Axis History Forum

This is an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics hosted by Marcus Wendel's Axis History Factbook in cooperation with Michael Miller's Axis Biographical Research, Christoph Awender's WW2 day by dayand Christian Ankerstjerne’s Panzerworld.

Skip to content

If you found the forum useful please consider supporting us. You can also support us by buying books through the AHF Bookstore.

What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed.
Hosted by David Thompson.

What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby Alixanther on 04 Feb 2013 17:02

[Split from "At what point did Germany lose WW2?"]

Alixanther wrote:
JU187 wrote: Even if they did manage to conquer the World


Deutsches Reich never wanted "to conquer the world". The communists wanted to. DR only wanted (if "only" can be as bland as a term for colonial aspirations) to have its share of 3rd world colonies, just like all other European colonial powers until then. In regard to East Europe / Balkans / Baltic States / Poland-Ukraine - these were at each and every historical times treated as 3rd world colonies by the powers-in-being, no matter if there's Prussia, Austria, Ottoman Empire or Russia.


If Hitler was a "propagandist" and his words were not credible that doesn't mean he wanted to conquer the Moon, Mars and the inner Oort Cloud. You may believe what you want, it is however a staunch truth the fact he viewed the North-Americans and British as parts of his alleged "Master Race".
If US could have stayed neutral (I'm not saying they would or they should), Hitler's ambitions would have turned mostly against his former colleagues: Italy and Japan. Italy-Germany relationship was doomed to turn one of them into a proxy (and it wasn't Germany going to go a proxy). Japan preyed upon former European colonies and a victorious Third Reich would envisage taking them back.
It's hilarious to see "warning signs" of colonial aspirations of Germany while Britain was already "the Empire upon Sun never sets". What could Germany do which the Brits haven't done before?
Implement a European Master Race vision? Well, what do you think was British opinion on India, for instance?
More and more concentration camps? Care to type "Boer war"? Or killing the buffalo into extinction in America, full knowingly the native American-Indians depended 100 % on that? Do you think US had a non-racist vision about former African slaves, who still were treated as second-class citizens?
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby JU187 on 04 Feb 2013 19:53

There is a difference between you and I. You are a defending the track record of facism in Nazi Germany to the point of alternate reality, and I on the other hand am capable of admitting fault and truth. I'm American, and you are absolutely right that what America did to Native Americans was deplorable. The imperialistic British Empire was also at fault during their reign of conquest at it's peak, holding a stake in 25% of the World. Furthermore, I'm not here to take sides. I do not think British imperialism, American manifest destiny are somehow defensible but German Fascism is not. They were all self serving military/political initiatives which caused atrocities. I have no reason to take sides. The fact is, history is doomed to repeat itself if people take dangerous opinionated stances defending such policies to the point of historical revision.
The Third Reich believed that the only effective way to achieve World Peace, was to conquer it first. They were deceptive, and lacked any credibility. As I said, your views and opinions of their intentions are irrelevant. The only facts we have to discuss their intentions are through their actions and everything from the propagandist pot-stirring to manufacture crisis to their proven track record of violating non aggression treaties and territorial concession agreements to not wage war, while doing so anyway only prove they would have never stopped their drive to feed the hunger of conquest. IF anything I have the ability to see both sides. Both my grandfather's fought for the United States, and my Great Uncles all fought for the Third Reich.
JU187
Member
United States
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 30 Jan 2013 00:53

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby ljadw on 04 Feb 2013 20:36

you are believing what you have written ????
It's only a collection of wrong platitudes.
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5647
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby LWD on 04 Feb 2013 23:04

Alixanther wrote:If Hitler was a "propagandist" and his words were not credible that doesn't mean he wanted to conquer the Moon, Mars and the inner Oort Cloud. You may believe what you want, it is however a staunch truth the fact he viewed the North-Americans and British as parts of his alleged "Master Race".

While I have read that that is true of the British I've yet to see it from a reputable source for the Americans.
If US could have stayed neutral (I'm not saying they would or they should), Hitler's ambitions would have turned mostly against his former colleagues: Italy and Japan. Italy-Germany relationship was doomed to turn one of them into a proxy (and it wasn't Germany going to go a proxy). Japan preyed upon former European colonies and a victorious Third Reich would envisage taking them back.

