Additional *realistic* Lebensraum for various countries after 1800

[MagicalRabbit]

Basically, the U.S.'s successful acquisition of additional Lebensraum in the 19th century makes me wonder exactly which additional cases, if any, could there have been of a country realistically acquiring additional Lebensraum after 1800. (Also, though, please keep in mind that a country needs to both keep this Lebensraum to the present day and to eventually annex this Lebensraum in order for this example to count here.) So far, I can think of:

1. If the U.S. would have sent a better negotiator to Mexico City in 1847-1848, then maybe the U.S. would have been able to acquire Baja California in addition to New Mexico and Alta California. Also, if the U.S. would have had better generals and won the War of 1812, then the U.S. might have very well been able to acquire and to use some or all of Canada as Lebensraum.

2. If Germany would have won World War I, then it might have been able to successfully use some or all of the Baltic states (especially Latvia and/or Estonia) as Lebensraum and to eventually annex this Lebensraum to Germany.

3. If France would have had a more open immigration policy in the 19th and early 20th century and if France would have been willing to assimilate the Muslim population there earlier (as well as to introduce and promote things such as contraception among the Muslim population), then France might have been able to use Algeria as Lebensraum and to permanently keep Algeria. Also, the same might be true for Tunisia as well (specifically, with France using Tunisia as Lebensraum, annexing, and permanently keeping Tunisia); after all, Tunisia had and still has a relatively low population density.

4. If the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia would have been butterflied away (there are several ways to do this), then Russia might have very well been able to use parts (perhaps large parts) of Central Asia as Lebensraum. Also, the same might very well be true for Mongolia and/or Xinjiang if a non-Bolshevik Russia would have ever annexed Mongolia and/or Xinjiang.

5. If Britain would have remained neutral in World War I and Japan would have joined the Central Powers in World War I, then Japan would have probably acquired northern Sakhalin and maybe the Kamchatka Peninsula as well in the event of a Central Powers victory in World War I. Afterwards, Japan could have used northern Sakhalin and maybe the Kamchatka Peninsula for Lebensraum and annexed northern Sakhalin and/or the Kamtchka Peninsula to Japan. (Meanwhile, Taiwan and the rest of Japan's colonies would probably be too populous for Japan to fully use as Lebensraum and to permanently keep.)

6. If Italian dictator Benito Mussolini would not have succumbed to the temptation to enter World War II on the Axis side and would have remained in power, then Italy might have been to use Libya as Lebensraum and to permanently keep Libya.

7. I suppose that Israel could have built more settlements in the West Bank (but near the 1967 lines) after its victory in the Six Day War and annexed many/most/all of these settlements to Israel several decades later when a final Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty would have been signed. As for the location of these settlements, perhaps WeisSaul or someone else could provide some guesses in regards to this. After all, I am unsure that I myself am the most knowledgeable person about Israel on this forum (in spite of my own Israeli birth).

8. I suppose that a determined enough Spanish government could have used some parts of Morocco as Lebensraum, annexed these parts of Morocco to Spain, and permanently kept these parts of Morocco.

9. Denmark might have been able to use Iceland and/or Greenland as Lebensraum. However, this might be a long-shot due to the extremely cold climate in both of these territories.

10. If Sweden would have entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and the Central Powers would have won World War I, then Sweden might have acquired some or all of Finland in the post-World War I peace negotiations. Afterwards, Sweden might have used some or all of this territory as Lebensraum and annexed some or all of this territory. However, this might be a long-shot. Indeed, perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable than I am about Sweden and/or Finland can enlighten us in regards to this.

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here? Also, exactly which cases, if any, of additional realistic Lebensraum for various countries after 1800 am I forgetting to list here?

Any thoughts on this?

 

[shiftygiant]

I'm confused, are you talking about American-style expansion or Nazi Genocide Expansion.

Because one of these carry's a disturbing implication.

 

[MagicalRabbit]

I'm confused, are you talking about American-style expansion or Nazi Genocide Expansion.

Because one of these carry's a disturbing implication.

I am talking about American-style expansion here. Indeed, acquiring living space (Lebensraum) certainly (and thankfully) does not mean committing ethnic cleansing or genocide!

 

[MagicalRabbit]

Indeed, as far as I know, even the guy who coined the term "Lebensraum" did not advocate ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

 

[shiftygiant]

Indeed, as far as I know, even the guy who coined the term "Lebensraum" did not advocate ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

It still has connotations to the Nazi Ideology.

 

[MagicalRabbit]

It still has connotations to the Nazi Ideology.

