Guadeloupe
In A Colony of Citizens: Revolution & Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787-1804, Laurent DuBois focuses on the French Revolution as it unfolded in the colony of Guadeloupe in the eastern Caribbean.
The book shows how free negroes and slaves inserted themselves as active participants into the French Revolution and radicalized the political culture of republicanism to bring about emancipation and racial equality in Guadeloupe and Saint-Domingue.
OD readers are already familiar with the French Revolution in Saint-Domingue and how it led to the destruction of the wealthiest colony in the world and the creation of Haiti in 1804 which is now the poorest country in the Western hemisphere.
It is less well known that the slave rebellion in Saint-Domingue in 1791 led to a British invasion in December 1793 which caused the French National Convention to abolish slavery throughout the whole French Empire in February 1794. This led to the temporary abolition of slavery in Guadeloupe and French Guiana later in 1794.
In my review of Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy’s An Empire Divided: The American Revolution and the British Caribbean, we saw how the American Revolution divided British America along ideological lines between royalists and republicans, and how American independence shattered the British Empire and artificially severed South Carolina from her sister colonies in the British West Indies.
In much the same way, the French Revolution polarized French America along ideological lines between royalists and republicans. It led to the destruction of Saint-Domingue, Haitian independence, and most importantly, to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 which severed Louisiana from her sister colonies in the French West Indies.
Just as a common British civilization once stretched from Barbados to South Carolina, a common French civilization used to exist between Lower Louisiana and the French Caribbean. These colonies were all French-speaking, race-based slave societies engaged in plantation agriculture and were commonly governed by King Louis XIV’s Code Noir.
By 1804, the Golden Circle was broken a second time: Saint-Domingue was annihilated, Louisiana was absorbed into the United States, the future Southern states of Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma would be carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, and Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana would remain part of the French Empire.
Guadeloupe provides an excellent counterpoint to Haiti: the triumph of slavery vs. freedom and civilization vs. barbarism.
From 1789 until 1804, Guadeloupe and Haiti were headed along the same trajectory. There were slave insurrections in both colonies in 1791 (Saint-Domingue) and 1793 (Guadeloupe). There were failed British interventions in both colonies in 1793 (Saint-Domingue) and 1794 (Guadeloupe). Slavery was officially abolished by the National Convention in both colonies in 1794. Plantation agriculture collapsed as a result in both colonies. The majority of the White population fled the chaos in both colonies and became émigrés.
In both colonies, the conflict was started by the ideological polarization between metropolitan White royalists and republicans, and the status of the free negroes (the free “gens de couleur”) in the colonies in light of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The White majority in both colonies sided with the royalists and called in the British.
In both colonies, most of the ex-slaves were transformed into serf-like “cultivateurs” attached to plantations by authoritarian commissioners (Sonthonax and L’Ouverture in Saint-Domingue, Victor Hugues in Guadeloupe), while much of the rest became soldiers and sailors. The blacks became ascendant in both colonies and expelled their French commissioners (General Hédouville in Saint-Domingue in 1798, Desfourneaux and Admiral Lacrosse in Guadeloupe in 1799 and 1800).
After the Treaty of Amiens was officially signed in 1802, Napoleon dispatched naval expeditions to reconquer and restore slavery in both rebellious colonies: General Leclerc sailed to Saint-Domingue in December 1801, General Richepance sailed to Guadeloupe in April 1802.
In both colonies, the ex-slaves and free negroes resisted the French reconquest. In both colonies, the ex-slaves and free negroes ripped the white out of the French tricolor and attempted to exterminate all the blancs. Finally, in both colonies huge numbers of French troops succumbed to yellow fever and malaria.
In Guadeloupe, the smaller island in the eastern Caribbean which is only 629 square miles, the French defeated the rebellious blacks led by Louis Delgrès who committed mass suicide on the slopes of the Matouba volcano.
In Saint-Domingue, the far larger colony in the western Caribbean which is 10,714 square miles, the French defeated and captured Toussaint L’Ouverture, but Jean-Jacques Dessalines and Henri Christophe resumed the rebellion and triumphed after the French troops sickened and died and reinforcements were cut off after Britain and France returned to war in 1803.
