This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German colonial empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sean Faron.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this map have an english language key? This is after all a page on the english language Wikipedia.
The islands Neu-Brittanien, Neu-Irland and Admiralitäts-Inseln where do thea belong to?
Were there any German missionary societies or groups à la Great Britian? If so, it would be an interesting adition.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Lettow – Vorbeck returned to Germany in 1919, Wilhelm fled to the Netherlands in November 1918. Whoever decided to organize a victory parade at the Brandenburg Gate, it wasn´t Wilhelm II. ( 217.184.150.120 ( talk) 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
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)
Here are some direct quotes from the paper by Helmut Bley, an academic of colonial Africa at the University of Hanover:
Bley suggests connections between German colonial Africa and Lebensraum. It is fine to mention a possible connection within the article, but it is imbalanced to extrapolate upon that, especially since Bley only hypothesizes a connection. If the reader is interested in Bley's theory, s/he can read his writings and make their own determination. Olessi ( talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's improper to delete all of this information. Additional sources can be provided if needed, but I see no reason to delete scholary work on the subject. The subject is notable, encyclopedic, scholary and presents vital info on origins of German practice of ethnic cleansing and genocide that went from Africa to Europe. The same origins are mentioned in The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism By Woodruff D. Smith, A Low Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War Ii, 1930-1941 (Hardcover)by Paul N. Hehn , Germany's Colonial Pasts By Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, Lora Wildenthal,Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction by Robert Young to name just a few. I see no reason to delete information how genocide and ethnic cleansing of German colonialism influenced German genocide and ehtnic cleansing in Europe. This is sourced, notable and essential part of the article. -- Molobo ( talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My concern is with the way you presented the information initially. You added a considerable number of potentially controversial statements and provided a single source. An examination of that source indicates the author (Bley) hypothesized about a connection and concluded the connection was minor; you presented his hypothesis as if it were a widely accepted conclusion. Whether his theory is accurate or not is not the point. What is important is verifiability, which was not possible based on your single original source. Olessi ( talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Don't worry Olessi as you see I already provided several other sources at request, more will come. Do to your suggestion I will segrate the various sources regarding influence of German colonialism on German policy.-- Molobo ( talk) 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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
(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)
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)
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)
This article is severely biased. A casual read indicates that the Germans were absolutely benevolent masters, their conquered were entirely happy with their lot, and the Allies just looking to take advantage with malevolent propaganda, etc. Of course victorious Allied propaganda needs perspective, but the perspective in this article is highly skewed. No mention of the genocide, one of the most notable events of German colonial rule, but other minor positive details, such as the supposed "new breed of efficient, humane, colonial civil servant", are listed and cited in abundance. Greenman ( talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have neutralised the tone of the article, but the content is still unfairly favourable to the empire. BillMasen ( talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there an article parallel to this one on de.wikipedia.org?
I would agree that it is unusual that the Herero genocide does not even get its own subsection, with a clear link to the (well-written and well-researched) wikipedia article devoted to the genocide itself. It is certainly one of the first things that come to mind when the German colonial empire is spoken of. Feketekave ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Gave a better formulation regarding the German genocide of Herero, also taged controversial claims. -- Molobo ( talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Was there or wasn't there a Herero genocide? Incidentally, we can choose whatever section titles we desire, as long as they describe the content of the section; to insist on sources for them (should ze copy chapter titles?) is ridiculous. The central fact here is the Herero genocide; the response to it is, by definition, something secondary. Feketekave ( talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
German colonial empire | |
---|---|
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)
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)
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) One might be a translator. It is not obvious which is Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
If you want to remove admittedly referenced material, then you need a positive consensus to do that. If other editors agree with you it will go. Otherwise it will stay. BillMasen ( talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wasn't east siberia colonized by Russia? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.171.190.10 (
talk) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No. East Siberia was not a colony, as it did not have a colonial style government (viceroyalty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 ( talk) 19:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
The Mackrel ( talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)The Mackrel The Mackrel ( talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC) I have read many alternate timelines of post-World War I and one that comes to mind is would Germany obtain all of middle Africa if they won the war.
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)
User:Gabriel Ziegler has repeatedly replaced the existing map for this article with a new map, a change that has been contested several times. I have asked him to bring the discussion to the talk page, but he has not done so, so I am doing it now.
Furius ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I don't see the new map as an improvement of the old one. The insets aren't necessary to communicate what the map is trying to show, and serve to clutter it more than anything. The old map could be improved by drawing more attention to the smaller territories as I don't think the red outline stands out very much as it is. But the new map introduces more problems than it solves. WPscatter t/ c 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
@ Furius, if you believe that "Tsingtao", "Kiautschou", or "Tsingtao Chinese" count as the more WP:COMMONNAME, that's a discussion that can be had on those pages. Otherwise, this article should reflect the usage there. Note that WP:PINYIN and WP:NCZh both clearly state that we need to look at what modern English sources use. There's a good reason for this, as has previously been discussed. SilverStar54 ( talk) 17:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Someone made a joke in the article let's fix this Wikipedia editors. 189.6.241.29 ( talk) 15:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Fix is already in progress. 189.6.241.29 ( talk) 15:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German colonial empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sean Faron.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't this map have an english language key? This is after all a page on the english language Wikipedia.