Yes, and? After all, by that rationale, smoking bans are bad because the Nazis supported smoking bans.

Also, for what it's worth, I, as a supporter of self-determination, do not advocate acquiring living space. However, this certainly doesn't mean that all acquisition of living space must automatically be compared to what the Nazis wanted and tried to do.

 

[MagicalRabbit]

Also, I would like to point out that I myself had a lot of Jewish family members and relatives who were murdered in the Holocaust. Yeah, you heard me!

 

[shiftygiant]

Yes, and? After all, by that rationale, smoking bans are bad because the Nazis supported smoking bans.

Also, for what it's worth, I, as a supporter of self-determination, do not advocate acquiring living space. However, this certainly doesn't mean that all acquisition of living space must automatically be compared to what the Nazis wanted and tried to do.

Except unlike the smoking ban, Lebensraum has become a by-word for the genocidal expansion of Germany during the 30's and 40's due to the extremes they took it. I'm not accusing you as being a sympathizer, and I do apologize if my tone came across as such. I also apologize for opening wounds. My point was that the term Lebensraum is inappropriate due to this connotation, and it's easy to confuse what you're asking about with something similar but very different.

On track, Russia would be the best suited for an American Style Expansion. With lot's of land (both uninhabited and inhabited) and the doctrine of Russification, they already had their, ahem, Lebensraum in place and operational, even under the Soviets. I suppose that outside of them, The Imperial German Mittleeuropa (Which Goering was a fan of, hence his comparison) would function as such, whilst Italy would just resemble a slightly less organised France.

 

[MagicalRabbit]

Except unlike the smoking ban, Lebensraum has become a by-word for the genocidal expansion of Germany during the 30's and 40's due to the extremes they took it. I'm not accusing you as being a sympathizer, and I do apologize if my tone came across as such. I also apologize for opening wounds. My point was that the term Lebensraum is inappropriate due to this connotation, and it's easy to confuse what you're asking about with something similar but very different.

Yes, I certainly understand that. However, I am simply trying (perhaps foolishly--I don't know) to get rid of the negative association of the term "Lebensraum." Indeed, perhaps what I am trying to do is somewhat similar to what African-Americans did when they reclaimed the use of the N-word for themselves.

Also, though, would the term "living space" be a better neutral alternative for this (at least until the term "Lebensraum" gets rid of its negative connotations)?

On track, Russia would be the best suited for an American Style Expansion. With lot's of land (both uninhabited and inhabited) and the doctrine of Russification, they already had their, ahem, Lebensraum in place and operational, even under the Soviets.

Yes, I mentioned Russia in my first post here. Also, though, Russia might have done an even better job with this than it did in real life. After all, having enough ethnic Russians settle in Central Asia should make Central Asia's population have an ethnic Russian majority.

I suppose that outside of them, The Imperial German Mittleeuropa (Which Goering was a fan of, hence his comparison) would function as such, whilst Italy would just resemble a slightly less organised France.

Can you please elaborate on the Italy and France comparison here, though?

Also, I thought about including Nazi Germany here but decided not to both for its genocidal policies and due to the fact that an Axis victory in World War II would have probably been unlikely. However, if enough ethnic Germans would have settled in the Baltic states after Germany would have won World War I, then the Baltic states might have very well become suitable living space for Germany.

 

[TapReflex]

Vietnam could interestingly have been able to go on a Russia-style expansion. There were and are many Vietnamese communities scattered about SE Asia, to the extent that Cambodia's government had fears of being dominated by a strong Vietnamese government. Without the messy faux-pullout in WWII and subsequent Indochinese wars, United Vietnam may be strong enough to hold on to Indochina's colonial borders. Subsequently there are many more resources open to Hanoi, as a sort of 'lebensraum'. With regard to the Khmer, there would probably be heavy doses of cultural erasure in a manner similar to that of Tibet and China's relationship.

 

[shiftygiant]

Can you please elaborate on the Italy and France comparison here, though?

The relationship between Italy and Libya would resemble the relationship between France and Algeria. Libya would legally become part of Italy, be full of Italian Colonizers, however will likely fall to revolution like Algeria. Less organised because it's Fascist Italy we're talking about.

 

[lukedalton]

The relationship between Italy and Libya would resemble the relationship between France and Algeria. Libya would legally become part of Italy, be full of Italian Colonizers, however will likely fall to revolution like Algeria. Less organised because it's Fascist Italy we're talking about.

