It seems that you took the issue because there was an issue to take. And in a previous post you already stated that you consider my reaction emotional and I said that I consider it rational, quite rational. So we have here some points of disagreement. It is not the end of the world! Again, we are in a Forum. Btw, I had to search for the meaning of “knee-jerk”. We are always learning and I already learned something with you.Aha! And that is the crux of the matter for me. You're equating movements that are too right-leaning for your tastes as being Hitleresque. That is why I took issue with your original post, it's as if there's a Hitler or Neo-Nazi in every shadow.
And that is what is so tedious, is this knee-jerk reaction, this emotive appeal to project onto people labels and definitions that are just not fair and neither are they accurate.
Futurist, what you are wrote here doesn’t surprise me, we already talked in other threads and what you wrote here is in your line of though with what you already wrote in the other threads. As for “recovering” the expression “living space”, I disagree with you and you gave samples of my disagreement, when you name Australia, Canada or the Russian Empire. These are good examples only for the conquerors. This means that your point of view, your bias, is already too much to one side. But if we continue here this discussion we will probably derail the thread to similar themes that you already have in others, defending the advantages of the colonialism.Honestly, I think that the term "living space" should be redeemed just like LGBT people redeemed the use of the word "queer" (a word that was previously used by homophobes). Obviously what the Nazis did was extremely vile and completely immoral and this is why I strongly wish that someone would have put a bullet in Hitler's brain before he came to power or even early on in his rule (for instance, I consider it a tragedy that Georg Elser's attempt to kill Hitler in late 1939 failed).
What the Nazis did and planned to do was vile because they engaged in genocide against Jews and certain other groups and because they wanted to deport tens of millions of Slavs east of the Urals. When I think of the word "living space," I mean conquering a territory and settling it with your own people but also giving citizenship and legal equality to the existing population of these territories (as opposed to engaging in genocide against them or deporting them en masse elsewhere). IMHO, certain aspects of the US's Indian policy were unacceptable (such as the Trail of Tears or even taking land from Native Americans simply because gold was found on it), but ultimately the U.S. did the right thing in giving U.S. citizenship to its entire Native American population. Likewise, the US did the right thing when it gave U.S. citizenship to the Mexicans who were living in the Mexican Cession in 1848.
A German equivalent of this would have been conquering some territory but giving German citizenship and legal equality to the existing population of this territory (as opposed to engaging in genocide against them or expelling them en masse). Obviously this was feasible in the Baltic states--though even then, it would have been far from clear whether enough Germans would have actually been willing to settle there after a German conquest of these territories in order to create a German majority or German plurality there. As for expanding all of the way to the Urals, that would have clearly been unfeasible from a moral point of view since there were so many Slavs there that they would have easily outnumbered the German population--which is why a German expansion of that level would have been utterly stupid and foolish.
IMHO, the best examples of living space were what the US did (albeit with excessive brutality at times--something which would have been best if it would not have been done) and what the Russian Empire did in territories such as Siberia, the Far East, and what is now Kazakhstan. Also, Canada's expansion to the west and British settlement throughout Australia might be additional good examples of living space. As for France's conquest of Algeria, this would not be a good example of living space since the French made it virtually impossible for the Muslims living there to actually obtain French citizenship--which is why it was a good thing that Algeria ultimately seceded from France. Anyway, my point here is that the expansions that I mentioned above should be viewed as being the proper representation of living space--with the Nazis' actions in regards to this being a large aberration from the traditional concept of living space. Indeed, Nazi actions made "living space" a bad term whereas it doesn't have to be a bad term and might not have been a bad term had the Nazis never came to power in Germany.
WWI took place as a "world" war, mainly because France wanted to take Alsace-Lorraine back.None of the major powers gained anything from it, maybe in the short-term the USA gained the upper hand in the superpower stakes, what with all their European rivals weakened badly. In the long-term they had to abandon isolationism, which I'd call a slight negative overall for the US but that's a topic for another thread.
Wars like that are only worth it if the winners & losers learn from it, obviously it took another World War to ram the point home.
The great irony, of course, is that France lost as many or almost as many people in WWI as it ended up acquiring when it annexed Alsace-Lorraine in 1918. Thus, at the end of WWI, France really doesn't appear to have been any better in a demographic sense than it was at the start of WWI.WWI took place as a "world" war, mainly because France wanted to take Alsace-Lorraine back.
You do not prepare a war for 20+ years not to make it.
Everybody in France was ready for that, there was a huge nationalistic/patriotic and anti-german movement widespread at that time in France.
And by the way, France take Alsace-Lorraine back. So I don't understand your statement. Alsace is not 'anything', it was and still is a wealthy region...
If you don't understand the french claim about Alsace-Lorraine, you can't understand the deep foundations of WWI...
Well a territory can benefit (or not) from being conquered 100, 200 or 1000 years later, when we don’t have a way to compare how would have been its evolution. “Mexicans in the Southwestern” were killed during the war and suffered the consequences of the war and the aftermath – that was not much of a benefit (and this can be applied to any conquest war). Mexicans in the Southwestern saw their way of life and their culture (including their language) seen as a second rate culture, and only just recently in the USA the Mexicans (or generalizing, the Hispanics) are being seen as equals to the mainstream USA culture. And I don’t think that is necessary to document here this discrimination, since it is common knowledge, probably more to you that are from the USA, that to me that am from the other side of the Atlantic.I'll just respond to one point of yours very quickly, Tulius: I wouldn't necessarily say that settler colonialism/acquiring living space is necessarily only good for the conquerors. After all, the Mexicans in the Southwestern U.S. probably live much better than they would have lived in Mexico. Indeed, the existing population of a territory could benefit from being conquered by another nation if this nation's rule will improve their quality of life. Of course, the existing population of this territory would also need to be given citizenship and legal equality if one wants to avoid having them become angry and resentful later on (like the Algerians became).
By the way, on one had, you didn’t need to be defended, as far as I know you, you are perfectly able to do so, on the other hand, I was not attacking you, at the most I was attacking (criticizing would be a better word) the use of a certain terminology and what that terminology implies in a history forum, even if seen in a euphemistic way.Thanks for defending me, Menshevik!
So we have here some points of disagreement. It is not the end of the world! Again, we are in a Forum.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Who was the best fighter pilot in World War 2?||Military History|
|The First World War...or Was It?||Military History|
|If Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Serbian ultranationalists five or eight years earlier, would it have still triggered a World War?||Speculative History|
|Was it realistically possible for Germany to quickly get defeated in a World War?||Speculative History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Who was the best fighter pilot in World War 2?|
|The First World War...or Was It?|
|If Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by Serbian ultranationalists five or eight years earlier, would it have still triggered a World War?|
|Was it realistically possible for Germany to quickly get defeated in a World War?|