The islands Neu-Brittanien, Neu-Irland and Admiralitäts-Inseln where do thea belong to?
Were there any German missionary societies or groups à la Great Britian? If so, it would be an interesting adition.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Lettow – Vorbeck returned to Germany in 1919, Wilhelm fled to the Netherlands in November 1918. Whoever decided to organize a victory parade at the Brandenburg Gate, it wasn´t Wilhelm II. ( 217.184.150.120 ( talk) 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
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)
Here are some direct quotes from the paper by Helmut Bley, an academic of colonial Africa at the University of Hanover:
Bley suggests connections between German colonial Africa and Lebensraum. It is fine to mention a possible connection within the article, but it is imbalanced to extrapolate upon that, especially since Bley only hypothesizes a connection. If the reader is interested in Bley's theory, s/he can read his writings and make their own determination. Olessi ( talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's improper to delete all of this information. Additional sources can be provided if needed, but I see no reason to delete scholary work on the subject. The subject is notable, encyclopedic, scholary and presents vital info on origins of German practice of ethnic cleansing and genocide that went from Africa to Europe. The same origins are mentioned in The Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism By Woodruff D. Smith, A Low Dishonest Decade: The Great Powers, Eastern Europe, and the Economic Origins of World War Ii, 1930-1941 (Hardcover)by Paul N. Hehn , Germany's Colonial Pasts By Eric Ames, Marcia Klotz, Lora Wildenthal,Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction by Robert Young to name just a few. I see no reason to delete information how genocide and ethnic cleansing of German colonialism influenced German genocide and ehtnic cleansing in Europe. This is sourced, notable and essential part of the article. -- Molobo ( talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My concern is with the way you presented the information initially. You added a considerable number of potentially controversial statements and provided a single source. An examination of that source indicates the author (Bley) hypothesized about a connection and concluded the connection was minor; you presented his hypothesis as if it were a widely accepted conclusion. Whether his theory is accurate or not is not the point. What is important is verifiability, which was not possible based on your single original source. Olessi ( talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Don't worry Olessi as you see I already provided several other sources at request, more will come. Do to your suggestion I will segrate the various sources regarding influence of German colonialism on German policy.-- Molobo ( talk) 08:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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
(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)
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)
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)
This article is severely biased. A casual read indicates that the Germans were absolutely benevolent masters, their conquered were entirely happy with their lot, and the Allies just looking to take advantage with malevolent propaganda, etc. Of course victorious Allied propaganda needs perspective, but the perspective in this article is highly skewed. No mention of the genocide, one of the most notable events of German colonial rule, but other minor positive details, such as the supposed "new breed of efficient, humane, colonial civil servant", are listed and cited in abundance. Greenman ( talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have neutralised the tone of the article, but the content is still unfairly favourable to the empire. BillMasen ( talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there an article parallel to this one on de.wikipedia.org?
I would agree that it is unusual that the Herero genocide does not even get its own subsection, with a clear link to the (well-written and well-researched) wikipedia article devoted to the genocide itself. It is certainly one of the first things that come to mind when the German colonial empire is spoken of. Feketekave ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Gave a better formulation regarding the German genocide of Herero, also taged controversial claims. -- Molobo ( talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Was there or wasn't there a Herero genocide? Incidentally, we can choose whatever section titles we desire, as long as they describe the content of the section; to insist on sources for them (should ze copy chapter titles?) is ridiculous. The central fact here is the Herero genocide; the response to it is, by definition, something secondary. Feketekave ( talk) 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
German colonial empire | |
---|---|
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)
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)
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) One might be a translator. It is not obvious which is Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
If you want to remove admittedly referenced material, then you need a positive consensus to do that. If other editors agree with you it will go. Otherwise it will stay. BillMasen ( talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wasn't east siberia colonized by Russia? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.171.190.10 (
talk) 14:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
No. East Siberia was not a colony, as it did not have a colonial style government (viceroyalty). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.232.49 ( talk) 19:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
The Mackrel ( talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)The Mackrel The Mackrel ( talk) 01:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC) I have read many alternate timelines of post-World War I and one that comes to mind is would Germany obtain all of middle Africa if they won the war.
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)
User:Gabriel Ziegler has repeatedly replaced the existing map for this article with a new map, a change that has been contested several times. I have asked him to bring the discussion to the talk page, but he has not done so, so I am doing it now.
Furius ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I don't see the new map as an improvement of the old one. The insets aren't necessary to communicate what the map is trying to show, and serve to clutter it more than anything. The old map could be improved by drawing more attention to the smaller territories as I don't think the red outline stands out very much as it is. But the new map introduces more problems than it solves. WPscatter t/ c 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
@ Furius, if you believe that "Tsingtao", "Kiautschou", or "Tsingtao Chinese" count as the more WP:COMMONNAME, that's a discussion that can be had on those pages. Otherwise, this article should reflect the usage there. Note that WP:PINYIN and WP:NCZh both clearly state that we need to look at what modern English sources use. There's a good reason for this, as has previously been discussed. SilverStar54 ( talk) 17:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Someone made a joke in the article let's fix this Wikipedia editors. 189.6.241.29 ( talk) 15:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The Fix is already in progress. 189.6.241.29 ( talk) 15:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
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)