the native populace and repopulate it with Germans. America saw a good bit of that, given its past treatment of natives (not just the US, all throughout the Americas) but didn't make death camps as such.
Didn't plan to intentionally murder hundreds of millions in a decade or two in an organized manner.
As a German myself, it is a unquestionable dogma in German postwar society that NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING was, is and ever will be as bad as Nazism. For if we start making excuses or comparing it to other atrocities we are already halfway on repeating it, and even in Germany no one really wants that.(*)
(*) Which may be another dogma, but one 99% of the population is happy subscribing to.
(*) Which may be another dogma, but one 99% of the population is happy subscribing to.
The Nazis flat out murdered huge numbers of Eastern Europeans. For the most part the colonies were not quite as bad, although the Belgian Congo got close to being as bad.
Some of that data is out of date. The opening up of Soviet records showed that a lot fewer were killed there than previously believed.
I think the example of colonialism that comes closest is the Middle Passage and Sugar Island Slavery.
An FYI and a little bit of IMO, the genocide in Tasmania eclipsed the scale of Nazi Germany because it was successful. 100% successful. It was an entirely different form of 'colonialism' than was carried out on the mainland in that it was a policy of extermination rather than one of retribution or exclusion.
It is under these terms that you can look at the deaths under Mao and Stalin and say that while terrible, it wasn't as bad as Hitler because despite the absolute numbers it was mostly unintentional and mostly indiscriminate. The same can be said when comparing forms of colonialism, Tasmania, though lesser than the Bengal famine in terms of absolute numbers, was worse due to the intended goal of the operation.
I find that there is no one size fits all when comparing these large scale atrocities. it is like the difference between murder and manslaughter, at the end of the day someone is still dead, the determinant is whether it was out of stupidity/negligence or malice.
Nazi rule carried out to it's logical conclusion would've been far worse than anything done in "colonial rule." The only reason the Nazis didn't exterminate hundreds of millions of people is because they ran out of time. In a Nazi victory scenario, on the other hand...yikes.
Both were evil, but not all evils are created equal.
Both were evil, but not all evils are created equal.
Last edited:
Sorry if i hadnt made it clear, i meant post 1800 colonialism/New Imperialism era.
Augustine Sedira
Banned
During European colonization, the life expectancy in Africa rose. For the rest of the world I'm not saying whether or not colonialism was beneficial since I'm not knowledgeable enough. For Africa, however, I know that the system the Europeans established was infact more peaceful than the tribal system that existed over much of the continent. This is due to the Europeans stopping quiet a lot of tribal warfare.
Anyways though, I don't want to even risk being kicked so I'll be leaving this discussion.
Once the Jews, gipsies, etc were killed. I doubt the mass killing would continue although troublemakers would be killed this would be much less. I am not aware of any plans to kill off Eastern Europeans as such. They were to be slaves of the master race.
I suspect that the post-Stalin regime before the collapse of the USSR would be a model.
General Plan Ost says otherwise. The centerpiece of Nazi occupation of the East was genocide of Slavs.
The chart itself refers to the years 1936-1945 for Japan, so not sure where the 'entire activity through WWI' is coming from. Plus, that 6 million figure was over 9 years, compared to the 20 years of the KMT and 40 years of CCP. Besides, the KMT and CCP both had to deal with other wars, internal conflicts, and the ravages of war, with the CCP suffering from incompetent leadership that helped facilitate famine (unintentionally) and general purges, over the entirety of China. They did not, however, intend on just indiscriminately killing off their population with biological and chemical warfare and mass brutality the way the Japanese did in the 1930s-40s in their invasion (which didn't encompass all of China). This is not to excuse the blatant human rights violations and mass killings by the KMT and CCP but rather to dispute the notion that the Japanese imperial regime was any more benign than the homegrown Chinese governments. The KMT wasn't dropping plague on their own cities or vivisecting its own citizens at any point, for one.
That said, the Japanese weren't exterminating entire ethnic groups and didn't having plans to clear out land for their own settlement.
You are completely and utterly wrong. The Holocaust of OTL was only the beginning. The Nazis planned to murder the VAST majority of the population of Eastern Europe, to the extent of removing evidence of cities, flooding Leningrad, etc. The few kept alive would have been slaves.
- Status