The triumph of the French in Guadeloupe meant the return of racialism, slavery, white supremacy, and colonialism: free blacks were stripped of their citizenship and the “cultivateurs” were restored to a condition of slavery. Interracial marriage was banned and citizenship was restored to the white basis. The exiled planters returned to Guadeloupe, resumed their mastery over the blacks, and rebuilt the slave based economy which would endure until 1848.
Alternatively, the defeat of the French in Saint-Domingue meant the triumph of anti-racism, black supremacy, liberty and equality, and Haitian independence. The blancs of Saint-Domingue were exterminated and the exiles never returned. Haiti officially became the world’s first black republic and Whites were banned from owning property under the Haitian constitution until the American occupation in 1917.
In 2012, Guadeloupe is an overseas department of France, a member of the eurozone, and has an average per capita income of $21,780. In contrast, Haiti remains an independent country, and in the 208th year of free society has an average per capita income of $1,235, a fact which caused Sean Penn to slam the whole fucking world for Haiti fatigue at the Cannes Film Festival.
As we have already seen, the value of Haiti’s exports in 1995 were far short of Saint-Domingue’s exports in 1788. Whereas Saint-Domingue produced three-fourths of the sugar consumed in the entire world in 1788, Haiti has been reduced to importing its sugar from the United States.
Under free society, independent Haiti retrograded so far in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that knowledge of the waterwheel and the flume were gradually forgotten, and the black population returned to using the ox and beam to grind sugarcane to distill it into rum, a pre-Roman level of technology. Rape was recently banned in 2005 although the culture of rape has yet to be eradicated.
What’s the moral of the story?
Like Napoleon, I think it is the exact opposite of the negrophile conclusions of Laurent DuBois who desperately tries to sew a silk purse out of a sow’s ear in A Colony of Citizens: Black Republican ideological fanaticism destroyed France’s richest colony and Guadeloupe would have become a second Haiti if the Richepance expedition had not succeeded.
The moral of the story is that the Golden Circle was poorly governed by foreign metropoles (London, Paris, Madrid, and Washington) and the readiness of the French creoles to side with the British illustrates that all the blancs of the Caribbean slave societies shared a common racialist culture and common economic interests and would have been infinitely better served in a Union of their own.
The prosperity of the Caribbean slave societies – whether British, French, or Spanish, which primarily enriched Europe – proved to be an intolerable affront to the liberal republican values of metropolitan Whites in France, Britain, and if you include Dixie, the northern United States.
The unquenchable desire of these liberal fanatics in the metropole to force hierarchical slave societies to conform to their Enlightenment-based universalist and egalitarian ideological grid pattern destroyed the prosperity of what had previously been the richest region of the Americas.
In the South and the British and French Caribbean, Whites asserted the need for “particular laws” (aka states’ rights) to preserve their accustomed prosperity and civilization. In both cases, the metropoles used force to extend their own liberal republican laws over slave societies, which resulted in precisely the disastrous social and economic consequences that the indigenous Whites had predicted.
In 1848, France experienced another revolution, and the tricolor would come back to the French Caribbean under the Second Republic. Within months of the 1848 Revolution, Victor Schoelcher (the French abolitionist counterpart of William Lloyd Garrison) would succeed in abolishing slavery in the French West Indies.
Laurent DuBois opens A Colony of Citizens with an introduction about the “sans-papier” movement in France. He traces the origins of the struggle of present day French illegal aliens to gain French citizenship, who in this case happen to be participating in voodoo ceremonies in Paris, back to the first racially integrated elections in French history which occurred in the French Caribbean during the French Revolution.
He concludes the book with a tour of the French Panthéon in Paris where Toussaint L’Ouverture of Saint-Domingue, Louis Delgrès of Guadeloupe, and the abolitionist Victor Schoelcher are now honored as heroes of the Republic.
