WW1 related question. . .

For the record this" Master Race"-Bullshit was not part of Imperial Germany!
And on the plus side of german colonialism: It was not just "let robb those colony til nothing is left". Germany at least took that "we want to educate and civilize" serious! Germany invested more money in its colonys than it got out of them.
It was,though,your dear old good Kaiser Billy did happily endorse Houston Stewart Chamberlain's racial theory.
And when I wrote that reply,I intend to refer to modern Anglosphere’s German Simping,which is deeply rooted in Pan-Germanic “Master Race” rhetoric.
 
Last edited:

McPherson

Banned
Unless of course the Germans are strategic about it and let Japan have a few desolate rocks in exchange for being best buddies...
The Germans tried that trick with Spain and the United States in 1898. They, the Germans, were rewarded with intensely negative results. Japan took what she wanted in 1914-1918 and then the Americans did so in 1941-1945.
 
For the record this" Master Race"-Bullshit was not part of Imperial Germany!
And on the plus side of german colonialism: It was not just "let robb those colony til nothing is left". Germany at least took that "we want to educate and civilize" serious! Germany invested more money in its colonys than it got out of them.
Also,French colonialism was actually much more invested into the "civilizing mission " thing ,but why don't I see this sub being as kind to it ……
 
I'm not entirely sure the Herero would agree with you. What with the genocide and everything.
Which was not a government sanctioned genocide nor a government planned one. (Which doesn't change the fact that it was one)
Also,French colonialism was actually much more invested into the "civilizing mission " thing ,but why don't I see this sub being as kind to it ……
Well the problem probably is that frech colonialism lasted longer and ended in blood often.
 

David Flin

Gone Fishin'
Which was not a government sanctioned genocide nor a government planned one. (Which doesn't change the fact that it was one)

Actually, the German government supported the actions taken by the people on the spot with extra resources.

The German government carried responsibility for the actions.

I get very tired of Imperial German apologism.
 
Actually, the German government supported the actions taken by the people on the spot with extra resources.

The German government carried responsibility for the actions.

I get very tired of Imperial German apologism.
Not an apologist for German Imperialism... the Herero/Nama genocide was a horrid affair. But, it was one of quite a few black marks in the black book of colonial endeavours, and sadly wasn't that unique...
To the credit of the German people (not so much to Der Kaiser's government), once the full extent of the atrocities became public, there was a media and popular backlash, which led to reforms in the administration of Southwest Afrika...
 
As long there are clowns and cowards who spread the lies that people should just have submitted the the mighty German (and to a wider degree,Imperialist)overlords.
Then there need to be someone who fight against such lies.
How did you know that was directed toward you?
(it was, in fact, but I'm just curious...)
 

Osman Aga

Banned
Would the world have been better off if the Central Powers win WW1, or not? Assuming there is not another world war 20 years later?

Better for Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria maybe.

It is hard to say what will happen between 1914 and 2014 (just to make it a clear century). Most of the time when we make TL's about certain subjects we only tend to make it look how good it can be and never look how wrong it could go as well.

What I can say is... If the Central Powers win, there won't be Adolf Hitler taking over and killing many in Europe. But that doesn't mean that there won't be a genocidal maniac taking over and replace Hitler either. France seemed ideal to lure in a right wing dictatorship, which is likely in the moment they lose WW1 with the Germans setting up some harsh demands.
The Ottoman Empire winning means no Greek-Turkish population exchange, preserving Anatolian Greeks (and thus the Greeks in Istanbul as well). But there won't be an Armenia and there is no certainty what forms it would take if the conflict between Armenians and Eastern Anatolian/Caucasus Muslims increase to a point the Ottoman Authorities side with their preferred pick, the Muslim side, against the Armenians?
Austria-Hungary surviving means no revanchist Hungary (as it won't exist) but if it could fall apart, what stops it from turning into a larger Yugoslavia between certain ethnicities? Hungarians vs Romanians, Ukrainians, Slovaks and Serbs? Germans vs Czechs? Croats vs Serbs? Poles vs Ukrainians? Generally when there is no law and order, the radical sides also pick on the minorities so the Jews for example as well.
Bulgaria controlling Macedonia and parts of Southern Serbia means a dominant Bulgaria so nobody willing to dare to fight Bulgaria on their own. But what if the Ottoman Empire (who also won WW1) prepares for a new war to regain Western Thrace and the Rhodopes, gets the Balkan Nations to join forces and attack it? Won't it cause more inter ethnic conflicts, mostly targeting ethnic Bulgarians or those who belong to the groups facing Bulgaria.

Tl'dr: good is only good for certain parties. The Entente winning the war showed us this. It was bad for Germany and it turned bad for Europe. It could as well be the case when the Central Powers win. It is also assuming everything could go good when in fact that isn't guaranteed.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Which was not a government sanctioned genocide nor a government planned one. (Which doesn't change the fact that it was one)

Well the problem probably is that frech colonialism lasted longer and ended in blood often.
Oh, please DO expand on this.

Within four Hours of your next log in.

Otherwise I will read it as it appears to be.
 
