Is Nazi rule worse than colonial conditions?

Is Nazi rule in mainland Europe worse than colonial rule in the Raj, Africa and Southeast Asia?

  • Worse than colonialism.

    Votes: 297 92.5%
  • Same as colonialism.

    Votes: 16 5.0%
  • Not as bad as colonialism.

    Votes: 8 2.5%

  • Total voters
    321
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am aware of the Hunger Plan. That however was just the start of the planned genocides in the East,

Please list a few

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.

Not sure what you are saying here. I certainly have heard about it.
 
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.

Try telling that to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. There's a few thousand of them.
 
Try telling that to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community. There's a few thousand of them.

There are people of tasmanian aboriginal descent and a few words and customs as preserved by white anthropologists. You may as well tell me the romans are still around because of the pope.
 
Some people consider what happened to the Indians ethnic cleasning.

If you mean Native Americans, it was ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing falls on a spectrum from population exchange to one way displacement to genocide. I would only consider the latter to be worse than industrialized chattel slavery in sugar/cotton plantation conditions.
 
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?

I don't know but racialist theory typically classes them as Nordic.

Nazi logic didn't make much sense. Apparently the Poles and Russians were too Asiatic but the Magyars were not...
 
If you mean Native Americans, it was ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing falls on a spectrum from population exchange to one way displacement to genocide. I would only consider the latter to be worse than industrialized chattel slavery in sugar/cotton plantation conditions.

Indians, American Indians, Amerindians are also accepted terms to some extent.

The push to rename the Smithsonian American Indian Museum to the Native American Museum was largely defeated thanks to opposition from native groups.
 
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

If you have took the time to look at the English version of the wiki page you cited, you will find this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

The Generalplan Ost (German pronunciation: [ɡenəˈʁaːlˌplaːn ˈɔst]; English: Master Plan for the East), abbreviated GPO, was the Nazi German government's plan for the genocide and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, and colonization of Central and Eastern Europe by Germans. It was to be undertaken in territories occupied by Germany during World War II. The plan was partially realized during the war, resulting indirectly and directly in millions of deaths of ethnic Slavs by starvation, disease, or extermination through labor. But its full implementation was not considered practicable during the major military operations, and was prevented by Germany's defeat.[1][2]

The plan entailed the enslavement, expulsion, and mass murder of most Slavic peoples (and substantial parts of the Baltic peoples, especially Lithuanians and Latgalians[3]) in Europe along with planned destruction of their nations, whom the 'Aryan' Nazis viewed as racially inferior.[4] The program operational guidelines were based on the policy of Lebensraumdesigned by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten (drive to the East) ideology of German expansionism. As such, it was intended to be a part of the New Order in Europe.

There is also a German version, if you perfer to read in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
 
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.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has even admitted that the actions of the United States amounted to Ethnic Cleansing ...

http://www.tahtonka.com/apology.html
 
There are people of tasmanian aboriginal descent and a few words and customs as preserved by white anthropologists. You may as well tell me the romans are still around because of the pope.
You're going to deny them their identity? That is atrocious.
 
There are people of tasmanian aboriginal descent and a few words and customs as preserved by white anthropologists. You may as well tell me the romans are still around because of the pope.

I’d walk a lot softer on this topic. Tasmanian aboriginal people have been doing language reconstruction for a long time, for example, http://tacinc.com.au/programs/palawa-kani/

We can point to Tasmanian invasion as an emblem of monstrosity without speaking for Tasmanian aboriginal people.
 
You're going to deny them their identity? That is atrocious.

I’d walk a lot softer on this topic. Tasmanian aboriginal people have been doing language reconstruction for a long time, for example, http://tacinc.com.au/programs/palawa-kani/

We can point to Tasmanian invasion as an emblem of monstrosity without speaking for Tasmanian aboriginal people.

Fine, ignore me saying that I thought their genocide was worse than the holocaust but quibble about language reconstruction. A language is not a culture or an identity, nor is simple bloodline descent. Attempts to reconstruct are admirable but ultimately it will be impossible to recreate due to the loss of first hand knowledge of customs, rituals and the meaning behind them.

Perhaps a better comparison is Wicca, in that it mimcs an ancient tradition but without direct continuation it becomes culturally distinct from the original. In the same sense Palawan as a culture or culture group has ceased to exist, whatever comes of this reconstruction will only bear surface resemblance to the original.
 
What do you think an emblem of monstrosity is?

Jews, gypsys, and slavs maintain the cultural practices which were sought to be destroyed by the nazis, the scale to me is irrelevant as in my first post in this thread. It is the completion of genocide which makes it a more abhorrent crime, the erasure of a peoples entire history. The theory behind generalplan ost is worse than what the colonials planned for tasmania, but it was never completed so it is therefore IMO, not as bad.
 
For anyone looking for a good overview of the sheer scale and monstrosity of Nazi designs for the east, I can recommend 'Ostkrieg' by Stephen Fritz which really sheds a great deal of light on the topic.
 
Reading this discussion could not one argue that Nazi rule intent was a nasty colonial rule.

If you disagree please say why?
 
Reading this discussion could not one argue that Nazi rule intent was a nasty colonial rule.
If you disagree please say why?

Because while all things are on a sliding scale and some colonial regimes were worse than others, and certainly some amounted to ethnic cleaning and de-facto attempted genocide whether by positive action or neglect. But there are few colonial regime in history that had as an ideological policy that was based around exterminating entire groups of people as a primary sort after goal (including groups within their own home society lets not forget)

But there is some crossover in motivation/justification, a lot of colonial regimes come with a healthy dose of our race is better than the races we subjugate (and need room/resources at the expense of them).

Again I think a point that gets ignored is that Nazi Germany did all this while fighting and then loosing a war on 2-3 fronts. I.e they were limited in their ability to truly apply their policies!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top