Talk:German colonial empire

message: The article skips almost immediately from German unification to the Herero uprising in Namibia; no mention is made of the initial colonization efforts there or elsewhere in Africa, nor their impeti. This information is critical. Cjs2111 16:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: Some help would be appreciated on the Herero and Namaqua Genocide and Lothar von Trotha articles, as there's just two editors (myself and one other) active right now, and we're going nowhere fast! Even if you don't want to get involved actively, keeping a watch on the page would be appreciated. Greenman 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with Herero and Namaqua genocide, and Lothar von Trotha

message: This is an article on the German Colonial Empire.  As the definition in the opener says, "The German colonial empire was an overseas area formed in the late 19th century as part of the Hohenzollern dynasty's German Empire".
The stuff on the Augsburg banking families, the Margraviate of Brandenburg, and the Habsburg Monarchy's Austrian territories within the Holy Roman Empire, are neither the German Colonial Empire, nor its precursors.  They do not belong in this article.
The phenomenon of the German colonial empire began with Germany's unification.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than removing the information altogether, perhaps you could move the disputed content to List of former German colonies. Olessi (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is there already, if you take the time to read the article you refer to.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has nothing about the Curonian or Austrian ventures. Olessi (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The German Colonial Empire 

message: "William II, German Emperor, was so frustrated by the defeat of his European generals that he declared that Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, the German general in charge in East Africa, should be the only German officer allowed to lead his soldiers in a victory parade through the Brandenburg Gate. Vorbeck was the only undefeated German general of the war, and the only one to set foot in British territory." -OK, since Lettow-Vorbeck's army didn't "put itself at the disposal of the allied powers" (he never techically surrendered) until the rest of Germany (including Wilhelm II) had collapsed; how can this make any sense? Except displaying an  example of Hohenzollern sarcasm at it's most bitter?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.48.59.253 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a WTF question

message: The provided source by User:Molobo states the opposite of Molobo´s entry: The source speaks of "a first hypothesis" and a "rather experimental hypothesis" when arguing on long term consequences and in the conclusion argues, "German colonial heritage ... (was) of minor importance.." for German directions after 1914. Thus the change. --ThePiedCow (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Term Consequences 

message: There should be a detailed map outlining the places Germany held in the height of its colonization era. It would be useful, relevant, clear to use, unlike the format it is in now. If someone can add the places Germany held in its era of Imperialism, that would be helpful
::done. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alot of Noise 

message: (1) Removed W.M. Hughes’ astonishment “to find that the Big Four planned to give German New Guinea to Japan.”  No citation is offered.  There is nothing in the literature that I have seen that supports this Big Four largesse towards Japan -or- Hughes being “astounded” over such a proposal.  Japan’s presentation of claims to the Supreme Council at the Paris Peace Conference consisted of taking over German rights in Shantung and annexation of the German islands north of the equator.
(2) I proffer to remove the Herero genocide sentence.  While verifiable and specific to the German South West Africa page and other pages where the genocide is belabored, it is out of place in this general survey of German colonies -- and further, it seems to have been inserted here and massaged by an avowed atrocity connoisseur pushing his agenda.
--Gamahler (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No reaction; will remove (2) above.--Gamahler (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Strongly disagree, a mention of one of the most significant events of German colonial rule is certainly not out of place. Your language elsewhere and use of the word "belabored" here in response to the near-extinction of a people, while your contributions that go into great detail to describe the "great" shipping lines, idealistic colonists, beautiful cities, etc, indicates a certain lack of perspective. Greenman (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giveaway and Herero revolt 

message: Herero Genocide, and legacy of German colonialism. Both are notable topics and are sourced by scholary works.--Molobo (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added 

message: Reverted user:Molobo’s Christmas Day bushwhacking of the GeCoEm entry.  As stated before, the Herero revolt and genocide was a limited event in a specific geographic region.  The tactics of the repression were usurped by the theater commander.  All this is exposed on dedicated pages, but is out of place on this page.
Helmut Bley’s hypothesis was put to bed some time ago; clarifications were offered by several editors.  User:Molobo should reread that section until comprehension is attained.
To continue: maneuvering efforts of colonization during the imperialistic scramble-era into WWII exploitation of the Slavs as colonial legacy is absurd and notable only as an example of nonsense.  The undated Hitler quote fails as a source that imperial colonial experience was the granddaddy of a Nazi empire – but its inclusion here explains the tortured mental processes of those searching for sinister intentions in everything German.  It is outright dishonest for user:Molobo to push his POV and then hide behind a duo of labels he likes to throw around, i.e., "scholarly" and "notable," neither of which seem to be within his grasp.
--Gamahler (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal of this information, on the basis that it is not a mainstream point of view and mentioning it would be giving it undue weight (though please assume good faith and don't make personal attacks).  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable nonsense 

