Is Nazi rule worse than colonial conditions?
- Thread starter spoonzandforkz
- Start date
- Status
Lot longer period of time and much much much lower intensity.
Tens of thousands of say nomadic plains indians over decades versus the intention to wipe out 100 million mostly settled industrialized people over a decade or so. As it is the Nazi's killed what 26 million soviets alone (though I think that includes Jewish victims of the holocaust) over a period of less then 4 years (with the majority of the civilian deaths taking place in the first two years I think)
Colonials were well intentioned bigots driven by a desire to "bring progress to savages" to colonies at best, and at worst greed driven bigots that tried to paid lip service to the "progress" idea and half assedly enacted it as long as it didnt interfered with the profits.
The nazis were evil intentioned bigots with an unequivocal desire to exterminate the colonies, having absolutely no regard for the locals.
The nazis were evil intentioned bigots with an unequivocal desire to exterminate the colonies, having absolutely no regard for the locals.
I do not think so. This was likely a short-term primarily due to the shortages of food.
Please use google translate to read this page if you cannot read German
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerplan
Colonialism was pretty damn fucking bad, no question asked, but nowhere near as bad as Nazism. Hell, in colonies, some local elites could be encouraged to rise up and get positions of high responsibility. A skilled black Guyanese man could, and did, historically, end up as colonial governor of half of French Africa with actual influence over the policies there. A skilled Jew or Gipsy would have been murdered like the others. There's mass-scale fuck-up and greed on one side. There's deliberate gratuitous industrial-scale murder on the other.
That's quite true, and highlights an important point. Colonisation is not a good term, as it's way too vague.
It's better to talk about the Colonial Era, makes it look less like one block of similar behaviour. In 1920, the way Lebanon was treated was vastly different from Algeria, which was vastly different from Indochina. In Indochina, it was different being in Laos where there were a few hundreds French civil servants if that compared to Saigon or Hanoi.
If you go back a century, Portuguese Goa or Dakar were probably fine enough places to live
Of course you had exceptions like the Belgian Congo, or the Sugar Islands. You had spots of activity that were deeply unpleasant (the Cameroun train line from Albert Londres). However, there was never a mass industry of transforming all African or all Algerians into soap after gasing them for the crime of existing.
The Belgian Congo was the nightmare of a greedy mad man and it's the only thing that comes close to the industrialised horror of Nazism
TDM
Kicked
The very worst example of colonialism might touch on a regular day in the Nazi plan
The thing to remember is that the Nazi's manged to kill so many by deliberate action they did while also fighting and losing a war on 2-3 fronts. That not only takes some serious dedication to killing but IMO demonstrates that it could have been a lot worse both in intensity and in duration if they had won.
No they were going to extensively depopulate Western Russia, maybe not down to 0 (need slave classes after) but certainly down to the kind of level were:
a). those left would never be a threat to German colonists, your slave classes could also be transported from other conquered territories to supplement them, a mixed up pollution with no ties to each other is easy to dominate
b). they could create that empty lebensraum to expand into (so think manifest destiny with tanks not wagons and death camps not plague blankets)
Then of course there what happens next, given Hitler's / Nazi racial ideology as well as paranoia and supposing they had somehow beaten those fighting them in WW2 (which I guess some how means containing eh US, the US going fascist or somehow nuking them into submission). Do we really think the Germans are gong to stop at Western Russia. No the mid east will be next (oil), Africa etc.
The thing to remember is that the Nazi's manged to kill so many by deliberate action they did while also fighting and losing a war on 2-3 fronts. That not only takes some serious dedication to killing but IMO demonstrates that it could have been a lot worse both in intensity and in duration if they had won.
No they were going to extensively depopulate Western Russia, maybe not down to 0 (need slave classes after) but certainly down to the kind of level were:
a). those left would never be a threat to German colonists, your slave classes could also be transported from other conquered territories to supplement them, a mixed up pollution with no ties to each other is easy to dominate
b). they could create that empty lebensraum to expand into (so think manifest destiny with tanks not wagons and death camps not plague blankets)
Then of course there what happens next, given Hitler's / Nazi racial ideology as well as paranoia and supposing they had somehow beaten those fighting them in WW2 (which I guess some how means containing eh US, the US going fascist or somehow nuking them into submission). Do we really think the Germans are gong to stop at Western Russia. No the mid east will be next (oil), Africa etc.
