German imperial ambitions from Charlemagne to Nazi colonialism

German Imperial Colonialism and the Holocaust

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Germany was focused on becoming a rival world power. This is because it was always striving to match the influence of many of the other European powers (most notably: Britain, France and Spain). These ambitions have deep historical roots. That date back to the very beginning of Germany after the fall of the Roman Empire. This is when Germany was a divided region and ruled by different tribes. They were united under Charlemagne (via the Frankish empire). This was the first time, the area known as modern day Germany was integrated as a single nation state. [footnoteRef:1] [1: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 1-30]

The Frankish empire did not last after the death of Charlemagne. This is when different regions of influence were divided among his descendents. In 962 AD, Otto I was able to unite these areas together under the Holly Roman Empire. The idea was to consolidate power through a single government. This increased economic prosperity and it allowed the country flourish by effectively eliminating trade restrictions and promoting stability. The hope was that the Holly Roman Empire could rival the accomplishments of ancient Rome. [footnoteRef:2] [2: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 1-30]

However, the Protestant Reformation and increasing power of the nobility meant that the country was becoming divided. This took place with the Northern parts of Germany embracing the Protestant ideology. While the Southern regions of the country, remained Catholic and did not plan to change. At the same time, aristocracy began to take power away from the central government. Instead, they controlled different functions that were performed by this entity themselves through reverting back to a feudal system. This occurred during the Thirty Years War with the Holly Roman Empire effectively divided into two. [footnoteRef:3] [3: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 31-68]

The result is that a series of city states would emerge between the 17th and 19th centuries. Most notably: Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony. At the same time, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars meant that the region would be conquered and occupied by France. This was the part of a larger European empire Napoleon was creating. [footnoteRef:4] [4: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 31-68]

The impact this would have on the German people is: they felt unstable, a lack of control and there was no central authority they could identify with. Instead, they were relegated as a pawn that was passed from one European power to the next. This angered many who felt that Germany could be a powerful nation. If it could unite and focus on core ideas that would build the nation (i.e. pride, unity and creating a new kind of country). [footnoteRef:5] [5: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 31-68]

During the 19th century, Prussia became the most dominate of the city states and began to consolidate its gains with a central government located in Berlin. This and the Industrial Revolution transformed German society. It helped to modernize the country and changed life with more cities growing exponentially. These transformations led to the complete unification of Germany in 1871 with Wilhelm I becoming the emperor (i.e. Kaiser). [footnoteRef:6] [6: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 101-147]

To live up to these new ambitions, Germany began to seek out ways to build its control of power and resources. In 1885, all of the other European powers and Germany began to make claims to various parts of Africa. The basic idea is they wanted to prevent Arabs from dominating the region in order to control more of its natural resources. The Berlin Conference was designed to effectively divide the continent up into spheres of influence. Germany was given small parts of Africa as a part of the agreement. The most notable include: Rwanda, Namibia, Burundi, Botswana, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, Togo, Ghana and sections of Cameroon. [footnoteRef:7] [7: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 147-191]

In a number of cases, local African officials signed protection contracts with Germany. This enabled them to offer added amounts of protection to select tribes in exchange for access to various natural resources. However, there were also instances when tribes did not sign these accords and refused to accept the Germans dominating a particular area. In these situations, wars developed with Germany utilizing brutality to exert control. [footnoteRef:8] [8: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 147-191]

A good example of this can be seen with the Herero natives in Namibia. They became enraged at how German settlers and soldiers were randomly killing people. In 1904, they revolted against German authority as part of an effort to force them out. They were defeated in the Battle of Hamakari by General Lothar von Trotha. During the final pursuit, 6 thousand Herero's were chased into the Sarah. This is when they were isolated and executed. The campaign marked the first time when genocide was used to effectively cut off, starve and kill an entire population group. [footnoteRef:9] [9: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 147-191]

