- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well, even if its Hitler, the ideas will be different.
and the lebensraum thing that was just an excuse to expand, there wasnt an actual real need for germany to expand
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
Is a Fascist Russia likely to be an expansionist power or a status quo power?
- Thread starter CaliGuy
- Start date
Well, even if its Hitler, the ideas will be different.
and the lebensraum thing that was just an excuse to expand, there wasnt an actual real need for germany to expand
Are you sure about that?
AFAIK, Hitler motivated his belief in Lebensraum on the fact that a lot of Germans emigrated to greener pastures in the Imperial German period--something that Hitler thought could have been avoided had Germany itself had more Lebensraum. He explicitly said as much in his 1928 Second Book. Also, while Germany had relatively low birth rates (albeit apparently higher than those of Britain and France) in the 1930s, the belief might have been that if Germans would have had more Lebensraum, it would have been easier for their fertility to increase than it would have otherwise been. In other words, the logic might have been that Germans' relatively low birth rates was at least in part a result of their lack of Lebensraum--a problem that the Nazis wanted to remedy in real life by acquiring more Lebensraum for Germany and specifically for the German people/German Volk.
Here is the relevant quote from Hitler's 1928 Second Book, in the event that anyone here is curious:
https://archive.org/stream/ZweitesB...h-adolfHitler-1928-hitlersSecretBook_djvu.txt
MOD EDIT: Don't quote Hitler on this board, especially at such length.
https://archive.org/stream/ZweitesB...h-adolfHitler-1928-hitlersSecretBook_djvu.txt
MOD EDIT: Don't quote Hitler on this board, especially at such length.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Pronouns
- he/him
Certainly if you're looking at the 1870-1890s the population increased rapidly and this combined with the loss of land in the country resulted in overpopulation of the cities. The vast slums of late 19th century Berlin come from this. And this is when you started seeing a vast wave of emigration to the new world.
Lebensraum as an idea dates to this time period and the need for a german emprie in Africa to house them.
To some extent this was no longer a problem by the 1930s, like you say lower birth rates, but it's not exactly rare for politicians to fight the problems of the past rather than the present.
Yes; correct! Of course, I am unsure just how capable German colonies in Africa actually were of sustaining huge populations of German colonists. In turn, I suppose that it's unsurprising that eventually German nationalists began to shift their eyes away from Africa and towards Eastern Europe. There was, of course, ripe precedent in regards to this in the form of the Medieval German Ostsiedlung as well as the German migrations into Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries and the attempted Germanization of Polish lands (Posen, the Polish Corridor, Upper Silesia, et cetera) in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed, this is where the Drang Nach Osten ideology originates from.
Yeah, Hitler and the Nazis in general appear to have had an overly romantic view of the past. In addition to focusing on an overpopulation problem that was much less severe in the 1930s than it was in the 1890s, the Nazis also had a romantic view of Medieval Germany, farmers, peasants, and soldier-peasants (Wehrbauer). Specifically, the Nazis idolized German farmers and peasants--such as those who moved east during the Ostsiedlung--while forgetting about the fact that Germany in the 1930s was already a heavily industrial as opposed to agricultural society. Likewise, the Nazis' focus on eastward migration was in significant tension with the fact that ever since the 19th century, Germans were actually moving from the east to the west in large numbers--with few Germans actually moving from the west to the east. This was called the Ostflucht (Eastern flight) and it occurred because western Germany was more industrialized than agricultural eastern Germany was; so, a lot of Germans moved west in the hopes of better job opportunities and higher-paying jobs.
The one European country that had a real need for Lebensraum even in the early 20th century was Russia since its population was still rapidly growing on the eve of World War I. Without the World Wars and Communism as well as without the secession of its peripheral territories, present-day Russia might have had a population of 400-550 million as opposed to slightly less than 150 million. So, Yeah, the demographic devastation that Communism and World War II resulted in for Russia really did "solve" any overpopulation problems that Russia might have developed during the 20th century in real life. 
I'm actually very interested in seeing just how much Lebensraum a Russia that avoids the demographic devastation of the 20th century (and also the secession of its peripheral territories) would actually be able to settle, though. Russia certainly had great potential for settler colonialism--perhaps even more so than the US had.
I'm actually very interested in seeing just how much Lebensraum a Russia that avoids the demographic devastation of the 20th century (and also the secession of its peripheral territories) would actually be able to settle, though. Russia certainly had great potential for settler colonialism--perhaps even more so than the US had.