Oh, please DO expand on this.

Within four Hours of your next log in.

Otherwise I will read it as it appears to be.

If you understood the importance of legal subtleties, I wouldn't have to.
But if you honestly care for my reasoning lets look at the facts:

The order which started the genocide was given by von Trotha on 2nd October 1904 himself on his own responsibility and without consulting his superiors, not by the general staff, not by the chancelor or the minister of war and not by the emperor. He merely informed them[1]
Members of the Reichstag correctly protested that this order would mean genocide.[2]
Further on the 8th December 1904 Wilhelms II ordered von Trotha to grant mercy to noncombatants. On the 9th the general staff revoked von Trothas order and ordered him not to continue with his course of action. The consequence of this was that von Trotha had to rescind his order, which he did on the 12th December 1904[3]

Did the government and the general staff grant von Trotha too much leeway in the beginning? Yes!
Did the then german government and general staff react fast enough? HELL NO!
But after the full extent of the consequences of his order became known to them they at least tried to stop it.

Therefore in the juridical sense it was not a government ordered or sanctioned genocide.

For the record im NOT saying it wasn't a genocide! It sure was one!

But in the juridical sense there is a distinction. Yes it is small, but it is one that matters. This is also one of the reasons why it took till 2021 for Germany to finally agree to an compensation for Herero and Nama.

Sorry sources are in german
[1]-Bundesarchiv Potsdam, Akten des Reichskolonialamtes, RKA, 10.01 2089, Bl. 23, Handschriftliche Abschrift der Proklamation an das Volk der Herero und des Zusatzbefehls an die Kaiserliche Schutztruppe, 2. Oktober 1904. Vgl. Der Einsatz der Telegraphie im Krieg gegen Afrikaner (http://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/diss-online/04/05H118/t8.pdf; 1,4 MB), S. 195.
[2]-Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages, 5. Sitzung vom 2. Dezember 1905 (digitale-sammlungen.de)
[3]-Gesine Krüger: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewußtsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907. Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-525-35796-6, S. 53. and Dominik J. Schaller: «Ich glaube, dass die Nation als solche vernichtet werden muss»: Kolonialkrieg und Völkermord in «Deutsch-Südwestafrika» 1904–1907. In: Journal of genocide research. Band 6, 2004, Ausg. 3, ISSN 1462-3528, S. 395–430, hier: S. 398, doi:10.1080/1462352042000265864.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you understood the importance of legal subtleties, I wouldn't have to.
But if you honestly care for my reasoning lets look at the facts:

The order which started the genocide was given by von Trotha on 2nd October 1904 himself on his own responsibility and without consulting his superiors, not by the general staff, not by the chancelor or the minister of war and not by the emperor. He merely informed them[1]
Members of the Reichstag correctly protested that this order would mean genocide.[2]
Further on the 8th December 1904 Wilhelms II ordered von Trotha to grant mercy to noncombatants. On the 9th the general staff revoked von Trothas order and ordered him not to continue with his course of action. The consequence of this was that von Trotha had to rescind his order, which he did on the 12th December 1904[3]

Did the government and the general staff grant von Trotha too much leeway in the beginning? Yes!
Did the then german government and general staff react fast enough? HELL NO!
But after the full extent of the consequences of his order became known to them they at least tried to stop it.

Therefore in the juridical sense it was not a government ordered or sanctioned genocide.

For the record im NOT saying it wasn't a genocide! It sure was one!

But in the juridical sense there is a distinction. Yes it is small, but it is one that matters. This is also one of the reasons why it took till 2021 for Germany to finally agree to an compensation for Herero and Nama.

Sorry sources are in german
[1]-Bundesarchiv Potsdam, Akten des Reichskolonialamtes, RKA, 10.01 2089, Bl. 23, Handschriftliche Abschrift der Proklamation an das Volk der Herero und des Zusatzbefehls an die Kaiserliche Schutztruppe, 2. Oktober 1904. Vgl. Der Einsatz der Telegraphie im Krieg gegen Afrikaner (http://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/diss-online/04/05H118/t8.pdf; 1,4 MB), S. 195.
[2]-Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages, 5. Sitzung vom 2. Dezember 1905 (digitale-sammlungen.de)
[3]-Gesine Krüger: Kriegsbewältigung und Geschichtsbewußtsein. Realität, Deutung und Verarbeitung des deutschen Kolonialkriegs in Namibia 1904 bis 1907. Göttingen 1999, ISBN 3-525-35796-6, S. 53. and Dominik J. Schaller: «Ich glaube, dass die Nation als solche vernichtet werden muss»: Kolonialkrieg und Völkermord in «Deutsch-Südwestafrika» 1904–1907. In: Journal of genocide research. Band 6, 2004, Ausg. 3, ISSN 1462-3528, S. 395–430, hier: S. 398, doi:10.1080/1462352042000265864.
Insulting me is not a good way to improvea an already tenuous position, one that I chose to give you an opportunity to clarify rather than simply act on the plain reading of your post.

Just sayin'.

Nonetheless, you have provided the sort of clarification requested.

Thank you.
 
Top