3 ms·

Um, Germany had overseas colonies, including one where they committed genocide (foreshadowing later bad acts). And do you think today's globalization isn't colo

Um, Germany had overseas colonies, including one where they committed genocide (foreshadowing later bad acts). And do you think today's globalization isn't colonialism? Explain the real differences, including a discussion of multinationals investing in third world nations and gaining defacto control of their governments and Chinese treaties sewing up the national resources of African countries and acquiring long term leases for agricultural land all around the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/25114812.html http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-china-leases-farmland/2...

VLM 13y ago
"Germany had overseas colonies" Yeah like 3 small states in Africa almost by accident. To compare to a "real" colonial empire take a look at the Spanish empire at peak, or the British empire around WWI, or the French colonial empire, or the Russian empire, the Dutch empire... Needs a sense of scale. The Russian Empire around 1900 was the 3rd largest empire in history, something like 1/8th of a billion people. German colonial population from the linked wiki article before WWI, 23 thousand.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Yes, a point you did not make and which I did not contradict. Indeed, the same applies to several other European "powers". Also some European nations had quite extensive overseas colonies while not really being military powers (e.g. Belgium and Holland). For that matter. Russia had no colonies that I know of.
  - VLM 13y ago
    Upon re-reading our posts I think, you think, I disagree with you, more than I actually disagree or intend to appear. There are some name game disagreements where Germany wanted to pretend to be in the colonialism game despite a totally laughable achievement level (a hundred years ago it was considered cool, not like now at all) and Russia ran the provinces of its empire much like Britain ran its colonies, other than the ocean in the middle, look at Finland for an example. Or the name game that modern world trade is not called colonialism. So the argument that we can't have a WW3 because we have world trade, is incorrect because at WW1 time they had almost the same thing but called it colonialism and everyone but Germany was heavily into it and that didn't help prevent war very much (and yes yes OK OK Germany achieved the most pitiful level of colonialism of all the European powers, not none at all, but it rounded to zero compared to every other European power)
    - Tloewald 13y ago
      Yes, I completely agree with you on the world trade point, which is the most important point with respect to the question of war. That said, the interdependence of the major prospective combatants is perhaps novel.

VLM 13y ago

"Germany had overseas colonies" Yeah like 3 small states in Africa almost by accident. To compare to a "real" colonial empire take a look at the Spanish empire at peak, or the British empire around WWI, or the French colonial empire, or the Russian empire, the Dutch empire... Needs a sense of scale. The Russian Empire around 1900 was the 3rd largest empire in history, something like 1/8th of a billion people. German colonial population from the linked wiki article before WWI, 23 thousand.

Tloewald 13y ago
Yes, a point you did not make and which I did not contradict. Indeed, the same applies to several other European "powers". Also some European nations had quite extensive overseas colonies while not really being military powers (e.g. Belgium and Holland). For that matter. Russia had no colonies that I know of.
- VLM 13y ago
  Upon re-reading our posts I think, you think, I disagree with you, more than I actually disagree or intend to appear. There are some name game disagreements where Germany wanted to pretend to be in the colonialism game despite a totally laughable achievement level (a hundred years ago it was considered cool, not like now at all) and Russia ran the provinces of its empire much like Britain ran its colonies, other than the ocean in the middle, look at Finland for an example. Or the name game that modern world trade is not called colonialism. So the argument that we can't have a WW3 because we have world trade, is incorrect because at WW1 time they had almost the same thing but called it colonialism and everyone but Germany was heavily into it and that didn't help prevent war very much (and yes yes OK OK Germany achieved the most pitiful level of colonialism of all the European powers, not none at all, but it rounded to zero compared to every other European power)
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Yes, I completely agree with you on the world trade point, which is the most important point with respect to the question of war. That said, the interdependence of the major prospective combatants is perhaps novel.