- Pronouns
- he/him
It simply wasn't. You're talking less than 20,000 white Germans living in the Empire in 1914. Only Windhoek was a genuine German town.
But the idea of creating a settler colony was hugely important politically in a way which completely outweighed that tiny number. Which has certain resemblances to Mussolini's Italian empire I suppose.
I don't think a Geman fascist party viewing the reclamation of African colonies as being more important than new land in eastern europe is entirely implausible even though in otl it was mostly dropped in favour of european gains. After all land isn't really what germany needed so much as raw resources and symbolic victories to prove the strength of the new regime.
It's worth noting that the german atrocities committed in the colonies were a huge point bought up in 1918 by the allies. The argument was that the Germans had proved themselves unworthy of african colonies.
FWIW, I was talking more about carrying capacity here.
In regards to Hitler, though, I suspect that he strongly preferred actual gains to symbolic gains.
Just how much raw resources did Germany's former African colonies actually have, though?
As for symbolic victories, Yes, a regime that cares about its image might value those, but regimes that care about their legacies might prefer to aim for actual victories as opposed to merely symbolic ones. After all, great statesmen prefer to be men of substance rather than merely baloney men.
Yes, but the new German government (even a Fascist one) could argue that a non-monarchical Germany would behave differently--and better--towards Africans than Imperial Germany did. In other words, they could attempt to make a clean break with the past--at least symbolically--in order to improve their image in Anglo-French eyes.
- Location
- Municipal Commune of Bourne
- Pronouns
- He/Him
tbh i dont think the source for 'lebensraum was genuinely something germany needed' should be [checks notes] literally adolf hitler yes that hitler
I was citing Hitler to demonstrate what his views were in regards to this--not to argue that he was factually correct in regards to this. There's a significant difference between these two things.
- Pronouns
- he/him
Very very unlikely.
The fact that the treaty of versailles is unfair and Germany was treat badly by it is going to be the cornerstone of any fascist german party.
They're just not going to accept that the atrocities listed in 1918 were true and the French and the British were more innocent. This is what the South Africans did to bring around the german settlers in the end, anyway. They just pretended the reports of atrocities in 1918 were made up by London.
In the same way that Vichy France was given the same restrictions that post ww1 Germany was on armed forces, you'd more likely see the French and British being told they've proven themselves unworthy of african colonies due to say british camps in the second boer war, which was a prominent thing in nazi propoganda.
You're assuming that these German Fascists actually have the power to strip France and Britain of their colonies, though--which certainly isn't guaranteed. Even in real life Hitler let France keep most of its colonial empire.
- Pronouns
- he/him
Well yeah, because a) they didn't have the Navy to enforce any of it and b) they were much more interested in Europe.
What we're discussing here, if I understand it, is if you had a fascist germany and a fascist russia, would there still inevitably clash over eastern europe or without the ideological differences could you see a partition of eastern Europe to 1914 borders and then both sides are happy with that and look for other targets.
I was suggesting other targets that could arise in a timeline where there isn't an ideological enemy in the east influencing german fascism.
So, you're suggesting a massive naval expansion program under a Fascist Germany in this scenario? If so, are they actually going to be able to do what Imperial Germany couldn't and build a navy superior to that of Britain?
So if Russia's fascisting around, and Germany & Russia are staring at each other across eastern europe, sounds like there'd be a reason why Hitler-or-equivalent will look to Africa and a good cause to rally the people around by Avenging Versailles?
How would Hitler handle being the junior partner in any alliance with a Fascist Russia?
- Pronouns
- he/him
Not so much Africa, that's minor on the list of reasons to resent 1918.
But well as Mumby says and I agree with Hitler's whole thing about the destiny of the german people being in the east makes no real sense and emerged largely because of how utterly scary the soviet union is to reactionaries.
I don't think it's unreasonable for the fall of France and the reversal of versailles to be seen as an end point rather than merely the first step. In which case a victorious peace in which germany gets alsace and lorraine, some colonies and some money and then settles down to happily oppress its own people and trade with the russians could be a reasonable goal.
Of course just because they're both fascists doesn't mean they'll be friends, an eastern front is still possible in this scenario but again I think a german fascist which is much more italian like in wanting African colonies rather than huge strips of european land isn't impossible. There was always an undercurrent of that in german propaganda regardless.
Arthur_Phuxache
Double Points Friday
- Location
- Greater Doncastrian Empire
Wrong kind of Slavs.
Please elaborate.