message: Gave a better formulation regarding the German genocide of Herero, also taged controversial claims.
--Molobo (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updade 

message: In general the article misses opposition within Germany that opposed colonisation across the seas and sought to gain territories for colonization in Central Europe.--Molobo (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article misses opposition within Germany 

message: I've added some tweaks, and additional information -- a map, a picture, some links, and some copy editing, too -- to smooth out some of this article's issues.  It really could use expansion in the first half, in the areas of the three phases: merchant company's and their exploitation, exploration and identification of resources, and so on.  These processes may have been different in the Niger valley than they were in, for example Kaiserwilhelmsland.  Probably also should have some mention of the Lutheran and Catholic missions, and their impact on the colonial movement.
I did take out the Hohenzollern phrase -- it implied that the German empire was a Hohenzollern proposition, which it was not.  Wilhelm may have wanted to be emperor, but his grandpa did not, and accepted it with very limited enthusiasm.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements still needed 

message: Reverted User:Feketekave’s revision.  The cited literature identifies the described colonial phase and the Reichstag’s actions as "complete overhaul" of the colonial bureaucracy. If user:F has a source that identifies the described phase and the Reichstag legislation for all the colonies as "Genocide. Changes in policy," that source can be posted in addition to the cited "Colonial overhaul." Further, this section already links to the Herero genocide page.--Gamahler (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Feketekave's comment above. However, there are valid edits in both versions that are being lost. The latest version after Feketekave's edit is a better starting point, so will make a few changes to that. Greenman (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lovely work of inserting apologetics for German colonial rule, by the way, Gamahler. Feketekave (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO - Colonial overhaul 

message: Pat considers this map “horrible” (inserted by Auntieruth). In my view, as a map, it is actually quite good; its reproduction offends visual clarity, thus the problem.  The different color-coded squares at bottom left represent the comparative sizes of various empires in 1905, the small squares within the larger squares show the relative landmass of the mother country to its empire. At bottom right, the same for populations.  The largest box, pinkish, guess who, followed by the Russian, French, Ottoman, German, Belgian, Portuguese, Dutch, etc. empires.  This map, with explanation, could be a valuable addition to a general page on empires or colonialism.–Gamahler (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In thumbnail form, which it will be viewed as the majority of the time, it is useless as a map to enable the reader to understand the spread of the German colonies. The prior map does not suffer from this problem.  The headline map should be simple and should not require the reader to zoom in to get the general idea. Note the British Empire map, which I authored, functions equally well in thumb and zoom modes.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the British Empire map. Auntieruth, I am sure, replaced the prior map in good faith last June. I merely changed the caption to reflect what the map actually shows: a snap shot of all empires in 1905. In my opinion, appropriately sized for readability, it contains useful information as a comparison document. Nevertheless, I agree that this map is not a good fit for this page.–Gamahler (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of colonial possessions 

message: Whole sections read like the worst justifications about conquest of other nations and support of colonialism. 
This source: Miller, Charles (1974). Battle for the Bundu. The First World War in East Africa is heavily used to support this with strange quotes taken from it apparently? Does anyone know the credentials of the author?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is highly disturbing 

message: There are three men in the photo of Claussen. Only two are named. I cannot make out who the other named man is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claussen 

message: Ok first: There is no reason for a POV tag, as nobody gave a meaningful reason for it (beside this strange rant by Molobo).
2.: There was never a consensus for the addition of this strange paragraph about the experiments of a _single_ scientists. This is an article about a very wide topic, the German colonial empire, and the Herero genocide has already a prominent place. Another big paragraph in such a article about the experiments of a _single_ scientist is definitive off the scale per undue weight. Looking at the talkpage it is obviously clear that nobody was for this addition, so speaking of a "consensus" is just a straw man. It may be sourced appropriately, but it better belongs in the right sub-article (where it already is, so nothing gets lost!). So there is no reason to include this in such prominent place, as this is an overview article about the empire, and this guy is in no way relevant enough to the empire itself, that he deserves such a big paragraph in an overview article like this. So please dont let this become a senseless edit war.StoneProphet (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, i presented my arguments. Here is nobody to make a consensus, therefore this consensus thing makes no sense. If you want, we can make a consensus. I didnt removed sourced material, it is still in an other article, the article where it really belongs into. As i said, this guy is not important enough for the whole empire to add a big paragraph about him twice into wikipedia in such a big overview article. StoneProphet (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: This is the poorest quality article I have read in a long lime. Amongst its many problems are a constant shift in terms and perspective indicative of someone copy and pasting hap-haphazardly from various articles without consideration for information around it. The article also has several instances of redundancy and contradiction, sometimes within the same paragraph. And there are so many grammatical and syntax errors, and run on sentences the article is nearly unreadable. I suggest a complete overhaul.  - Krikkit  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.196.12 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul Needed 

