Help support TMP


"WW2 Was Fought For Colonies: Were The Allies Very" Topic


19 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article


813 hits since 30 Nov 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2019 9:28 p.m. PST

… Different From The Germans?

"The main reason for the Second World War was the quest for land , for colonies. Before the war, Hitler blamed the Allied powers especially Britain and France of being colonial powers. After the First World War the German colonial possessions were taken away and ruled by the League of Nations (read Allies) mandates.

A glance at the map of colonies in 1936 will give us a clear idea of the extent of the colonial empires of Britain and France. Hitler wanted colonies for Germany. He called it lebensraum. He was different from the other European powers only that he wanted to colonise Europe itself while Britain and co. ruled over what they called "savages' and "uncivilised".in Asia and Africa. They had been able to psyche people in these areas that they were not matured enough to rule themselves so they needed the benevolent rule of Britain and France…"
Main page
link


Amicalement
Armand

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP30 Nov 2019 9:55 p.m. PST

Perhaps Germany, Italy, and Japan did, but most of the "winners" did not.

Fitzovich01 Dec 2019 3:19 a.m. PST

I think that may be a stretch in the logic.

Richard Baber01 Dec 2019 5:11 a.m. PST

When Hitler refers to "lebensraum", growing room – he usually meant lands in the east then occupied by Slavic peoples (which he considered sub-human). He wanted to occupy those lands, clear out the non-Germanic residents and move in Aryans to spread German culture.

I don`t think he ever actively mentioned overseas colonies as a goal – far too difficult to defend and police.

Bigby Wolf In the TMP Dawghouse01 Dec 2019 5:15 a.m. PST

Now, I wouldn't wish to imply that the linked website has any kind of agenda, but … as they say on the Sorted food channel, 'You decide…'

Northern Monkey01 Dec 2019 5:26 a.m. PST

That is just stupidly offensive.

Personal logo deadhead Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 8:18 a.m. PST

I commented on this site a few days ago when it ran something about VC and NVA atrocities, as quoted on the Vietnam War Board.

I too took some flak for suggesting the whole thing was dodgy, but it really is. Scroll your way down to see much of the content. "Uncensored history" seems to delight in graphic descriptions of torture, a total obsession with incidents of mass rape in warfare and, most disturbing of all, too many pictures of very young girls in Nazi rig pre War and delighting in pondering their ultimate fate in its closing stages.

The suggestion has always been that Hitler had no interest in colonies outside Europe and modern thinking increasingly suggest that, economically, he was right. The net financial balance for the British in their world Empire is now regarded as a negative one. It cost more than it brought in over the entire period of its existence.

Blutarski01 Dec 2019 8:20 a.m. PST

Well, let's be honest ….. Almost the entirety of the Indian sub-continent and SE Asia was under Western colonial rule and neither Great Britain, France, the Netherlands nor the USA were interested in seeing their Asian colonial and commercial interests supplanted by a Japanese East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.

"The net financial balance for the British in their world Empire is now regarded as a negative one. It cost more than it brought in over the entire period of its existence." …..

Really? That negative account balance might have come to be true after Great Britain had economically gelded itself in WW1 and independence movements in the colonies began to politically mature in the 20th century. But the coffers of the Exchequer and the City of London were filled to the brim by profits derived from Great Britain's colonial empire which served not only as providers of cheap raw materials but also as captive markets for British industrial and commercial products.

It's difficult indeed to credit the idea, for example, that it took the British three centuries to decide that India was really not worth holding on to.


B

Legion 401 Dec 2019 9:30 a.m. PST

I find the general contention of it is a bit of a stretch too.
But yes, up to the start of WWII, many European nations had colonies all over the world. Even the with US, the PI, Guam, etc. could be considered colonies by some.

But I think the Axis's goal were clear and much more insidious than most of the Allies.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP01 Dec 2019 12:51 p.m. PST

Not really sure why VC and NVA atrocities are controversial, given the millions killed by them after the US pullout, and their "victory". Many, many more were forced to flee to avoid a similar fate.

I went to school with a young girl whose family was lucky enough to flee Vietnam on a small boat, and survived to tell the tale.

deephorse01 Dec 2019 12:53 p.m. PST

But I think the Axis's goal were clear and much more insidious than most of the Allies.

Really, only most of them? So which of the Allies had goals that were as, or more, insidious than those of the Axis powers?

Blutarski01 Dec 2019 1:14 p.m. PST

Hi Thresher01,
I knew "back in the day" and RVNAF helicopter pilot who flew his family out of Saigon just before it fell. His one and only carrier landing went without a hitch; he related to me that, after everyone had disembarked, his chopper was unceremoniously pushed over the side to make room for more landings. Must have been pretty chaotic.