The structure of the book seems designed to raise the question: is the French Republic the enemy of the French nation? Is the American Republic the enemy of the American nation? To what extent is the Enlightenment’s ideology of modern liberal republicanism and the discourse of “human rights” responsible for the existential crisis of the West?
These thought provoking questions were first raised and answered in Guadeloupe and Saint-Domingue during the Reign of Terror.
Note: In the PBS documentary Égalité for All below, the author Laurent DuBois discusses the French Revolution in Saint-Domingue and the French Caribbean.
No, Chamberlain was, “Peace in Our Time!”
Churchill was Blank Check to Poland.
Look it up.
Hunter- absolutely fascinating article. really top drawer.
The comparison of ‘slave dominated White Societies’ and their GDP, vs. ‘Free Nigger Societies’ and their GDP is brilliant. Nothing strikes home an ideological success or utter failure, than showing the ledger line to a liberal.
But, because this radical egalitarian Nigger Fetish Worship is their IDOLATROUS ‘god’, even this will not sway many. Only those whose eyes already see the fallacy that Obama is the equal of Any sane white man, or that Eric Holder is merely another ‘Emperor Jones’ when it comes to obeying the law.
The Nigs’ days are numbered. Everywhere.
You are having a laugh Dr Doom. If not, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Chamberlain declared war on Germany after Germany violated Polish sovereignty.
Churchill became Prime Minister later, a few weeks before the Battle of France.
If Hitler had been a gentleman and abided by Munich Chamberlain would never have declared war.
How is it possible for you to be so spectacularly wrong with the details of your case but be so sure of all your conclusions?
Because John, unlike you I don’t believe the lies of the Jewsmedia. I look into the details and find out for myself. I don’t Trust the Lying Box that sends me subliminal and non-subliminal messages like: “Gay and Proud” or “Diversity is our greatest Strength”
Jews are Congenital Liars. They lie ALL DAY, like a Rug.
If I hear the Media say something, I just assume the opposite is true.
Because it usually is the opposite…
How can you leave Bismarck out of the discussion of Germany? Review Bismarck’s program for unifying the German people. In unifying Germany he operated like a Yankee progressive who sought to eliminate all regional differences between the various German peoples. Both Bismarck and Hitler viewed Christianity as a rival that must be subjugated. O’s attack on the RCC is right out of Bismarck’s and Hitler’s playbook!
Are you implying that Otto Von Bismarck would be in favor of DIVERSITY?
Did you ever hear about the Nazis taking prayer out of school?
Would Hitler order a court to remove a copy of the Ten Commandments?
Did Himmler’s SS ever tear down a Cross on a memorial for fallen soldiers?
Did the Gestapo ever threaten to arrest someone for putting a Nativity Scene on Government Property?
No? Neither have I!
Dr. Doom your button has been pushed. You don’t want people to understand that Obama has taken Bismarck’s and Hitler’s game plan and is seeking to apply it in a diverse situation – with whites who don’t assimilate being the untermenschen this time around.
And regarding Himmler – Himmler tried to revive German paganism in an attempt to provide a pan-german religion that would eliminate intra-German divisions between, e.g., Catholic Bavarians and Lutheran Prussians.
“and the black population returned to using the ox and beam to grind sugarcane to distill it into rum”
Up until recently sorghum molasses used horses and beam to grind the plant and harvest the juices. Some people still use this method till this day. I don’t like Africans in America, but I don’t think this is a good point to be making.
Thor and Woden are both a Hell of a lot better than Gay Marriage!
Don’t flatter the dark zero by comparing him to Hitler.
Hitler was a builder, the Kenyan is a destroyer.
Try Idi Amin, or Robert Mugabe. He probably looks up to those…
Someguy, take a look at Zimbabwe, and compare it to Rhodesia.
Does that work for you?
Rhodesia was called the Breadbasket of Africa and exported thousands of tons of food.
Zimbabwe can’t even feed itself, and begs for aid from the UN.
A Christian people’s dual idolatries of racial self-worship and neo-paganism brought Gotterdammerung upon their head with Bomber Harris providing the fire and brimstone. The Almighty is a jealous God. So I would say that no, Thor and Woden were not better than gay marriage.