Do you have a source for this? Reading Tooze HItler thought that Germany needed to be stronger to be one of the big three (along with Britain and the US). They then would become Germany's primary competition. How Germany's relations with axis would play out long term is anyones guess.
It's hilarious to see "warning signs" of colonial aspirations of Germany while Britain was already "the Empire upon Sun never sets". What could Germany do which the Brits haven't done before?
Implement a European Master Race vision? Well, what do you think was British opinion on India, for instance?
More and more concentration camps? Care to type "Boer war"? Or killing the buffalo into extinction in America, full knowingly the native American-Indians depended 100 % on that? Do you think US had a non-racist vision about former African slaves, who still were treated as second-class citizens?

This last paragraph is IMO completely OT. It also has quite a few factual problems where it is coherent enough to tell. For instance the American Bison was not hunted into extinction. Nor were the AmerIndians 100% or even 50% dependent on it. Not sure how you could consider the non event taken with false attributes to be in "full knowledge" either. Not even sure what yoru comments with regards to the British were suppose to mean.
User avatar
LWD
Member
United States
 
Posts: 8558
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby KDF33 on 05 Feb 2013 06:47

I second LWD. Comparing British imperialism and American expansion to the West with Nazi genocide is wrong, and I'm not even making a moral case here, just a factual one.
KDF33
Member
Canada
 
Posts: 477
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby Alixanther on 05 Feb 2013 08:50

KDF33 wrote:I second LWD. Comparing British imperialism and American expansion to the West with Nazi genocide is wrong, and I'm not even making a moral case here, just a factual one.


Is "wrong" ??? Do you really think all atrocities in the world stopped then and there? Don't you think that each and every atrocity in history is worth citing, instead of only some???
I thought this is a history forum, not an ideological forum, and we're free to point out all darker spots in our history, no matter when and where.
British imperialism and American expansion were WORSE than nazi genocide, because they affected much more people on this world. They were worse because they were disguised into a positivist guile, meant to express "they bring the goodness, wisdom and knowledge of the white man" to the world. There's no true difference between colonial and racist vision. ONE PRESUPPOSES THE OTHER. Being colonial = being racist.
You cannot steal someone elses' resources and then you pretend you treat him as your equal. You're evidently despising him and his life means nothing to you. Colonialism is the worst case of racism, sorry. And 3rd Reich genocide stemmed from colonialism, too.

If someone's not a hypocrite, he could fight racism by fighting colonial interests, that's the most griping thing, not colour blindness.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby ljadw on 05 Feb 2013 08:57

Nonsens:where is the British Auschwitz,where is the US Treblinka ?

I refuse to have any contact with some one who is saying that Britain and the US were worse than Hitler.
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5647
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby steverodgers801 on 05 Feb 2013 09:13

Actually Hitler was inspired by how the US conquered the American Indians.
steverodgers801
Member
United States
 
Posts: 618
Joined: 13 Aug 2011 18:02

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby Alixanther on 05 Feb 2013 10:30

ljadw wrote:Nonsens:where is the British Auschwitz,where is the US Treblinka ?

I refuse to have any contact with some one who is saying that Britain and the US were worse than Hitler.


Lol, man, put your blinders on. Good luck! As if The only Britain and the only US were those that were facing Hitler. There were days under the sun before and after Hitler too, you know. But feel free to defend the colonialist regimes if you like being depicted as an alternate racist.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby KDF33 on 05 Feb 2013 10:40

Is "wrong" ??? Do you really think all atrocities in the world stopped then and there? Don't you think that each and every atrocity in history is worth citing, instead of only some???
I thought this is a history forum, not an ideological forum, and we're free to point out all darker spots in our history, no matter when and where.
British imperialism and American expansion were WORSE than nazi genocide, because they affected much more people on this world. They were worse because they were disguised into a positivist guile, meant to express "they bring the goodness, wisdom and knowledge of the white man" to the world. There's no true difference between colonial and racist vision. ONE PRESUPPOSES THE OTHER. Being colonial = being racist.
You cannot steal someone elses' resources and then you pretend you treat him as your equal. You're evidently despising him and his life means nothing to you. Colonialism is the worst case of racism, sorry. And 3rd Reich genocide stemmed from colonialism, too.

If someone's not a hypocrite, he could fight racism by fighting colonial interests, that's the most griping thing, not colour blindness.


First, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't talk about Western crimes, neither that it's somehow "impolite" to compare them with Nazi atrocities. My point is precisely that when you do compare Western colonialism with Nazi atrocities, you realize that the Nazis were worse.

I'm not diminishing the plight of the American Indians in the Trail of Tears or the expulsion of the Acadians by the British, which certainly were horrible to the people who experienced them, and do in fact have similarities with some of the Nazi atrocities. They weren't, however, programs of extermination and are entirely dwarfed by the Holocaust or the even larger, if never realized, Hunger Plan.