In aftermath, the Germans made native Africans their slaves. Evidence of this can be seen with observations in a report from the British Foreign Office which said, "In view of the cruelty, treachery and commercialization by which German colonial authorities have gradually reduced their natives to the status of cattle. The Herero's were butchered by the thousands during the war and have been ruthlessly flogged into subservice since." [footnoteRef:10] This is showing the brutality and the way this influenced German thinking. As they did not care about what happened to the people inside these areas or what other nations thought about their tactics. The experiences created the perceptions of German invincibility by defeating various uprisings and maintaining control. [footnoteRef:11] [10: Jeremy Hughes, Germany's Genocide (Woodbridge: Boynton and Brewer, 2011), 31] [11: Jeremy Hughes, Germany's Genocide (Woodbridge: Boynton and Brewer, 2011), 7-36]

These attitudes of imperialism led to Germany supporting Austria Hungary during World War I. After it was over, Germany was effectively stripped of its African colonies and punished for its involvement in starting the hostilities of the 1914 (via the Treaty of Versailles). This is when the world powers were staring down each other and Germany escalated the situation by supporting acts of aggression through their ally. [footnoteRef:12] [12: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 191-277]

In the aftermath, many Germans felt as if they were insulated based upon how they were treated by the victors. To make matters worse, the stripping of its colonies only added to this sense of anger and helplessness. These opinions contributed to the rise of Adolph Hitler. He was able to tap into these emotions and directly link them with Germany's territorial / political ambitions. [footnoteRef:13] [13: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 191-277]

However, the experiences that Germans learned in Africa shaped how they would deal with conquered territories and the Jews during World War II. To fully understand the way German colonial experiences are linked with Adolph Hitler (i.e. The Nazis) requires carefully examining how this influenced their thinking. This will be accomplished by focusing on the policies, practices and what tactics were utilized in achieving their objectives. Together, these elements will highlight how these colonial experiences shaped the policies in their occupied territories during World War II. [footnoteRef:14] [14: Hagan Schulze, Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998), 1-30]

The Connection between the German Colonial Experience and their Influence on Nazi Germany's Attempt to Colonize Eastern Europe During World War II

Racism was one the policies the European powers used to divide and conquer different regions of the world. The British were known for doing this inside areas such as India with the caste system. This effectively delegated various groups of people to specific segments of society based upon their racial or ethnic group. While those who were from another class; were considered to be superior to those individuals underneath them. As the lower groups are expected to be subservient to them at all times. This means that any kind of abuses committed against these segments of society are often overlooked as the end justifies the means. Colonialism took these basic ideas and accelerated them by determining who will control various natural resources and areas. The way these objectives were achieved was to use brutality and division to keep the population subservient to the Europeans.[footnoteRef:15] [15: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 22-29]

All of the major powers took these views to the next level, by restricting the kinds of activities colonists could be associated with when it came to local inhabitants. The Germans were the most controlling through limiting movement, marriage and instilling negative beliefs about specific racial groups within society. According to Arendt (1951), these opinions became common and influenced the policy decisions of colonial authorities with her saying, "Despite the pronounced cosmopolitanism of the Germany that undertook its overseas project, racism emerged within two decades as the dominant language of colonial governance. The state passed travel bans in the late 1890s and early 1900s to limit the how of people and information between colony and metropole precisely because such border crossing was undermining an emerging racialist argument in favor of colonial domination. Citizenship applications from colonial subjects show that naturalizations were becoming more fraught with racist anxiety. Mixed marriages became the almost unanimous subject of scorn within the middle classes. In public discussions, colonial subjects were frequently described as radically ulterior as existing in a separate dimension and, increasingly as time went on, outside of the boundaries of humanity. Among colonial scholars, colonial racism became so taken-for-granted that in 1909 a professor of National Economy at Hamburg's Colonial Institute could elevate race to a psychological explanation for colonization itself: 'Is the presence of a racially foreign underclass not also one of the psychological bases for colonization? What attracts the colonizer and satis-fies him? Certainly the freedom to be a master [Herr] and to belong to the upper caste. Who of us, who has lived with peoples of a foreign race, does not know this feeling? Or the feeling of discomfort when one sees a white man working together with colored peoples to produce an ordinary handicraft?' This assumption promoted the creation overseas of an aristocratic form of radicalized governance, where whites would form an eternal ruling strata over 'colored peoples.' As the racialized views, of the colonial project were routine during this time."[footnoteRef:16] [16: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 22-24]