Highly unlikely, there is a big difference between Italy and Libya; the sheer numbers of colonist in relations with the locals.
From the beginning the place was considered a place where send many colonist and the fascist up the game to eleven; plus the fascist had cowed enough, the population retaking the place that the locals have fear even to sneeze to the itlaians.
Basically till a new generation come to be, i doubt that there will be much problem and by that time italians will be the majority in the coast and in general a sizeble minority in all the place...i talke at least a third of the general population.

 

[shiftygiant]

Highly unlikely, there is a big difference between Italy and Libya; the sheer numbers of colonist in relations with the locals.
From the beginning the place was considered a place where send many colonist and the fascist up the game to eleven; plus the fascist had cowed enough, the population retaking the place that the locals have fear even to sneeze to the itlaians.
Basically till a new generation come to be, i doubt that there will be much problem and by that time italians will be the majority in the coast and in general a sizeble minority in all the place...i talke at least a third of the general population.

This is true. I suspect then if Italy began to stagnate and collapse, and the native Libyans began to take control of their country back, then it'd be more a case of Spain and their Cities in North Morocco than a total withdrawal, although these cities would inhabit more space than just the city.

In the long term, I doubt Italy would be able to hold Libya for more than a Generation. Once decolonization begins to make headway, Italian Libya isn't going to make it, even if it holds out for a while. The Spanish Solution may be the likeliest outcome if Italy is unable to hold Libya.

 

[Max Sinister]

Indeed, as far as I know, even the guy who coined the term "Lebensraum" did not advocate ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

Which guy are we actually talking about? German WP hints it would have been Friedrich Ratzel, who was a radical German nationalist and expansionist. No nazi though, because he died in 1904.

 

[Reydan]

Also, for what it's worth, I, as a supporter of self-determination, do not advocate acquiring living space. However, this certainly doesn't mean that all acquisition of living space must automatically be compared to what the Nazis wanted and tried to do.

I appreciate your point, but even without the Nazi connotations, a lot of what you are suggesting involves some level of coercion and population displacement. Even if the American West is your model, this still involved considerable displacement of, and violence towards, native populations.

I'm not accusing you of anything - I'm just pointing out that Lebensraum is a loaded term by any means. This affects your geographical suggestions:

2. Whilst the Germans had long eyed the Baltics, there were significant populations that would need to be displaced or controlled. Even with a Soviet victory as OTL in the civil war, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians aren't going to be ecstatic about the arrival of thousands of German settlers.

3. What you are suggesting requires an ideological approach on the part of the French authorities at odds with what it was OTL. You might, conceivably, see the French maintain a coastal strip (as some Pied Noirs tried to convince them to in the 1950s and 60s) but don't forget a lot of Algeria is still desert that has been home to Tuareg tribes for centuries - there's very little the French could have done to shift them and the gains would be minuscule. Also its hard to see a country that, like much of the world, was iffy about contraception before the 1960s really push for it amongst the arab population in the late 1800s.

4. Why does this require you to butterfly the Soviets? Some of what you are suggesting sounds similar to Khrushchev's Virgin Lands initiative in the 1950s.

5. Sakahlin and Kamchatka are possibilities, sure, but would probably not acquire many settlers due to their remote and intemperate conditions during the winter. Remember by the 1910s and 1920s Japan is becoming a very urban modern society, whilst this sort of settling would demand rough, rural, lives.

6. As previous posters have pointed out, a tough one. See France and Algeria. "Italianising" the locals would be a very difficult process.

10. Don't forget about the Finns! By 1920 there are over 3 million Finns, with their own language, culture, organisations, politics, and aspirations. The population of Sweden is 6 million. How does Sweden control a Finland that, much like IOTL, has a reasonably developed independence movement by the end of WWI?

I'm not saying its impossible, but like with a lot of these ideas, you seem to be skipping over the bit where the "liberating" nations arrive and start shipping in their own colonists against the objections of the original inhabitants! Whilst many of the regions you talk about have room for expansion in terms of population, there are native populations in place who would react to such attempts to import new arrivals.

Whilst I appreciate links to any sort of violence and genocide aren't your point here, nevertheless there will be conflict and bloodshed in a lot of these cases I think.