Admirer has it right. Both Bismarck and the Nazis arrested hundreds of Catholic priests.
Clearly Dr. Doom has never heard of Bismarck’s signature contribution to German politics, namely Kulturkampf (culture struggle). His war against German Catholics ultimately failed.
Dr. Doom probably has a hard time explaining why Pope Pius XII would issue an encyclical like “Mit brenneder Sorge” (with burning sorrow) to protest the persecution of Catholics in Nazi Germany.
Dr. Doom probably has never heard of St. Maximilian Kolbe, a Catholic priest who actually did die at Auschwitz from a lethal injection.
Dr. Doom probably accepts the Jewish propaganda that Pius XII was “Hitler’s Pope.”
Sorry, Dr. Doom, sometimes the truth isn’t as convenient as we would like it to be.
I know criticism of the Germany and the Third Reich fails the Alex Linder/Chechar test of true white nationalism, but the Third Reich wasn’t really as pro-white as they seem to wish it was.
Deo Vindice
If Hitler was such a builder, how did Germany wind up looking the way it did at the end of WW2? The Kenyan can’t even begin to wreak as much havoc on whites as your pal Hitler did.
Being a pro-white does not go hand in hand with being pro-Nazi. In fact, the case could easily be made that Nazis were the most anti-white group to ever exist in Europe.
It’s easy to believe that Nazis were pro-white only if you accept the Jewish propaganda that Jews were the only victims of Nazi Germany.
That’s the problem with neo-Nazis. They only believe what YKW tell them to believe.
Useful idiots.
Deo Vindice
Admirer, if God was as jealous as to Destroy Europe because he was called Woden instead of Jove or Yahweh, then why did the Soviet Union go unscathed with its rampant Atheism? How has Communist China escaped his Wrath, with their persecution of Christians?
Face it. It was the Evil Vampire Squid and their goyim cattle traitors that destroyed the Third Reich.
History is written by the victors, and the victors always portray the Enemy as the Evil Ones, but if you know history well, then you will realize that many time it is the Evil Ones that win.
This is why Whites face extermination, and those that resemble apes reproduce like rabbits. Why is your money worth less every year? Why do such weak people always win the Party Primaries over better, more qualified people?
You believe in God and that is Good, but what about Satan? He rules the World!
Satan is indeed often referred to as the Prince of this World. Maybe you shouldn’t put so much stock in his retaining the upper hand. I am quite certain he will lose in the end.
Deo Vindice
Satan will lose. However, always remember that he is there, and behind all the miseries of the World. The Vampire Squids would be nothing without their Master.
Satan gives them the Lies they need, and the Poison they use.
Without their Master, they are Nothing.
Dr. Doom you’re not keeping up with current events! The Soviet Union hardly escaped unscathed, getting its ass kicked by Nazi Germany in the early part of the WW2 with many millions of Russians being killed and has been defunct since 1991. Surely you knew that!
Believe me brother, I have absolutely no doubt he is there, behind all the miseries in the world.
“He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”
I’m sure you know who said that.
Deo Vindice
Like a phoenix risen from the ashes of the Soviet Union:
http://www.xxc.ru/english/
Yes, Apuleius. But until he returns we are on our own. God helps those that help themselves.
There are probably only 12-15 million Jews on Earth, out of a total Population of 7 billion!
Out of those, only a few thousand chosen to lead.
At the very top, the Bilderbergers or whatever they are called, only a few hundred at most!
And, such sorry specimens are they. Look at George Soros, a tiny, frail old man.
I expect that most of them are extremely old and feeble.
Where are the Men of Old? The Champions?
These old geezers are hardly a worthy adversary!
If it came down to a Real Fight, they wouldn’t stand a chance!
Consolidators of power are all the same, and their ways are not our Southron ways. Those who consolidate power, in affect say the govt is sovereign and the people subordinate to the govt; they say the people have no rights but what the govt gives them and they in affect say the people have no right to self-determination.That is not the way of Jefferson, Madison, Washington or Henry. Nor is it the way of Jackson, Lee, or Davis.