This is showing how racism was the central theme used by the Germans to segregate different groups of society. The basic thought process, revolved around German ingenuity and superiority based upon the various historical achievements. These views became commonly held beliefs among them, about who was to run these societies and those individuals that were there to serve the Germans. This created conflicts between the liberal groups of German society who thought of themselves as very cosmopolitan. Yet, it also enabled the traditional Germans (led by Wilhelm I) to engage in whatever tactics they thought were necessary in reaching their objectives. As a result, they would use any means necessary to reach these goals.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 22 -- 29]

In the beginning racism was used to legitimize the Atlantic slave trade. As there were historical and biblical references which were justifying what occurred. The Germans implemented these changes slowly based upon individual actions, historical events and necessity. This set off a chain reaction of violence and cruelty that was targeted at specific groups. [footnoteRef:18] [18: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 25 -- 29]

Arendt concluded that this was part of a process which gradually happened over many years. At first these changes, were very small and not noticeable to anyone inside mainstream German society. However, as the colonial ambitions became larger, is when these practices were more extreme and brutal with her saying, "The dramatic shift in the official and intellectual conception of colonial subjects in the metropole can be linked to the trauma of colonial realities. Between the early 1890s and 1906 Germany was beset by constant colonial scandals, thoroughly exploited by the ant colonial Progressive and Social Democratic Parties and avidly presented to the public by the press. Such scandals raised the glaring contradiction between the values and norms of metropolitan German society and the day-to-day brutalities of colonial rule, which were in direct opposition to the traditions of liberal though. It may seem natural, then, that Germans would turn to race theory to smooth out the rough edges of empire. Historical studies of racism have shown the usefulness of racist ideology to democratic or liberal systems, which are engaged in violent exploitation, since racism posits unbridgeable and inalterable differences between human groups and purports to ground these differences within natural hierarchies." [footnoteRef:19] This is showing how racism became a basic policy that was utilized by German colonial authorities. [19: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 25-29]

Furthermore, Arendt determined that these attitudes were originally linked to the trans Atlantic slave trade with her saying, "Thus racism served to legitimate the Atlantic slave trade, New World slavery, the massive land expropriation, and the near total annihilation of indigenous polities within settler colonies like the United States and the British Dominions-all based on the premise that certain groups had certain natural fates based on their racial essence. The German story of the history of racism shows a much less cynical and predictable development of race language in political thought and praxis. This statist interpretation of the origin of public race consciousness is apt in the German case only after a certain point in time. The German state turned to the language and logic of race-thinking after a decade and a half of colonial experience. Initially the state only generated the legal categories, and thus the political realities, that were to offer formal race-thinking an entree into respectable political culture. Once race-thinking was given entree, once, that is, the political system offered it a potential role; race-thinking took on a powerful negative force of its own. The direction of this negative force was unpredictable, and its unleashing unintentional."[footnoteRef:20] This is showing how once racist policies started new levels of brutality and cruelty were experienced on an unprecedented scale. [20: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 25-29]

As a result, a new system evolved based off these events and the German desire to make their own mark in the world. According to Arendt, this shaped their attitudes and beliefs with her saying, "What the German state experience with overseas imperialism shows us is that the production of racialist systems is too complex to be reduced to conscious actions on the part of state officials and as a consequence, racialist systems are profoundly insidious and can be established incrementally through the uncoordinated synergy of individual actions and historical events. In Germany, the history of official and pragmatic race-thinking began with a category. When the German state set out to establish a legal apparatus for colonial domination, its key concern was to give the Kaiser a free hand reign. Officials had to find a way, then, to include colonial subjects within the boundaries of German state power (sovereignty) while excluding them from any institutions that would limit that power. Furthermore, wary of state involvement in overseas rule, Bismarck was also set upon the private funding of colonization and hence had to ensure the ability of private companies to pursue their economic objectives. Officials and parliament both assumed that African and other colonized polities were too culturally different to warrant inclusion in the federation of states that made up the German empire. Given these realities, the state chose to leave for some later date the positive definition of the legal status of colonial subjects vis-a-vis the power of the state. Since their main aim was simple exclusion from limiting institutions, they defined this status negatively. Instead, colonial subjects did not fall under the jurisdiction of regular civil or criminal law. The law that was to apply to them was left up to the praxis of the men sent to rule over them. This was little more than caprice, and became a category for the limitless expansion of state power. The consequence of this negative definition was rampant atrocity. Bismarck himself complained of a juror regimillalis that appeared to beset Prussian bureaucrats sent to the tropics. Many of who were treated in ways antithetical to established traditions of Prussian state-subject. By the 1890s, newspapers were laced with lurid stories of official misconduct, including rapes, massacres, summary executions, trophy beheading and the rampant use of flogging. Floggings were so widespread in fact that the colony of Kamerull in West Central Africa was popularly known as 'the twenty-five country:' referring to the number of lashes regularly given. This is within the reach of the sovereign state and its monopoly of violence. While simultaneously excluding them from any protective institutions or traditions. The German state had effectively, created a potentially genocidal category of person. This is someone who existed wholly outside the community of moral obligation, without moral boundaries, whose very murder technically would not be illegal."[footnoteRef:21] [21: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 22 -- 29]