Last edited:
TDM
Kicked
I have no doubt that they had foot shortage plan and that it likely would have killed 10m's but that's not proof they didn't have longer term plans as described. Especially as the Hunger plan would have helped them kill two birds with one stone (well OK 10m's of birds!)
Last edited:
The fact that the Hunger Plan exists does not mean Generalplan Ost wasn't a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
I don't see the Nazis wiping out the Arabs. I know that the Arabs are descended from the same Semitic roots as the Jews, but Hitler and even Himmler tossed around the idea of an alliance between the Arabs and the Third Reich. There were Muslim units of the Waffen SS, used in anti-partisan operations in Yugoslavia, and Mein Kampf was translated into Arabic for Middle Eastern audiences.
Also, it's worth noting that Hitler had a fascination with Islam, it's supposed emphasis on strength in parallel to Christianity's supposed weakness and of course, Islam's violent history with Jews. I don't think Hitler will allowed that to be exterminated willy-nilly. I believe he would want that preserved in some form.
Didn't Hitler actually like Islam? I read a couple times about that alliance indeed.
However, it's worth noting this affection might have been true, or it might have been out of desire to open a second front in the Allies colonies.
Now, I don't think Black People would have been treated particularly well to say the least.
Quick question: what were Hitler's thoughts on the Irish?
The only thing that could come close was the Congo under Leopold II.
But under Leopold II if you worked and paid your taxes for the most part they wouldn't bother you to much. Under the Nazis you weren't so lucky.
But under Leopold II if you worked and paid your taxes for the most part they wouldn't bother you to much. Under the Nazis you weren't so lucky.
TDM
Kicked
I think you crediting Nazism with too much internal coherence
! Conveniently placed, potential allies in wartime don't have to be friends in victory* (especially ones who don't tick your ethnic purity boxes). I think in a post victory situation paranoia will still be there, as will ethnic purity and a desire to secure the ME oil fields will conflict with Arab nationalism (likely merging with the same in the Caucasus, Baku, Caspian sea etc). If nothing else having another inferior race denying "natural Aryan/Germanic mastery of the world" keeps the ball rolling for Hitler et al.I also think Hitler's occasional musings on what he saw as positive traits in Islam isn't going to stop him and the nazis stomping all over the Mid east, and when all you have is hammers all you see is nails.
Hitler mused on a lot fo stuff (he considered Jesus a warrior Christian fighting Pharisees) Hitler and religion is weird subject full stop!
Last edited:
Not too familiar with the details, but indeed I believe there's plenty of evidence of this being the likely case based on the German treatment of colonial African POWs after the fall of France.
Interestingly enough, there was already VERY violent propaganda against French black troups in WWI, and especially during the post-war occupation
TDM
Kicked
Yep, all the golden oldies ("our women aren't safe from the savages unleashed by the venegful french" for instance), but yeah C19th racial theory and one white power using it's black and arab troops to subdue another white power didn't play well IIRc Colonial troops were looked on poorly from all directions at times.
It didn't have the industrialized scale of the slave trade. Also, as bad as it is, I don't think forced displacement is as evil as chattel slavery.
I am aware of the Hunger Plan. That however was just the start of the planned genocides in the East, and it was directly in line with Nazi plans for the East. It helped alleviate shortages of food yes, but things can have more than one application. Look, this really is as simple as a Google Search. If you haven't heard of the plan, then okay, but not having heard of it, and then trying to claim it didn't exist based on that really isn't particularly solid ground to stand on.
Well it was. If I remember correctly the definition of ethnic cleansing is intentionally removing a group of of people from an area based on their religion, race, ethnicity, exc. It's just that removal can also include a lot of bloodshed. If the removal takes the form of say murdering all or most of the targeted group then it overlaps with genocide.
- Status