The USA also managed to extricate a number of Hmong tribal families whose men had fought with Special Forces in the mountains and relocate them to the States. There is a Hmong "colony" in Boston. My best friend's wife was involved in helping them to settle in. I could tell a story or two about their "cultural acclimatization process".

B

Legion 401 Dec 2019 3:35 p.m. PST

Really, only most of them? So which of the Allies had goals that were as, or more, insidious than those of the Axis powers?
I think the USSR wanted to occupy much of Eastern Europe to create a large buffer zone, gain economic and agricultural assets, etc.,. And bottom line to spread Communist dogma. I'd think to most in the West that would be pretty obvious ? I didn't want to point fingers which some may find confrontational, etc. So yes, I was taking a stab at being a bit PC. But as we see I'm not very good at it.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP02 Dec 2019 1:53 a.m. PST

If there was any lesson to be learned from the 19th century it's that you best have an industrial revolution and a colonial empire. That's the main reason why the Germans got into conflict with other European nations to pick up the crumbs they had neglected to plant a flag on, so that the German colonial empire became little more than a "sausage factory in Tanganyka"

France and Britain then proceeded to carve up the Ottoman Empire after the Great War and if you subscribed, like Hitler, to the theory of "shrinking markets" or a finite economy you can only start to lose market share to others after some point.

Hitler's economic theories are a bit hard to fathom, but his thought seems to have been that to prevent rising nations from carving up the colonial cake and reduce your prosperity. Therefore Germany should be fully autarkic in everything and to achieve this Germany would have to take away good land that belonged to "undeserving lesser races"

Japan saw a colonial empire as the only way forward, launching the idea of the "Asian Co-prosperity Sphere", assuming that European colonial dominions were ready to be transferred to caretaker Japan. Judging from the bits Japan had already grabbed, the prosperity bit was doing to be very one-sided …

Meanwhile the burden of running a Colonial Empire was a costly affair. While it generated vast amounts of money it also required tons of money to run it and protect it.

WWII had the nasty side effect of diluting the ability of nations like Britain to maintain the integrity of their empire. With many nominally rebellious areas and powers like Japan conquering the various bulwarks created to prevent such an occurrence. It was clear that in the future it would only get worse.

So while Germany sought to gain its own fiefs to exploit, the rest of the world was starting to give up colonial power, or more accurately transform it into a more manageable one.

Decolonisation become one where security was devolved to local potentates in exchange for a share of the revenue stream generated by its natural resources to ensure this resource made it to the former colonial master.

Fred Cartwright02 Dec 2019 4:07 a.m. PST

Meanwhile the burden of running a Colonial Empire was a costly affair. While it generated vast amounts of money it also required tons of money to run it and protect it.

Yes you can get the economic benefits without the cost of running the country. This is essentially what the US did in the 20's and 30's in South America, as Smedley Butler talks about being high class muscle for Wall Street, being sent in when US economic interests were threatened.

Legion 402 Dec 2019 7:54 a.m. PST

That is true Fred. But today and even in WWI & WWII, Korea and Vietnam that was not generally the case. Of course the US rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII to develop them politically and economically. Creating trading partners which the overall task of keeping Communism out/at bay.

If you look at Germany and Japan a decade or so after WWII. It could look like to some they "won" the war. While many of the Allies had lost oversea colonies and their economies may not have been doing that well in some cases, etc.

Again after WWI as France & the UK carved up the former Otto and Austro-Hungarian Empires to suit their needs, etc. We see today some of those decisions are still having effects today. In many cases those are not to the positive. But as always hindsight is 20/20.

Legion 403 Dec 2019 12:08 a.m. PST

Errata : that should read "Ottoman Turk and Austro-Hungarian Empires" …

Lee49403 Dec 2019 4:09 p.m. PST

I agree Hitler started the war to get colonies. They were called Poland, France and Soviet Russia. Along the way other opportunities like Belgium, Holland, Greece and others presented themselves and were quickly "assimilated". Cheers!

4th Cuirassier04 Dec 2019 5:40 a.m. PST

@ Blutarski
It's difficult indeed to credit the idea, for example, that it took the British three centuries to decide that India was really not worth holding on to.

I don't know what such a calculation would be based on, but I would personally find it credible if the cost of empire included in the number the cost of defending it. Did the empire deliver more than WW1 and WW2 cost? It might be quite close.

@Lee494
Those weren't really colonies, though. Russia and Poland were intended to be dismembered and erased, which isn't colonising them. France was closer, in that it was going to be ruled for Germany's benefit as a client state, but there was AIUI no intention to replace the population of France with Germans.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.