These insights are showing how the German state legally allowed for discrimination to occur outside of the country. As colonists were seen above the law and could engage in actions that were not in accordance with civil society. In this case, many people believed that these polices allowed for discrimination to legally take place. This is based upon someone's social / economic class and political affiliations. [footnoteRef:22] [22: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 22 -- 29

These findings were used by Arendt to illustrate how the German colonial experiences desensitized them to violence, racism and brutality. The result is that these attitudes were carried forward with nationalist views until the mid 20th century. Her theory that explains how all of this is happening is through what is known as the 'Boomerang Thesis.' [footnoteRef:23] [23: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 28 -- 47]

Under this philosophy, it is believed that the racist attitudes of Germans developed over the course of decades gradually becoming more dominant. This is from traditionalists who were supporting the Kaiser. They felt that the actions of other European powers, when it came to colonialism, were justified with the end supporting the means. In Africa, the colonists were given free hand in supporting these goals. Over the course of time, these experiences shaped how the Germans looked at other racial groups and their attitudes towards violence in resolving these disputes. [footnoteRef:24] [24: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 28 -- 47]

At the same time, various uprising meant that the press would often report what was happening in Africa. The effect is that the public began to accept these practices and supported the actions that were taken by others. In the future, these attitudes became very common in German society with traditionalist using this. To show how they country is being robbed of its rightful place on the world stage. [footnoteRef:25] [25: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Bergbabn Books, 1951), 28 -- 47]

A good example of this can be seen with Arendt saying how the German colonial experiences shaped domestic and foreign policy. This became a part of the mindset which was embraced by everyone during this time. Commenting about these transformations she observed, "The so-called hypocrisy of British politics was the result of the good sense of English statesmen who drew a sharp line between colonial methods and normal domestic policies, thereby avoiding with considerable success the feared boomerang effect of imperialism upon the homeland. In other countries, particularly in Germany and Austria, the alliance took effect at home in the form of pan-movements, and to a lesser extent in France, in a so-called colonial policy. The aim of these 'movements' was, so to speak, to imperialize the whole nation (and not only the 'superfluous' part of it), to combine domestic and foreign policy in such a way as to organize the nation for the looting of foreign territories and the permanent degradation of alien peoples." [footnoteRef:26] This is showing how colonial practices and reporting of them in the newspapers desensitized the German public to violence, brutality and racism. These variables became a dominate part of the Nazi thinking and propaganda, which was used to support the idea of the Aryan superiority. [26: David Stone, "Defending the Plural," New Formations (2011), 50]