Our nation was founded by men who believed in the opposite and the nation has gone to shit while power has been consolidated in DC. lincoln and yankees got on the consolidate power thing and have been riding it ever since. Perhaps it is a good way for yankees, Germans, and the French. It is not my place to judge their way of govt. However it has been bad for the South.
My Fore Fathers did not fight the Brits or the yankees to set the govt needs over free White men, but to put the rights of free White men over what benefits the state. That is our way
Nor is invading other White nations to expand ourselves the way of Jefferson, Washington, Lee, Davis etc.
Those ways are not our ways and those ways will not set our people free. I see no point in freeing ourselves from one version of tyrant to replace it with another
@Stonelifter
Oh please. There you go again crediting Southerners alone for winning independence from Britain.
What about… John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Stephen Hopkins? What about Payne, Jay, and Galloway? All YANKEES. Hell, 33 of the 50-something members of the First Continental Congress were born and raised in Northern states.
It wasn’t only your forefathers who believed in and fought for liberty. Stop falsely painting Northerners as alien to American values. You guys were the ones who started a war with “another” country all so you could hold on to your precious slaves.
313Chris, you’re wrong. Abolitionists started the War at the behest of their Evil Masters in the London. Abolition was the brainchild of the Evil Meyer Rothschild’s Grandchildren at the Bank of England.
The Civil War was all about the Destruction of the Southern Cotton Plantations to enrich the Rothschild Family that owned cotton plantations in Egypt.
Jews are the ones that started the Abolitionist Movement, as well as the Civil Rights Movement a hundred years later! Abolition movements were placed in most of the Slaveowning regions of America and the Caribbean to disrupt the lucrative trade goods that came from them into Europe.
The Rothschilds had a monopoly on most foreign goods from the British Empire and wanted to destroy or disrupt competitors to their Company – The British East India Company that controlled most of the Empire.
True enough Chris. I didn’t intend to slight any of those men or their contributions, but they aren’t Southron and not germane to my way of thinking. You have the right to be proud of them, I never deny it. However, seems to me y’all turned your back on their way of thinking with lincoln and have done so from that day forward. Hell northern states were the 1st ones to kick around the idea of secession, and voted for nullification a few times as well. I’m the one in favorite of it now, so perhaps I’m more in line with their thinking then you? Plus one of the names you listed was a levelist, which were the communist of their day. Maybe two of them, but I can’t recall on Payne.
Chris you are willfully ignorant. lincoln and the north never fought to free slaves but to collect a tariff. lincoln was willing to sign a constitutional amendment guaranteeing not to interfere with Southron slavery, and did not mention slavery in his inaugural address. This has been gone over, and over and over and over, yet you still can’t grasp the truth. Why do you come here if you can’t or wont grasp the reality of the war of northern aggression?
I think you miss read me Dr Doom. My point is, it is not my place to say what is right or wrong for other White nations because I am not of those nations. They have a history, culture, and unique way of thinking to themselves which I do not know. If you notice I condemn the invasions of White nations by other White nations on the regular. Would I send troops if I were to have my way? No not at the national level, but I would let those citizens who wished to fight for others do so of their own will, and let Dixie companies sell to who they will. Plus I don’t buy into the jew thing like that.
Glad you’re back home in Dixie, Stonelifter. It really gets their knickers in a twist when you express any sense of pride in your homeland.
Life is zero sum game to some folks, you know. Kind of like in the public schools, where if a student attains some degree of excellence it must be ignored while on the other hand ne’er do wells must receive constant, lavish praise lest we damage their tender self-esteem.
Nothing quite like watching those who constantly whine about solidarity turn on a dime to stamp out any threat to their mandated ideological purity. If you fail to hold the “approved” view, you stand condemned.
Don’t ever be proud of who you are or where you come from. It is highly insulting to those who are actually from the right place. Mind your own is something that went out with the buggy whip, don’t you know.
Now let’s get back to whining about liberal political correctness and the gathering threat to our existence from the intolerant left. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Welcome home, you’re back in Amurrica, now. Herman and Eddie Munster are about to lead us all to glory. We’ll be sitting in the high cotton in no time flat. I just wish we would have picked it ourselves like they keep telling us we should.