 

[Alon]

A few disjoint points:

a) US expansion was genocidal. Recall the Trail of Tear, the Seminole Wars, the various Gilded Age Indian Wars, and the rewards for scalping - and the resulting massive depopulation in the 19c, even in populations that had already previously been exposed to Eurasian diseases.

b) France did in fact allow immigration in the early 20c, because of its low birth rates, mainly from Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Assimilation was so complete that people today forget that this ever happened, unlike in the case of Southern and Eastern European immigrants to the US from the same era.

c) What you're really asking is in which cases, in the modern era, an expanding ethnic group could displace and kill off another ethnic group, in the same manner as China's historic expansion to the south, Vietnam's own expansion to the south (in the 17c, Saigon was a Vietnamese outpost in a Khmer area), Russia's expansion into Siberia, Argentina's conquest of Patagonia, and the English expansion in the US, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (in descending order of genocide intensity). The answer is that you need both an impetus and a population that's far technologically and demographically stronger. Contra Hitler, it would be hard for a European country to do that within Europe - tech levels are too similar and there are many competing powers, so Germany's attempt on Poland led to war with Britain and France.

d) In a sense, after 1800, especially after 1900, is too late for the complete annihilation and repopulation that characterizes US history; of note, the two big examples, the US and Russia, started in the 17c and 16c respectively. First-world birth rates were only sort of high enough in the 19c for this, and not really high enough in the 20c. Thus, for example, an English attempt to settle East Africa would've been doomed to failure - by the time England could dump enough settlers on the region, there would not have been enough lead time for them to expand through high birth rates the way colonial-era New Englanders did.

 

[Plumber]

I'm confused, are you talking about American-style expansion or Nazi Genocide Expansion.

Because one of these carry's a disturbing implication.

Given that Manifest Destiny was the inspiration for lebensraum, the biggest difference is one of political correctness. Both expansions were genocidal.

 

[shiftygiant]

Given that Manifest Destiny was the inspiration for lebensraum, the biggest difference is one of political correctness. Both expansions were genocidal.

One was the expansion into lands where the native population were decimated by diseases, with them moved from desirable locations into crappy ones with their land stolen and their culture suppressed, where the death of the natives was a side effect of the expansion and ignored by the people expanding. The other was the active enslavement and extermination of the native population for land and resources. Both genocides and morally wrong in the strongest possible sense, however are not the same thing. The OP wants the former applied to his choice of nations, not the latter.

 

[DrakonFin]

10. Don't forget about the Finns! By 1920 there are over 3 million Finns, with their own language, culture, organisations, politics, and aspirations. The population of Sweden is 6 million. How does Sweden control a Finland that, much like IOTL, has a reasonably developed independence movement by the end of WWI?

Exactly.

No sane Swedish government with even rudimentary knowledge about the facts on the ground in Finland circa 1914-1919 would push for direct annexation. The problems involved in it would be too great for any possible benefits, and this has been argued on the forum many times before - often by yours truly, in fact.

Sweden can annex the Åland islands directly - that is not a huge departure from the OTL. In an extreme case, if the Swedish really want to piss off Finnish-speaking Finns, Sweden could push for annexing the majority Swedish-speaking areas on the coast of the Finnish mainland. That area is something Sweden could stand a chance of absorbing, even if the Swedes would need to expect some pretty heavy Finnish hostility towards Sweden and anything Swedish as a result.

Beyond that, it is very hard to see any, again, even minimally sane Sweden push for more annexations in WWI-period Finland. Even for a deranged Fascist Sweden, the whole of Finland would arguably be a too big a bite to swallow.

 

[Reagent]

This is true. I suspect then if Italy began to stagnate and collapse, and the native Libyans began to take control of their country back, then it'd be more a case of Spain and their Cities in North Morocco than a total withdrawal, although these cities would inhabit more space than just the city.

In the long term, I doubt Italy would be able to hold Libya for more than a Generation. Once decolonization begins to make headway, Italian Libya isn't going to make it, even if it holds out for a while. The Spanish Solution may be the likeliest outcome if Italy is unable to hold Libya.

Why couldn't Italy hold Libya?

Unlike French Algeria, Italy would still be sending settlers over. By the 1940s (and onward) there was a net outflow of Europeans out from Algeria; population growth among Europeans in Algeria was only due to natural growth - there was basically no new migration into the country.

The geography of Libya is far less conductive to a Guerrilla war than French Algeria. The Italian Government would also be far more willing to use heavy handed methods to keep power. It's hard to see a successful insurgency taking hold in Libya.

Additionally, Italy would have a government insulated from popular opinion - the Fascist Government is going to want to hold onto Libya even if an insurgency somehow takes hold and the war gets unpopular. Look what Portugal's dictatorship was able to accomplish in Africa as a third-rate power. An Italy undamaged by World War II (and likely profiting from selling to both sides) would be able to hold Libya in a walk.

A Spanish Solution doesn't make much sense, since Italy would already be retaining the principal cities of Libya (at that point, it doesn't make sense not to keep the hinterland)