Arendt's findings are providing a better understanding of how the colonial experiences shaped the Nazi ideology. According to David (2011), this has become the basic thesis for explaining the beginning of how genocides occur and the primary motivations behind these attitudes. Evidence of this can be seen with David saying, "Arendt condemned Nazism as coming 'from the gutter', her attempt to stress its novelty and thus to find a way of rescuing the western tradition was not simply a result of myopia. She clearly condemned western traditions of thought and politics for their pusillanimous response to the totalitarian challenge (even if she would not tolerate the notion of totalitarianism as a product of those traditions) and, as Richard King notes, 'she stressed the deep inadequacy of the Enlightenment notion of natural rights to provide any guarantee for minorities and stateless peoples'. Besides, 'the gutter' is also part of the western tradition. She placed the force of her analysis on Europe not as a way of celebrating an untainted tradition but in order to demand that Europe set its house in order, arguments that she had been making since her dissertation on Augustine: 'It was, for instance, the presence of the very elements of Nazism that made the Nazis' victory in Europe not only possible but also so shamefully easy'. Similarly, where the 'pioneers of genocide studies' stressed a concept of genocide that equates it with mass killing carried out by the state, usually a totalitarian state, so more recent studies suggest that genocide is not simply a tool of evil madmen 'over there', but is deeply embedded in western history. Arendt, then, is not just the thinker who questions the west's relationship to genocide, but she also foreshadows many 'post-Holocaust' debates about representation. For those engaged in the quest for meaning and understanding, what is frightening is not that it is something new, but that it has brought to light the ruin of our categories of thought and standards of judgment." [footnoteRef:27] [27: David Stone, "Defending the Plural," New Formations (2011), 53]

This is showing how the Boomerang Theory is explaining the way Nazism and the Holocaust occurred. It is based upon the colonial experiences the Germans had in Africa during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These views quickly became a part of the German psyche and influenced how they seen others in the world around them. Over the course time, these attitudes became the foundation for the Germans to show how they are racially superior to other groups. These beliefs became some of the basic ideology that was embraced by Adolph Hitler in his attempt to rid the world of racial impurities. [footnoteRef:28] [28: David Stone, "Defending the Plural," New Formations (2011), 41 -- 54.]

Furthermore, Grosse (2011) found that the European imperialism of the early 20th century set the stage for past racial ideologies to be incorporated with each other. This occurred with authorities seeing these areas as vital to their strategic interests. The combination of these factors meant that nationalism was combined with greed and the negative opinions of other ethnic groups. [footnoteRef:29] [29: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

For the Germans, these experiences let them test new strategies and weapons in achieving these overall objectives. The result was a shift in cultural attitudes with violence and brutality being used to force certain segments of society to submit to their rule. These beliefs became a part of the attitudes that helped to fuel World War I. [footnoteRef:30] [30: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

In this situation, the Kaiser believed that Germany was acting in its own self-interest by supporting the Italians and Austria Hungary. These were former city states that were united under one ruler. They felt that historically, many of the traditional European powers (i.e. The British and the French) did not want to see Germany become strong. These attitudes are what enabled the war to begin based upon a series of miscalculations by the Kaiser. The colonial experience shaped his attitudes. As he felt that Germany could not be defeated and was taking the strongest moral position. [footnoteRef:31] [31: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

These beliefs were cemented based upon the dream of seeing a united Germany controlling its own destiny. After Germany lost the war, is the point these views became more perverse. In this case, attitudes of resentment and racism were combined with nationalism to create the opinion that Germany's leaders lost the war. [footnoteRef:32] [32: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

The Nazi's were able to tap into this sentiment to show how the West was against them. What helped to make the situation so dire; is the economic collapse and humiliation that Germany went through. This occurred as the country could not militarize or have access to natural resources to help it grow. [footnoteRef:33] [33: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

The result is that Adolph Hitler blamed the Jews for this situation. They controlled the financial system and were deeply engrained in many Western governments. Once the various restrictions were placed on them, many people supported these policies. This is because the experiences from colonization shaped their views that ethnic minorities were against Germany and everything it stood for. The impact is that society ignored genocide and other atrocities, even though they were occurring inside their own backyard. [footnoteRef:34] [34: Pascal Grosse, "From Colonialism to National Socialism," Post Colonial Studies, 9, no. 1 (2006): 35 -- 52.]

According to Zimmer (2005), this started based upon the policy of having German settlers living inside select areas together. They often viewed themselves as superior to others and referred to each other as the "master race." This created animosity between the Germans and local inhabitants. When violence erupted, they would swiftly respond by overwhelming force and restricting the access to supplies / natural resources. This effectively staved the population into submission. Once they were the most vulnerable, is the point the Germans would increase the levels of violence and effectively wipe out specific segments. Adolph Hitler learned from these experiences and he applied them as a part of his strategy for Eastern Europe and Russia. [footnoteRef:35] [35: Jurgen Zimmer, "Annihilation in Africa," GHI Bulletin, no.37 (2005), 51 -- 57.]

Evidence of this can be seen with Zimmer saying, "The war in German Southwest Africa erupted after twenty years of colonial rule (which began in 1884), in an era of relative quiet. The indigenous peoples seemed to have accommodated themselves to German rule. Leaders of the Herero and Nama, who along with the Ovambo and Damara formed the largest sociopolitical groups in the region, collaborated with the Germans, manipulated them for their own purposes, and were in turn manipulated by them. Beneath a veneer of indirect rule, the country did not noticeably change, but the increasing numbers of white settlers -- and this was a German policy in Southwest Africa, which was imagined as a settler colony -- steadily exacerbated conflicts between newcomers and the African population. The fact that the settlers exhibited a pronounced 'master race' attitude and often deceived their African trading partners did not contribute much too peaceful coexistence. Relations between Africans and whites; were increasingly determined by a climate of violence. At the same time, many individual German authorities pushed for an energetic, i.e. brutal approach to the Herero and a more rapid expropriation of their land. As more recent studies have shown, one German district official in particular, a certain Lieutenant Zurn, was in large measure responsible for the outbreak of war. As a consequence of this ideology of a race war, the German army shot men, women, and children, prisoners of war, and non-combatants; it forced thousands to die of thirst in the Sandveld of the Omaheke or in Southern Namibia during the anti-guerrilla war against the Nama; and it killed hundreds through deliberate neglect in the concentration camps. This makes the Namibian War the first genocide of the twentieth century and the first genocide in German history. Studying the Herero and Nama genocide therefore is not simply an end in itself, but is of interest for a general history of genocide. It is also an important link between colonialism and the Nazi policy of extermination. After all, the German war against Poland and the Soviet Union can be seen as the largest colonial war of conquest in history. Never before were so many people and resources mobilized by a conqueror, and never before were war aims so expansive. Millions of people were to be murdered in order to conquer 'living space' in the East and to establish a colonial empire that would reach far beyond the Ural Mountains. To Hitler it was obvious that if there was any historical precedent, then only the history of colonialism could possibly provide an example for his plans. As he himself said in September 1941, 'The Russian territory is our India and, just as the English rule India with a handful of people, so will we govern this is our colonial territory. We will supply the Ukrainians with headscarves, glass chains as jewelry and whatever else colonial peoples like." [footnoteRef:36] [36: Jurgen Zimmer, "Annihilation in Africa," GHI Bulletin, no.37 (2005), 51 -- 57.]

This is showing how the German colonial experiences taught future generations the best tactics for controlling specific regions. The Nazis would take these lessons one step further and effectively began clearing parts of Eastern Europe of undesirables during their occupation. In this case, these events made the Germans immune to genocide. As it became one of their tools in occupying and controlling large territories. [footnoteRef:37] [37: Jurgen Zimmer, "Annihilation in Africa," GHI Bulletin, no.37 (2005), 51 -- 57.]

According to Zimmer (2011), these experiences shaped the German psyche by changing how they looked at conquered territories and the people within it. The events with the Herero taught them new strategies to create a desirable mix of economics and racial ideology into a single system. This occurred by creating different zones and violently forcing the local population out of specific areas. Anyone who opposes these practices was executed or suffered tremendous amounts of brutality as a result of their resistance. [footnoteRef:38] [38: Jurgen Zimmer, German Colonialism and National Identify (New York: Routledge, 2011), 33 -- 44.]

During World War II, these ideas were expanded upon to create a system that was built off of the experiences and lessons learned in colonial Africa. Evidence of this can be seen with Zimmer saying, "During World War Two, the National Socialists planned a fundamental reorganization of Eastern European space that would involve the creation of German settlement colonies there. When Germany invaded Poland, it divided the territory it occupied into various administrative units, most significantly the Wartheland and the Generalgouvernement. Various government institutions produced competing models for the form a settlement project might ultimately take in these territories, but, overall, the plan was to move the Poles out of the western Wartheland into the eastern General- gouvernement, to move ethnic Germans (for example, those being brought "home to the Reich" from the Baltic states) into the Wartheland, and then subsequently to reintroduce the Slavic population as either an enslaved or a disenfranchised agricultural labor force in a plantation system that, in some versions, was to look more or less like Virginia prior to the American Civil War. The beginning stages of this plan were carried out, in that hundreds of thousands of Germans were relocated into a space from which over a million ethnic Poles and Jews had been violently evicted. Further steps, however, were prevented by the demands of the war."[footnoteRef:39] [39: Jurgen Zimmer, German Colonialism and National Identify (New York: Routledge, 2011), 34]

To support these views, the Germans seen themselves as superior to ethnic minorities. They were considered to lack intelligence and the sophistication of living within the modern world. A good example of these attitudes can be seen with comments from Hanns Johs. He was the secretary for Heinrich Himmler. During the winter of 1939 to 1940, they traveled extensively through occupied Poland with him saying, "The Poles are not a state-building nation. They lack even the most elementary preconditions for it. I drove alongside the Reichsfuhrer-SS up and down that country. A country which has so little feeling for systematic settlement, that is not even up to dealing with the style of a village, has no claim to any sort of independent political status within the European area. It is a colonial country!"[footnoteRef:40] [40: Jurgen Zimmer, German Colonialism and National Identify (New York: Routledge, 2011), 34]

This is showing how racist attitudes became a common part of the German strategy. Their basic idea was to go into areas they considered to be uncivilized and colonize them. The local inhabitants would become slaves to German nationals who are resettled in the area. This was supposed to mirror the plantation system in the American South prior to the start of the Civil War. [footnoteRef:41] [41: Jurgen Zimmer, German Colonialism and National Identify (New York: Routledge, 2011), 33 -- 44.]

In this aspect, the experiences in Africa shaped how the Germans looked at themselves and others who live within their conquered territories. As they were the natural rulers and everyone else must serve them. This is an attitude that was developed over the decades from the struggles and experiences they went through. As a result, the local population was subservient to them and forced to follow this system. Those who did not will face brutality, violence and the possibility of death. [footnoteRef:42] [42: Jurgen Zimmer, German Colonialism and National Identify (New York: Routledge, 2011), 33 -- 44.]

Moreover, Madely (2005) determined that the idea of conquering and acquiring territory is the basic strategy that was utilized by Germans to create an empire. This is because the nation never had control of vast amounts of land or space historically. These desires meant that German settlers would do anything to protect their territories and interests. [footnoteRef:43] [43: Benjamin Madely, "From Africa to Auschwitz," European Quarterly History, 35 (2005), 429 -- 458.]

In Africa and Eastern Europe, those who stood in the way of reaching these objectives were eliminated. This occurred by forcefully making them serve the Germans. Anyone who disobeyed was subject to acts of brutality from resisting this system. The basic idea was take these emotions of frustration and jealousy, to create a new country with vast colonies supporting the homeland. [footnoteRef:44] [44: Benjamin Madely, "From Africa to Auschwitz," European Quarterly History, 35 (2005), 429 -- 458.]

Inside German literature, various scholars believed that the Germans were racially superior to Africans. This means that they were there to serve them in a system which is supporting this natural order. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Madely who said, "In their books, colonists and government employees frequently advocated the idea of superior Germans ruling over inferior Africans. In 1907, Theodore Leutwein tried to justify German rule over Africans, writing of 'the higher Kultur of the Whites', while missionary Heinrich Vedder wrote of whites' 'undoubted' racial 'superiority'. Others went far beyond simply trying to rationalize German subordination of Africans. Some authors tried to justify extermination. In 1906, Captain Maximilian Bayer wrote that God had ordained the Namas' destruction. According to Bayer, 'Our Lord has made the law of nature such that only the strong of the world have a right to continuity, while the weak and purposeless will perish in favor of the strong'. He then prophesied that 'the day will come when the Hottentots [Nama] will disappear, but it will not be a loss for humanity because they are all only born robbers and thieves, nothing more'. In 1907, colonial bureaucrat Paul Rohrbach tried to use economics to justify exterminating the Nama: 'From the point-of-view of the economy of the country, the Hottentots [Namas] are generally regarded, in the wider sense, as useless, and in this respect, provide no justification for the preservation of this race'. Colonial Namibian literature thus exposed metropolitan Germans to a new form of racism in which non-Germans had the right to exist only in so far as they served Germans and in which some authors even endorsed extermination." [footnoteRef:45] This is showing how the colonial experience and attitudes of racism led to the Germans seeing local inhabitants as nothing more than a tool for achieving their objectives. [45: Benjamin Madely, "From Africa to Auschwitz," European Quarterly History, 35 (2005), 436]