message: I restored some deleted information and expanded it. Also it is worth mentioning that not all major European nations were colonial powers-Russia or Austria weren't involved that much in colonies.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all European nations were colonial powers 

message: Removed the entire paragraph on the assorted rogue activities of Eugen Fischer and others in SWA.  No source is provided that Fischer represented colonial policy; i.e., nothing states that he was appointed by Wilhelm II, the chancellor, the head of the colonial department or any of the governors from Africa to Oceania.  Fischer graces/disgraces his own page, but has no place in this, a broad overview of the German colonial empire.TrinityGate (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: rogue--?? that is TrinityGate's personal POV that he used to erase a fully sourced summary of recent scholarship.  To show he is a rogue some RS will be needed. Actually there are at least a half dozen scholarly books in English that analyze his role and link it to mainstream German science. See for example 1) Shelley Baranowski, Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism... (2010) Page 191; 2) René Lemarchand - Forgotten Genocides: Oblivion, Denial, and Memory 2011  - Page 54; 3) Hutton, Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology... (2005) Page 68 4) Davis says, Eugen Fischer was one of "three important conduits through which colonial ideas and methods were transferred from German South West Africa" Davis, Colonialism, Antisemitism, and Germans of Jewish Descent (2011) Page 19.; 5) Campt, Other Germans: Black Germans And the Politics of Race... (2005) Page 39. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I removed from “Growth” were 200 words or so of abysmal language: cranky rebuttal arguments against every sentence with a hint of progressive governance.  My second removal did not question the scholarship cited, but it charges “undue weight” as to the relevance of Fischer and his helpers to the subject covered, the entire colonial realm.  Eugen Fischer cannot be found in any index of history volumes from Togo to Kiautschou.  Since Fischer has his own page, all activities in his corner of SWA are catalogued in detail for the wiki readership -- but he has no business on this page.  TrinityGate (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fischer's role is considered important by the RS -- see my post above for citations to 5 recent books--which is the criteria Wiipedia uses for inclusion. TrinityGate has provided not one RS that support his POV claims that Fischer is unimportant.Rjensen (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer, et al. 

message: Can anybody expand on the source "Louis" that's used quite a bit here?  The citations lack the author's first name and doesn't mention the book it is sourced from.  I'm questioning some of the relevance and context used, however it's impossible to find a book without a title and only a common surname to work with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtgelt (talk • contribs) 03:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Louis as a Source 

message: There is excessive, distracting and pretentious use of German-language terms in this article, with no perceptible benefit.  This article is in the English Wikipedia and should be fluently assimilable by English-speakers who have no German.  If people feel that a glossary of German terms would be useful for some reason then that should be provided separately.  Deipnosophista (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Exactly what is this opinion in 'Louis', it being well known that the germans never raided the coast of england, nor that england raided the coast of germany.
Seems like propagandistic poppycock, putzed by some revolucionary to incentivate a ' revolt ' here and there.
Reference seems personal opinion, wrongly placed, out of historic context and none trazable at that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.200.26 (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Louis. 

message: Should this article be merged with the German Empire one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article 

message: Should this article be merged with the German Empire one?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article 

message: The Dutch Colonies were far larger in terms of population and area, no?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladishchap (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Largest Colonial Empire behind French and British? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Wasn't it basically a colonial empire, although it's rarely described as such?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Reich  Empire 

message: The Mackrel (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Timeline 

message: Under the topic "First state-sponsored colonial venture (1857 - 1862)" is also Austria mentioned.  Austria doesn't have anything to do with the german colonial empire (the colonial empire of Germany and Brandenburg-Prussia). It would make more sense to just mention Brandenburg-Prussia and its colonies. 
Also: Despite already having an article, there should also be a topic about Nazi Germany and its Reichskommissariat. 2001:8A0:7505:F300:B8B6:ACB4:A5B6:E083 (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's an edge case, but Austria was part of the German Confederation until 1866 and the expedition does form part of the general atmosphere of German states making tentative steps towards colonisation in that period. Nazi Germany is discussed in the "after 1918" section and in the "legacy" section, but I think the Reichskommissariate are a distinct topic and inclusion in this article would require sources drawing a link between them and the colonial empire. Furius (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First state-sponsored colonial venture (1857–1862) 

message: Someone made a joke in the article let's fix this Wikipedia editors. 189.6.241.29 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone made some sort of joke in that article. 

message: The Fix is already in progress. 189.6.241.29 (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix in progress...  

message: Aren't those territories called the respective names on the title or is there something I'm missing? Can someone clarify please. Thanks! Random-Archivist (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceanic territory claims called Kaiserwilheimsland? 'Kamerun' and 'Togo' called German West Africa?