Just think of all those cotton plantations in the imaginary extended cotton belt of North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia. It must be true just because they say so. We know they are always right.
Deo Vindice
Let’s get back to the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.
My apologies, Hunter. Vive l’Empereur!
Deo Vindice
Years ago, I once had a vBulletin forum, and the only subject that anyone ever talked about on the History forum was Hitler, Jews, and WW2, and it left me with a bias against the subject that has never left me.
Well, Napoleon must have hated Toussant. He helped destroy an industrial powerhouse.
Notes on the video.
In three days the mau mauing Haitians took the richest place on earth and turned it into a cinder. And the blacks are proud of this! They never ever change do they? The Videographers dressed up a white genocide as a liberation too. Disgusting.
Also one of the old ladies in the video talked seccession. Exact same thought process as the Confederates. The Haitians took the universal declaration and bongo heated it to mean murdering whites. Haitians are a disgusting ugly bunch.
“Haitians are a disgusting ugly bunch.”
Even their fellow negroes can’t stand them. We are inundated with them in South Florida, especially since the earthquake.
Deo Vindice
@Stonelifter:
As I understand your posts on this site, namely your posts discussing Hitler, you would oppose a military attempt led by Southern men like Hunter Wallace and people like yourself to take back the Southern states and restore Southern culture from Yankee transplants and DWL’s sometime around the year 2060, should it come to that?
I understand your posts to be clear on this matter. Very clear.
Once a group of people, Yankees and their DWL allies, for example, overrun by “transplanting,” gaining political positioning, taking over the leadership of universities and schooling in general, in short, coming to dominate and command a country, or for all practical purposes transforming a country or region to their liking, as I understand your reasoning, it is their country from that point on and it is wrong for military action to be taken, since the Yankees are white.
That is how I am understanding your posts.
It is true you use Nazi Germany and say it was wrong for them to invade white countries, but you, I’m sure, know that the situation in Europe in late 1930s was not akin to 1860 South, but more like 2060 South. The regions of Poland and such by late 30s were densely populated by Germans who identified with German culture, but, like the South today being under the thumb of the Northern Yankee, were under the thumb of a foreign dominance. The German’s in those regions could not even speak German, by law and fiat, like the old Southern culture is strongly suppressed today in the South by the Yankee overseers. And land the the Nazi’s early on in the war took back was originally theirs, e.g., the Rhineland.
You oppose the Nazi’s taking back this land and freeing the German people who still resided in these lands being able to resort back to their German culture. As I understand your posts on this matter.
So I merely extend your reasoning and assume you will oppose a similar movement on the part of some Southerners a decade or so hence to take back their culture and land from the Yankee and Yankee transplant. By that time it may, or could be just like Polish Germans. I assume that after a certain period of time has elapsed AND the transplant more consolidated, you will consider the South the property of the Yankee, and will oppose a force of arms by Southerners like Hunter Wallace to reassert old Southern Culture from the Yankee.
This is how I understand your posts and your position against the Nazis. As I wrote, I assume you understand that the Nazis were not in the role of 1860 North, but more like 2060 Southern men like Hunter Wallace.
Poland existed on and off as a nation since the dark ages. They could be cast as the Dixie of the piece.
Chamberlain and Baldwin did not object to German remilitarization, remilitarization of the Rhine, annexing Austria or annexing Bohemia.
German sovereignty was not suppressed and erased by the terms of Versailles, a treaty much less harsh than the one Germany forced on Russia, which ceded allmost all its European territory.
The case you have laid out would have justified the Wehrmacht rolling into Ohio, Kansas and Iowa to liberate the Volk there.
The discussions come back to WWII because someone inevitably starts talking about Rothschilds. Brutus raises an interesting perspective that should be discussed further in the forum.
Now, Hunter fails because the moral of the story is not poor goverance in Domingue by Revolutionary France as LeClerc and little Rochambeau more than made up for Sonthonax’s last-ditch emancipation with their brilliant war on “mountain Negroes”. THe “mountain negroes” brw were free renegades and arsonists that fled the city of CapmFrancois afterm razing it as LeClerc landed. They as a class exist to this day and commit “DECHOUKAJ” against good White families and business interests. The moral is that Napoleon stretched his forces too thin and should have withdrawn from Domingue after the resumption of European war and let the British attempt vindication in Domingue – fighting his war – as they struggled in Jamaica. France was never going to profit from holdings in the Caribbean with a hostile royal navy. Selling Lousiana was a smart move he was just too slow getting out of Domingue.
“German sovereignty was not suppressed and erased by the terms of Versailles”
It certainly was both in terms of suppression in the crushing war debt, strictures on militarization whereby Germany could not re-arm; and erased over vast areas of hitherto German lands like Danzig, East Prussia, the Sudetenland, and Silesia.
John says:
August 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Poland existed on and off as a nation since the dark ages. They could be cast as the Dixie of the piece.
***
Brutus responds:
True, but you stopped too quick. Poland existed since the dark ages, yes. But you failed to address my discussion. Namely, the boundaries of that particular piece of real estate and how those boundaries varied over time, and the people that were commensurate with those boundaries.
*****
“Chamberlain and Baldwin did not object to German remilitarization, remilitarization of the Rhine, annexing Austria or annexing Bohemia.”
************
Brutus response:
True, but it was with Churchill that the trouble started, wasn’t it? He did object. Very much so.
****************
“German sovereignty was not suppressed and erased by the terms of Versailles, a treaty much less harsh than the one Germany forced on Russia, which ceded allmost all its European territory.”
***********
Brutus response:
(1) Your assertion is false.
(2)The Versailles Treaty was hardly all of it, was it? Moreover, the specific example I cited, i.e., Poland and the Germans that lived within the boundaries fixed for Poland *AT THAT TIME AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES I SPOKE OF.*
***************
“The case you have laid out would have justified the Wehrmacht rolling into Ohio, Kansas and Iowa to liberate the Volk there.”
**********
Brutus response:
The case I laid out was that the boundaries being ascribed to Poland at the time did indeed subsume “the Volk,” and they were not happy with it.
You dashed right by the points I made AND the entire argument set forth by the Germans at that time and set forth by people who have been pointing it out ever since. You dashed right by it as fast as the Liberals and Jews dash right by the arguments we make against their beloved commitment to BRA. But that is to be expected, isn’t it? After all, that is the way most people operate and why there even exists opposition groups like we who gather here. People dash right by arguments that run contrary to what they have made up their mind about before hand because of one or another prejudice or ideological commitment.
Talking about world war II on a racial realist website is like talking about sports or the weather irl. Which is to say, it usually fucking sucks. In that vein, Brutus’s ‘case’ is an exercise in sibilant sophistry. Perhaps he should start a thread in the forum where he could make an actual argument instead of soft-peddaling history.
In short, any German expansion east is desirable as it comes at the expense of Slavs that are at best petty-nationalists with a western-oriented ruling class and at worst a vanguard of the Orient (Islam, Communism, etc.). Who would fault Hitler for uniting Germans and fighting Bolshevism? Asia begins where Germany ends afterall.
Rather problematic was the fact that as a lower-middle class movement, Nazism was unprepared to act as the aristocracy so desperately needed by the Slavs. They knew this and for that reason sought to scrap countries for their ethnic German parts. The Junkers – German analogue to prebellum Southrons – they were not. The Junkers needed cheap Slav labor for their farms.
It was the attempted thievery of colonies in Africa, alliance with anti-white Japan, invasion of western European nations and of course anti-Semitism that made Nazism so disgusting. But I suppose any talk of real history is just dashing by your perfect little point that compares Southrons to Hitlerists. Liberty to the Fuehrenprinzip. State’s Rights to Gleichshaltung.
If you’ve met Ukrainians you will quickly realize they are physically blonde blue eyed and quite decent people. All the Germans needed to do was decapitate the commissars and find some Polish/Ukrainian/German Aristos to run things as benign overlords.
instead of invading Poland, Hitler could have pushed for Germans living in Poland to ask for peaceful secession or invited Germans living in Poland to migrate to Germany. Instead he elected to invade, along with the Russians and kill a lot of good, Christian White men, Polish and German. I’m unaware that Germans in Poland where oppressed in any way, he was not acting defensively. He Had no right to kill good White men to get his way. There is no good in it
“I’m unaware that Germans in Poland where oppressed in any way”
The Versaille Treaty forced many German lands to be seized by other countries.
Germany was compelled to yield control of its colonies, and would also lose a number of European territories. The province of West Prussia would be ceded to the restored Poland, thereby granting it access to the Baltic Sea via the “Polish Corridor” which Prussia had annexed in the Partitions of Poland. This turned East Prussia into an exclave, separated from mainland Germany.
Alsace and much of Lorraine—both originally German-speaking territories—were part of France, having been annexed by France?s King Louis XIV who desired the Rhine as a “natural border”. After approximately 200 years of French rule, Alsace and the German-speaking part of Lorraine were ceded to Germany in 1871 under the Treaty of Frankfurt. In 1919, both regions were returned to France.
Northern Schleswig was returned to Denmark following a plebiscite on February 14, 1920 (area 3,984 km², 163,600 inhabitants (1920)). Central Schleswig, including the city of Flensburg, opted to remain German in a separate referendum on 14 March 1920.
Most of the Prussian provinces of Province of Posen (now Poznan) and of West Prussia which Prussia had annexed in the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) were ceded to Poland (area 53,800 km², 4,224,000 inhabitants (1931)) without a plebiscite. Most of the Province of Posen had already come under Polish control during the Greater Poland Uprising of 1918–1919.
The Hultschin area of Upper Silesia was transferred to Czechoslovakia (area 316 or 333 km², 49,000 inhabitants) without a plebiscite.
The eastern part of Upper Silesia was assigned to Poland, as in the Upper Silesia plebiscite inhabitants of about 45% of communities voted for this (with general results of 717,122 votes being cast for Germany and 483,514 for Poland).
The area of Eupen-Malmedy was given to Belgium. An opportunity was given to the population to “protest” against the transfer by signing a register, which gathered few signatures. The Vennbahn railway was also transferred to Belgium.
The area of Soldau in East Prussia, an important railway junction on the Warsaw–Danzig route, was transferred to Poland without a plebiscite (area 492 km²).
The northern part of East Prussia known as the “Memelland” or Memel Territory was placed under the control of France and was later annexed by Lithuania.
From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia, after the East Prussian plebiscite a small area was ceded to Poland.
The Territory of the Saar Basin was to be under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite between France and Germany, was to decide to which country it would belong. During this time, coal would be sent to France. The region was then called the Saargebiet (German: “Saar Area”) and was formed from southern parts of the German Rhine Province and western parts of the Bavarian Palatinate under the “Saar statute” of the Versailles Treaty.
The strategically important port of Danzig with the delta of the Vistula River on the Baltic Sea was separated from Germany as the Freie Stadt Danzig (Free City of Danzig).
Austria (see the Republic of German Austria) was forbidden from integrating with/into Germany.
In article 22, German colonies were divided between Belgium, Great Britain, and certain British Dominions, France, and Japan with the determination not to see any of them returned to Germany — a guarantee secured by Article 119.
In Africa, Britain and France divided German Kamerun (Cameroons) and Togoland. Belgium gained Ruanda-Urundi in northwestern German East Africa, the United Kingdom obtained by far the greater landmass of this colony, thus gaining the “missing link” in the chain of British possessions stretching from South Africa to Egypt (Cape to Cairo), Portugal received the Kionga Triangle, a sliver of German East Africa. German South West Africa was mandated to the Union of South Africa.
In the Pacific, Japan gained Germany’s islands north of the equator (the Marshall Islands, the Carolines, the Marianas, the Palau Islands) and Kiautschou in China. German Samoa was assigned to New Zealand; German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Nauru to Australia as mandatory.