There's also the fact that the Western / Anglo-Saxon systems had the capacity to mature and gradually enfranchise more and more people, whereas the Nazi regime was primarily interested in actively disenfranchising large groups of people. It didn't take much time for some in the West to start expressing doubts about the legitimacy of the bombings of Dresden of Hiroshima. Do you think the Nazi regime would even have entertained such a discussion?
KDF33
Member
Canada
 
Posts: 477
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby Alixanther on 05 Feb 2013 11:11

Ach, I see. You point it this way "if the Germans won we wouldn't have this wonderful conversation".
Of course you're right. I'm not an ounce advocating they deserved to stay on top of the political pyramid more than their US and British counterparts of previous bitter times.
I agree there are social aspects in the Western society of those times (= during the amerindian genocide / boer genocide / etc.) which make them more palatable than Nazi's. However, there's no link whatsoever between the free-market competition of individuals at the base and the racist mindset of the leading elite.
I could argue that Otto Ohlendorf himself distanced from state economy and pleaded for a more independent, individualist economy mindset. That doesn't make him less of a racist regarding his policies in the East. You cannot be "a little more racist". Either you are, or you're not.

P.S. I'm not an expert on German disenfrachisation but given the fact that (let's say France) the amount of collaborationists / freedom fighters were something like 5:1 if not more, I'm not much inclined into seeing things which did not exist.
Again, what happened in the EAST is a different matter.
Alixanther
Member
Romania
 
Posts: 173
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 04:26
Location: Romania

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby KDF33 on 05 Feb 2013 11:23

Although I agree that either you're a racist or you're not, your run-of-the-mill British imperialist didn't want to kill all the other races. :wink:

Regarding France / the East: not sure at all about that 5:1 ratio, but ultimately I think you got it reversed: the exception was precisely France / the Nordic countries / the Benelux, where people were treated more or less like in previous military occupations, except if you were Jewish or Roma. But in the settlement areas, Poland and the USSR, the objective was nothing less than the complete liquidation of the indigenous population, something that no other European colonial empire had implemented since the days of the Conquistadors (and even there disease played a bigger role than in the Nazi case).

As for the existence of a link between the free market and the liberal mindset of the ruling elites, I did not argue that, although I'd argue that the free market tends to develop better in liberal societies.
KDF33
Member
Canada
 
Posts: 477
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby ljadw on 05 Feb 2013 12:21

There was no Boer genocide,there was no Amerindian genocide :these are only the usual inventions from ..... :x
ljadw
Member
Belgium
 
Posts: 5647
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby wm on 21 Feb 2013 22:49

I second LWD. Comparing British imperialism and American expansion to the West with Nazi genocide is wrong, and I'm not even making a moral case here, just a factual one.

Exactly, the victims of the British imperialism and American expansion had almost always the option to exit the fight, surrender, accept the new way of life, or even to make a career under the new political system.
The victims of the Nazi regime despite the fact that they had surrendered already didn't have any chance. Whatever they did they were destined to be exterminated.

Alixanther wrote:P.S. I'm not an expert on German disenfrachisation but given the fact that (let's say France) the amount of collaborationists / freedom fighters were something like 5:1 if not more, I'm not much inclined into seeing things which did not exist.

The numbers were like that everywhere. The so called freedom fighters were minority. Most of the people in the occupied territories assumed the wait-and-see attitude, and everyone was working for the Third Reich, it was the only employer available.
User avatar
wm
Member
Poland
 
Posts: 2074
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Silesia Inferior

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Postby JU187 on 01 Mar 2013 04:30

Human beings have been conquering each other since the beginning of human evolution. These American Indian analogies are a stretch. The Indians conquered each other in regional wars long before European colonialists ever stepped foot in the America's. And let's be honest, if the Indians were somehow more modern, advanced and had to ability to do so they would have conquered Anglo Saxon colonialists themselves. Wars have always been fought and always will be fought largely for monetary or territorial reasons. I would say however, what differentiates Hitler and the Third Reich is that despite the objective of territory expansion, the face of absolute evil and total intolerance fueled their rampage. The genocidal mass murder of men women and children in such a calculated precision based wholesale process had never been witnessed in modern times. The whole concept of a master race eradicating inferior yet innocent people is the enduring legacy of the Third Reich. Anyone defending the actions or attempting to validate the atrocities committed by the Third Reich or Empire of Japan instead only enhances the stark realization that these events occurred within the modern time frame of one lifespan.
JU187
Member
United States
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 30 Jan 2013 00:53

Next

Return to Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests