Manifest Destiny: A Successful Lebensraum?

[cb9's_unity]

Throughout high school I have learned about both Modern American and European history and have thus studied in a least some depth Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum (Hitlers plan to create "living space" for the Germans in eastern Europe). This is why I am surprised that only today I became aware of the shocking similarities between the two ultra-nationalistic events.

Manifest Destiny openly called for American dominance from coast to coast on the continent. This meant either removing or displacing the Native Americans who were often viewed as "savages". This is clearly mirrored in Hitlers attempts to push east in order to gain dominance for the German people. The only people who were standing in the way of the Germans were the "lesser" Slavs. On top of this the Slavs and the Native Americans were not homogeneous groups but instead a larger collection of different ethnicities that often saw little to no connection to each other at all.

Are there any sources or texts that talk about a connection like this or any more information I could find. This could potentially be a decent sticking point to use against American Nationalists who hate any comparison to Nazi Germany.

[ComradeOm]

The call for lebensraum in Eastern Europe is a specific product of 20th (and to a lesser degree late 19th) century German thought. It cannot simply be transplanted across oceans and decades to be repainted in red, white, and blue. You can of course draw comparisons between various imperialist campaigns but there are a number of specific differences between the programmes that make your charge difficult at best. These would include:

Manifest Destiny was never official US policy. Certainly the sentiment can be said to have been common in various US administrations but the phrase itself was coined by a journalist and more accurately describes a particular US trend. In contrast lebensraum, and associated policies, lay at the very heart of the Nazi programme for government and was an integral part of Hitler's world view

The reasoning for this was that lebensraum was far more than a simple thirst for territory. It entailed a whole series of land decrees (which began to be enacted long before 1939) that envisioned the redistribution of land amongst the peasantry. Unwilling to make drastic structural changes to agriculture (a la the USSR) or allowing the peasantry to die as a class (a la Britain) Hitler saw expansion as the answer to his peasant problem. This was never the case in the US which had never possessed a peasantry of note and where the structures of land ownership was quite unconnected from territorial expansion

Also quite lacking from the US continental expansion was the racial aspect. Of course there's no question that the Native Americans suffered horribly from the process or that the degeneracy of Spanish Mexico was taken for granted. Nonetheless there was nothing like the striking fear of 'race suicide' that stalked the nightmares of Nazi leaders and compelled them to openly advocate genocide on an industrial scale. Here as well its useful to distinguish between the specifically Nazi lebensraum and older German dreams of domination, rather than open genocide, over the eastern territories. Indeed when 'Manifest Destiny' was openly proclaimed it was generally in the terms of the supposed superiority of the US Republic and its democratic ideals rather than the US people itself

Which is not to say that there are not similarities in any of the above (the Indian Removal Act demonstrates a striking disconnection between land and people) but to write off 'Manifest Destiny' as a "successful lebensraum" is far, far too simplistic

[FreeFocus]

The call for lebensraum in Eastern Europe is a specific product of 20th (and to a lesser degree late 19th) century German thought. It cannot simply be transplanted across oceans and decades to be repainted in red, white, and blue. You can of course draw comparisons between various imperialist campaigns but there are a number of specific differences between the programmes that make your charge difficult at best. These would include:

Manifest Destiny was never official US policy. Certainly the sentiment can be said to have been common in various US administrations but the phrase itself was coined by a journalist and more accurately describes a particular US trend. In contrast lebensraum, and associated policies, lay at the very heart of the Nazi programme for government and was an integral part of Hitler's world view

The reasoning for this was that lebensraum was far more than a simple thirst for territory. It entailed a whole series of land decrees (which began to be enacted long before 1939) that envisioned the redistribution of land amongst the peasantry. Unwilling to make drastic structural changes to agriculture (a la the USSR) or allowing the peasantry to die as a class (a la Britain) Hitler saw expansion as the answer to his peasant problem. This was never the case in the US which had never possessed a peasantry of note and where the structures of land ownership was quite unconnected from territorial expansion

Also quite lacking from the US continental expansion was the racial aspect. Of course there's no question that the Native Americans suffered horribly from the process or that the degeneracy of Spanish Mexico was taken for granted. Nonetheless there was nothing like the striking fear of 'race suicide' that stalked the nightmares of Nazi leaders and compelled them to openly advocate genocide on an industrial scale. Here as well its useful to distinguish between the specifically Nazi lebensraum and older German dreams of domination, rather than open genocide, over the eastern territories. Indeed when 'Manifest Destiny' was openly proclaimed it was generally in the terms of the supposed superiority of the US Republic and its democratic ideals rather than the US people itself

Which is not to say that there are not similarities in any of the above (the Indian Removal Act demonstrates a striking disconnection between land and people) but to write off 'Manifest Destiny' as a "successful lebensraum" is far, far too simplistic

While lebensraum and Manifest Destiny have different origins as you noted (and I won't debate that, Nazi Germany didn't just "borrow" Manifest Destiny in totality. They are two different scenarios), the behaviors, attitudes and policies referred to as "Manifest Destiny" were government policy, from Washington all the way to McKinley at the least. Moreover, it simply isn't true to say that American continental imperialism lacked the "racial aspect." True, there was no mass industrial genocide as perfected by the Nazis. Nonetheless, if you read up on the so-called Doctrine of Discovery, written about extensively by Native scholar Vine Deloria, you'll realize that all European imperialism from the 1500s to the mid-1950s was based upon the notion that indigenous peoples/non-whites were inferior, biologically and intellectually. Additionally, they were not Christians, and therefore God endowed Europeans with the right to forcefully conquer and convert non-Christian populations. Any land that Europeans encountered was considered fair game. The pattern played out all over the globe.

Popular statements such as "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" also seems to eliminate the credibility of the claim that Manifest Destiny "lacked the racial aspect." A Nazi would have stated "the only good Jew is a dead Jew." I've actually seen Neo-Nazis adopt this phrase. Well, you know, it's not a coincidence similar terminology and attitudes are used.

Native scholar Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz elaborates on the ideological basis in her essay, The Proof of Whiteness: More than Skin Deep (http://www.reddirtsite.com/papers.htm). She notes,


Historian David Stannard in his American Holocaust, adds to Elie Wiesel's famous observation that the road to Auschwitz was being paved in the earliest days of Christendom, the caveat that on that way to Auschwitz the road's pathway led straight through the heart of America. The ideology of white supremacy was paramount in neutralizing the class antagonisms of the landless against the landed, and the distribution of the confiscated lands and properties of Moors, Jews, and of Irish, Native Americans and Africans.

She further traces to ideology of Manifest Destiny back to Ireland, and British settler-colonialism in Ireland by the English and Ulster Scots. Note that many settlers in North America were the so-called "Scots-Irish," surely a population well-acquainted with settler-imperialism. I noticed that you're from Ireland, so perhaps you can understand her point:


During the early 1600s, the English crown conquered northern Ireland, and declared a half-million acres of land open to settlement; the settlers who contracted with the devil of early colonialism came mostly from western Scotland. Scotland itself along with Wales had preceded Ireland as colonial notches in the best of English expansion. The English policy of exterminating Indians in North America was foreshadowed by the English colonization of norther Ireland. The Celtic social system was systematically attacked, traditional songs and music forbidden, whole clans exterminated while the entire population was brutalized. A 'wild Irish'reservation was even attempted. ...
In the sixteenth century the official in charge of colonizing Ireland, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, ordered that: The heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies and brought to the place where he incamped at night, and should there bee laied on the ground by eche side of the saie ledying into his owne tente so that none could come into his tente for any cause but commonly he muste passe through a lane of heddes which he used ad terrorem...[It brought] greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kindsfolke, and freinds...
Bounties were paid for the Irish heads brought in, and later only the scalp or ears were required. A century later, in North America, Indian heads and scalps were brought in for bounty in the same manner.



During the mid-nineteenth century, influenced by Social Darwinism, English scientists peddled the theory that the Irish (and of course all people of color) had descended from apes only a few generations back, while the English were descendants of man who had been created by God in His image: Thus the English were 'angels' and the Irish (and other colonized peoples) were a lower species, what today US white supremacists call 'mud people,' products of the process of evolution.


In terms of Hitler's connection to Manifest Destiny, numerous sources have made the argument that Hitler admired the North American model of ethnic cleansing.


“The Nazi publication, Neues Volk, poured out venomous articles praising Mussolini’s racial policies in Ethiopia, US segregation practices and lynchings against blacks as well as the “efficiency” of earlier genocide against American Indians, and British and French imperialism against native colored populations, while warning all the time of the dangers inherent in the growing political consciousness among blacks in Africa and the United States, the large numbers of Asians, and the ever-hated Jew.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=kV0JKFpzwykC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=%22The+Nazi+publication,+Neues+Volk%22&source=bl&ots=-d_8tChASC&sig=GPZRiJ7rScswAZcz_Kf9INFLGTI&hl=en&ei=cF9zSprxEcrtlAfYxv3xCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Nazi%20publication%2C%20Neues%20Volk%22&f=false)

If you're familiar with the leftist blog Lenin's Tomb, one poster, Hidari, commented,


In Hitler's view, the US had become a major power by 'ethnic cleansing' of the native inhabitants: he saw clearly that the US itself, which poses as a nation state, is in fact an Empire. It's just that the anninhilation [sic] of the indigenous inhabitants was so complete that we don't see the US as an Empire. As Finkelstein has pointed out, Hitler's 'push for the East' was explicitly inspired by the American setttlers 'push for the West'. As Adam Tooze reveals in his superb Wages of Destruction, it's true that Hitler compared the Russians to Indians, but it's ALSO true that he compared them to AMERICAN Indians. As the Indians had been pushed off their lands and herded off to reservations, so the Russians (and Poles) would be herded off to super-concentration camps: i.e. neo-reservations, where, Hitler hoped, their numbers would be 'thinned' to the extent that Germans could easily rule them while using them as cheap labour (and this is where the comparison with British India comes in). ... (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/8105903081886431380/#388534)

Author John Toland also wrote of Hitler's beliefs,


"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity."

In conclusion, yes, there are differences between lebensraum and Manifest Destiny, and Om pointed some of them out. Nonetheless, ethnic cleansing were hallmarks of both, and Hitler found practical inspiration (not ideological) for his plans for Europe in the North American model. The comparison is a good one, and works because of the similarities.

[JimmyJazz]

Manifest Destiny was never official US policy. Certainly the sentiment can be said to have been common in various US administrations but the phrase itself was coined by a journalist and more accurately describes a particular US trend. In contrast lebensraum, and associated policies, lay at the very heart of the Nazi programme for government and was an integral part of Hitler's world view

So you would not call the Indian wars, the annexation of large parts of Mexico, and the economic and later political annexation of Hawaii examples of Manifest Destiny? On what grounds, just because it was a journalist and not a politician that coined the term? That seems rather flimsy and shallow.

Sure, there was individual migration to the Western U.S. as a part of Manifest Destiny, which was not directly sponsored by the government. There are also Jewish settlers who colonize Palestine without the direct sponsorship of the Israeli government. Does that mean Zionism is "not official Israeli policy"?


Also quite lacking from the US continental expansion was the racial aspect.

What?

"...exceedingly ignorant; stupid to all that is lovely, grand and awful in the works of God; low, naked, filthy, vile and sensual; covered with every abomination, stained with blood and black with crime."--a U.S. missionary on the native Hawaiians

"Speeches justifying American expansionism on the grounds of the white race's presumed superiority were staples of political discourse in the 1890s. Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana described expansion as part of a natural process, "the disappearance of debased civilizations and decaying races before the higher civilization of the nobler and more virile types of man." Representative Charles Cochrane of Mississippi spoke of "the onward march of the indomitable race that founded this Republic" and predicted "the conquest of the world by the Aryan races." When he finished this speech, the House burst into applause."--from Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow

Lest anyone thinks that such racial views died by the 19th Century, they need only to look up Woodrow Wilson's views on the "white race".


to write off 'Manifest Destiny' as a "successful lebensraum" is far, far too simplistic

Perhaps, but not nearly as simplistic as your reply.

[cb9's_unity]

The call for lebensraum in Eastern Europe is a specific product of 20th (and to a lesser degree late 19th) century German thought. It cannot simply be transplanted across oceans and decades to be repainted in red, white, and blue. You can of course draw comparisons between various imperialist campaigns but there are a number of specific differences between the programmes that make your charge difficult at best.Any comparison between two very separate periods of time, in two very different places means there will be differences. My point was to expose the shocking similarities between the two. The idea that they are not exactly the same seems to be something that should assumed. Obviously they are not exactly the same, or carbon-copies of each other, but if that is the standard you want to apply then nothing in history could be compared.


Manifest Destiny was never official US policy. Certainly the sentiment can be said to have been common in various US administrations but the phrase itself was coined by a journalist and more accurately describes a particular US trend. In contrast lebensraum, and associated policies, lay at the very heart of the Nazi programme for government and was an integral part of Hitler's world viewA major complaint against the British before the revolution was that they were not allowing colonists to move westward. This idea of moving west was part of American policy from the beginning. There were departments for the frontier and a focus on western expansion and wars were fought to constantly gain more land in the west. There was no "Department of Manifest Destiny" but it was a major aim of many U.S policy makers and the U.S government did actively pursue it.

In this way the concept was the same. Both nations wanted to expand as a result of a sense of superiority. This expansion came through national policy.


The reasoning for this was that lebensraum was far more than a simple thirst for territory. It entailed a whole series of land decrees (which began to be enacted long before 1939) that envisioned the redistribution of land amongst the peasantry. Unwilling to make drastic structural changes to agriculture (a la the USSR) or allowing the peasantry to die as a class (a la Britain) Hitler saw expansion as the answer to his peasant problem. This was never the case in the US which had never possessed a peasantry of note and where the structures of land ownership was quite unconnected from territorial expansionMuch of this is something I admittedly did not know, however the largest point of Lebensraum was to gain land for Germany. However what would you call the farmers that mainly wanted to move into the western lands? I guess I considered them peasants or the closest American equivalent. What would you consider them, they certainly weren't proletarians as industrialization was pretty much secluded in the North-East at the time.

I started writing this but was interrupted by some real life activities, so i'll just post what I got done.

Thank you freefocus for more information, I will certainly look into it.

[JimmyJazz]

I would add that, even if America did not have a peasant class, Westward expansion most definitely served as a valve to release class tensions in the industrializing Northeast. I even wonder (though this is admittedly quite speculative) whether the extreme focus today on individual upward social mobility, as basically the reply to any attempt to point out a class structure in America, is a legacy of that fact. For much of U.S. history it really was possible to leave the factory and strike out on your own in the West (a place where, as Kevin Starr points out, even some of the future oligarchs of California got their start by rolling up their sleeves and performing actual physical labor, such as panning for gold).

[ComradeOm]

I realise that some misunderstanding may have arisen regarding the "racial aspect" of US expansion. See below


Moreover, it simply isn't true to say that American continental imperialism lacked the "racial aspect." True, there was no mass industrial genocide as perfected by the Nazis. Nonetheless, if you read up on the so-called Doctrine of Discovery, written about extensively by Native scholar Vine Deloria, you'll realize that all European imperialism from the 1500s to the mid-1950s was based upon the notion that indigenous peoples/non-whites were inferior, biologically and intellectually. Additionally, they were not Christians, and therefore God endowed Europeans with the right to forcefully conquer and convert non-Christian populations. Any land that Europeans encountered was considered fair game. The pattern played out all over the globeIndeed and I would never question that. My contention was that the US expansion was not an inherently racist set of policies akin to lebensraum. There was no question that the US politicians and settlers felt justified about taking the Native land but the Manifest Destiny was not itself a reaction to racial policies*. In contrast the Nazis did not simply consider themselves superior to the Slavs but they saw the removal and extermination of the latter as a vital step in the survival of their own race. It was this violent mixture of racial doctrine and land distribution that so marked lebensraum and is, in my opinion, largely lacking from similar expansionist projects

*The generic Western sense of superiority, while obviously extremely bloody in its own right, didn't really give rise to such dire fears. The 'Yellow Peril' of the early 20th C Britain - where hordes of uncivilised Asians would swamp the relatively declining number of Europeans - is the only example of this that immediately springs to my mind


She further traces to ideology of Manifest Destiny back to Ireland, and British settler-colonialism in Ireland by the English and Ulster Scots. Note that many settlers in North America were the so-called "Scots-Irish," surely a population well-acquainted with settler-imperialism. I noticed that you're from Ireland, so perhaps you can understand her point:Well frankly that's the first time I've seen the plantations of Ireland compared to the US and while I'm in no way convinced by her treatment of this process (nor by the supposed connection to US expansion), I have to ask just what relevance the Irish plantations have to Hitler? Are they to be considered another example of lebensraum?

As for the charge that "on the way to Auschwitz the road's pathway led straight through the heart of America", I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Nor do I consider it plausible that "Hitler's 'push for the East' was explicitly inspired by the American settlers 'push for the West'". In my opinion both authors are seeking to artificially graft new links between these programmes while completely ignoring their actual historical heritage. The Drang nach Osten was not the result of a few German intellectuals reading Westerns but rather centuries of complex interactions along the eastern edge of Germany that cumulated in the virulent fin de siècle racism of Ratzel (amongst others) and the traumatic experience of WWI. This was the intellectual development of Nazi genocide

As for the supposed US influence, I've got Tooze (incidentally an excellent work) and while I can't source the "Red Indians" quote right now, its clear that this Hidari is very much overplaying the connection established in the book. What Tooze makes clear is that Hitler, much impressed by its industrial might, considered the United States to be the foremost enemy of Germany and thus it provided the benchmark that the Reich must match to survive. No doubt he approved of the massacres of Native Americans but his knowledge of the American expansion (and his reasoning for using such a comparison in the Russian context) would have been primarily derived from the Karl May Western's that he had read as a child! To argue that this was a meaningful intellectual influence on Hitler (as I see now that this Hidari does) is absurd

Nor did Hitler's opinion of the United States change significantly in his 'Second Book'. It was revised to be sure, largely in the regards the geostrategic threat posed to Germany (perhaps a result of increasing 'Americanisation' of German culture as Tooze suggests?) but the US was still considered a mongrel nation and was certainly not 'Aryan' or racially pure. US influence on lebensraum thought was primarily in demonstrating the attractiveness, no the necessity of obtaining vast tracts of land. Something that both Britain and Russia had demonstrated the previous century

Its very bad history to do so, but if we were to somehow handwave away the US treatment of the Native Americans (ie, pretend it never happened) does anyone really think that the Nazi programme of extermination would have changed even slightly? Of course not


So you would not call the Indian wars, the annexation of large parts of Mexico, and the economic and later political annexation of Hawaii examples of Manifest Destiny? On what grounds, just because it was a journalist and not a politician that coined the term? That seems rather flimsy and shallow.And just what is "Manifest Destiny" but a label applied (often retroactively) to a sentiment within US society. Often one which found official acceptance when it served to further government policy but it can hardly be described as the central axis around which US policy revolved for several decades. Conversely the importance of lebensraum, and the accompanying theoretical framework, to the Nazi regime cannot be overstated. Not only was it official policy but it could well be described as the raison d'etre of the whole Nazi regime


What?I've discussed this above. The role of racism in US expansion and Nazi lebensraum are simply different. That is not for a minute to deny that it was present in either


I would add that, even if America did not have a peasant class, Westward expansion most definitely served as a valve to release class tensions in the industrializing NortheastSomething that I've actually thought about myself. Do you have any sources on this? I'm writing a piece of historical fiction that may revolve around this point


Any comparison between two very separate periods of time, in two very different places means there will be differences. My point was to expose the shocking similarities between the twoWell to be honest it sounds as though you are simply aiming to shock. If that's the case then go ahead. It is however poor history to suggest that the two were fundamentally similar beyond being programmes of imperialist expansion


Much of this is something I admittedly did not know, however the largest point of Lebensraum was to gain land for Germany. However what would you call the farmers that mainly wanted to move into the western lands? I guess I considered them peasants or the closest American equivalent. What would you consider them, they certainly weren't proletarians as industrialization was pretty much secluded in the North-East at the time.The underlying purpose of lebensraum was to preserve the German peasantry as a viable economic class. That is, to secure for each peasant a plot of arable land that would yield a competitive/comfortable output. Space constraints dictated that this was simply not possible. Without structural changes this dictated that Germany's arable land be increased through conquest

To give some figures, and indirectly answer your question regarding the US, the average German farmer in 1937 possessed a plot of 2.1 hectares. Conversely the average US farmer's plot was a staggering 12.8 hectares. This is despite the fact the US agricultural population was roughly 10% larger than that of Germany. (Tooze, Wages of Destruction). So those US farmers who moved west (and the original settlers may have been granted even larger farms via the Homestead Act) can hardly be considered comparable to European peasants

[JimmyJazz]

Something that I've actually thought about myself. Do you have any sources on this? I'm writing a piece of historical fiction that may revolve around this point

I thought someone might ask me this, but unfortunately, I can't remember where I've read it. A few different places I think.

I'm pretty sure the only books I've seen this claim in have been on the topic of class conflict/the labor movement in the U.S., in other words secondary sources, so I'm guessing it would be better to look for books whose primary topic is the demographic make-up of Westward migratory populations in different historical periods in the U.S. (without necessarily any leftist analysis of the reasons for their migration).

[FreeFocus]

I realise that some misunderstanding may have arisen regarding the "racial aspect" of US expansion. See below

Indeed and I would never question that. My contention was that the US expansion was not an inherently racist set of policies akin to lebensraum. There was no question that the US politicians and settlers felt justified about taking the Native land but the Manifest Destiny was not itself a reaction to racial policies*. In contrast the Nazis did not simply consider themselves superior to the Slavs but they saw the removal and extermination of the latter as a vital step in the survival of their own race. It was this violent mixture of racial doctrine and land distribution that so marked lebensraum and is, in my opinion, largely lacking from similar expansionist projects

*The generic Western sense of superiority, while obviously extremely bloody in its own right, didn't really give rise to such dire fears. The 'Yellow Peril' of the early 20th C Britain - where hordes of uncivilised Asians would swamp the relatively declining number of Europeans - is the only example of this that immediately springs to my mind

Well frankly that's the first time I've seen the plantations of Ireland compared to the US and while I'm in no way convinced by her treatment of this process (nor by the supposed connection to US expansion), I have to ask just what relevance the Irish plantations have to Hitler? Are they to be considered another example of lebensraum?

As for the charge that "on the way to Auschwitz the road's pathway led straight through the heart of America", I can only disagree in the strongest possible terms. Nor do I consider it plausible that "Hitler's 'push for the East' was explicitly inspired by the American settlers 'push for the West'". In my opinion both authors are seeking to artificially graft new links between these programmes while completely ignoring their actual historical heritage. The Drang nach Osten was not the result of a few German intellectuals reading Westerns but rather centuries of complex interactions along the eastern edge of Germany that cumulated in the virulent fin de siècle racism of Ratzel (amongst others) and the traumatic experience of WWI. This was the intellectual development of Nazi genocide

As for the supposed US influence, I've got Tooze (incidentally an excellent work) and while I can't source the "Red Indians" quote right now, its clear that this Hidari is very much overplaying the connection established in the book. What Tooze makes clear is that Hitler, much impressed by its industrial might, considered the United States to be the foremost enemy of Germany and thus it provided the benchmark that the Reich must match to survive. No doubt he approved of the massacres of Native Americans but his knowledge of the American expansion (and his reasoning for using such a comparison in the Russian context) would have been primarily derived from the Karl May Western's that he had read as a child! To argue that this was a meaningful intellectual influence on Hitler (as I see now that this Hidari does) is absurd

I disagree. Throughout history American leaders have alluded to outside threats, i.e., savages across the frontier line. Look at the Declaration of Independence:


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Mr. Jefferson sounds rather threatened and keen on preventing "merciless Indian Savages" from "destroying" people (i.e., whites) of "all ages, sexes and conditions." You'll see the same sentiment 200 years later with Mr. Lyndon Johnson, speaking about the Vietnamese and the rest of the world's non-American population:


There are 3 billion people in the world and we have only 200 million of them. We are outnumbered 15 to 1. If might did make right they would sweep over the United States and take what we have. We have what they want.

Why the siege mentality, Mr. Johnson? "Savages" on your borders?

btw, the so-called Yellow Peril also happened in the US, and was the cause of banning Asian immigration (e.g. the Chinese Exclusion Act).

I wasn't relating the settlement of Ireland to Hitler's policies, but more so talking about the development of white supremacy and its associated ideologies, such as anti-Semitism. The Nazi movement was the culmination and height of white supremacy's development.