According to Madely, this desensitized Germans to violence and it encouraged them to support these atrocities. These lessons were applied by the Nazi's during their conquest of Eastern Europe. A good example of this can be seen with Madely saying, "In 1905, Conrad Rust's memoir featured a photo of three Herero men stripped naked and hanging dead from the branches of a tree. Perhaps most shocking, a 1907 war chronicle recorded that, 'A chest of Herero skulls was recently sent by troops from German South West Africa to the pathological institute in Berlin, where they will be subjected to scientific measurements,' before noting that, 'Herero women have removed the flesh [from the skulls] with the aid of glass shards'. Evidence of skulls being sent from the colony to Germany was also communicated to Germans through a popular post- card depicting German soldiers loading a chest with African skulls. In colonial Namibia, Africans were routinely beaten, flogged, raped, and sometimes killed. During the counterinsurgency, violence escalated far beyond the limits set by conventional European martial modes. Colonial authors and photographers reported this brutality and introduced it into the German national discourse." [footnoteRef:46] [46: Benjamin Madely, "From Africa to Auschwitz," European Quarterly History, 35 (2005), 437]

This is illustrating how attitudes of racial superiority and desensitization are what led directly to even greater atrocities in World War II. While there is no evidence to support this, one could argue that these practices and their acceptance made it part of the basic strategy that was used in all German occupied territories. Over the course of time, this became a part of the approach to control and reshape various colonies. [footnoteRef:47] [47: Benjamin Madely, "From Africa to Auschwitz," European Quarterly History, 35 (2005), 429 -- 458.]

At first these changes were limited mainly to specific classes in Germany (most notably: the aristocracy). They benefited directly from colonialism by receiving lucrative financial rewards based upon their social position. Prior to 1914, there were conflicting views about if Germany should be involved in these activities. [footnoteRef:48] [48: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]

Over the course of time, many of these attitudes became intertwined between the different classes. This is because lobbying groups such as: the Pan German League, the German Colonial Society and the Navy League began to talk about having unified national goal. Their objectives were supporting Germany expanding it borders, increasing trade and improving its military might. The basic strategy was to help the country become an important player on the international stage. [footnoteRef:49] [49: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]

The colonial experiences in Africa were a part of achieving these objectives with the end justifying the means. As a result, any kind of atrocities committed against the local population was seen as working towards reaching these objectives. This cemented the desire for Germany to strike out against those forces which have historically held them back. [footnoteRef:50] [50: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]

According to Grosse (2005), many of these ideals were interconnected with racial ideology during the African experience. This is when the elite became more arrogant and felt that they were justified in any actions based upon these attitudes. Their policies are much different than other European powers. As Germany, was seeking to integrate domestic and foreign policy objectives together. The basic idea is that the German settlers in Africa could take these views and combine them with nationalistic aspirations to justify their actions. [footnoteRef:51] [51: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]

The result is that the Germans were more methodical in how they controlled an area and molded it into mirror image of the homeland. This meant using racial ideology to effectively force the local inhabitants to leave specific areas. Violence was committed against them, in order to force African civilians to submit to their new roles of serving them. This made the Germans look at the locals as nothing more than tools in achieving their objectives. Once they were no longer useful, is the point they would engage in acts of brutality to show their superiority over them.[footnoteRef:52] [52: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]

Moreover, Grosse found that the Germans began to pass laws restricting the rights of Africans in their occupied territories. Inside these regulations, they listed Africans as second class citizens that were subservient to German nationals. They were forbidden from marrying someone of German descent. As they felt that this would destroy the class system and encourage future generations to embrace animal like practices (which could corrupt society). To prevent this, these laws were designed to keep the different racial groups separate in order to support this ideology. These experiences served as foundation for disenfranchising certain groups from access to various resources, support and services. [footnoteRef:53] [53: Pascal Grosse, "What does German Colonialism have to do with National Socialism," Germany's Colonial Past, (2005), 115 -- 134. ]