I'm not arguing that Hitler was inspired by the North American model of genocide and ethnic cleansing, but he admired it, took some lessons and viewed it as a practical model. Again, as I stated in my other post, it was practical, not ideological in terms of what Hitler took from it.

But I suppose in the end we agree, lebensraum and MD are different, but I think it's an apt and valid comparison.

[x359594]

...My contention was that the US expansion was not an inherently racist set of policies akin to lebensraum. There was no question that the US politicians and settlers felt justified about taking the Native land but the Manifest Destiny was not itself a reaction to racial policies*...

I think you're substantially right, but racism was an important thread in US expansion, and indeed in some specific campaigns it was a reaction to racial policies, most notably the campaigns of Col. Chivington in the Southwest during the late 1860s, his infamous remark to a journalist about total massacres of native peoples including children, "Nits make lice." This is quoted in Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.

I'm not claiming this was a programme formulated in Washington as official policy as in the case of the Nazi government of Germany, but War Dept. memos abound with racial "cleansing" suggestions to field commanders.

[cb9's_unity]

I first want to make it clear that I am not trying to say that Manifest Destiny had any influence in creating Lebensraum. What I am doing is forcing people to look at Manifest Destiny and, to a certain extent, American history in a different light. I know most people here understand the horrors of American westward expansion but the general public does not have a negative view of Manifest Destiny.

My point is to make people distinguish what was right and wrong in history. Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny were in my opinion two very similar historical acts that are viewed in two very different lights. By pointing out similarities between what is modernly viewed as the "necessary" Manifest Destiny and the horrific Lebensraum we can get people to view history in a way that is less eschewed by national pride and sentiment.


Well to be honest it sounds as though you are simply aiming to shock. If that's the case then go ahead. It is however poor history to suggest that the two were fundamentally similar beyond being programmes of imperialist expansion

I think the similarities go far beyond simple 'imperialist expansion'. In both countries there were strong racial feelings and national policy that often acted on these sentiments. Both societies believed their "superior culture" justified this expansion. Economically both were trying to give more land to their 'farming' class. There are many more specific examples in this thread that point to these similarities. While I am not saying the two acts were the same, modern western history rarely draws any comparison between Nazi Germany and American history and views the two acts completely differently. To me this seems to be much poorer history than anything I have proposed.


The underlying purpose of lebensraum was to preserve the German peasantry as a viable economic class. That is, to secure for each peasant a plot of arable land that would yield a competitive/comfortable output. Space constraints dictated that this was simply not possible. Without structural changes this dictated that Germany's arable land be increased through conquest

Where before you were stressing racial reasons now you seem to be stressing economic tensions. But again, this draws comparisons to the US as again western expansion was largely to gain new farming land.


To give some figures, and indirectly answer your question regarding the US, the average German farmer in 1937 possessed a plot of 2.1 hectares. Conversely the average US farmer's plot was a staggering 12.8 hectares. This is despite the fact the US agricultural population was roughly 10% larger than that of Germany. (Tooze, Wages of Destruction). So those US farmers who moved west (and the original settlers may have been granted even larger farms via the Homestead Act) can hardly be considered comparable to European peasants

I believe this warrants some more explanation. There was about a century's worth of technological differences between the time periods we are talking about. In this time methods of farming advanced exponentially. However in both cases farmers who didn't have land or didn't have enough land wanted to settle on the expanded landed. If on average the European peasant in need of land was "very desperate" where the US farmer was "somewhat desperate" then you may be splitting historical hairs. Remember I am not saying the two events were carbon copies as nothing in history is exactly the same, i am just pointing out the numerous similarities. Comparisons in history would never be able to be made if held to this standard.

[FreeFocus]

I know most people here understand the horrors of American westward expansion but the general public does not have a negative view of Manifest Destiny.

Well, the general public won't have a negative view of MD. The US is a settler state, after all, and wouldn't exist without such atrocities. Just as in Israel, the general public doesn't relate to what was really the Nakba, they celebrate the birth of Israel as a step forward for humanity and a beautiful thing.

[ComradeOm]

I disagree. Throughout history American leaders have alluded to outside threats, i.e., savages across the frontier line. Look at the Declaration of IndependenceCome now, you cannot be seriously comparing a single passage in the US Declaration of Independence (referring to those Native American tribes aligned with the British Crown) to Mein Kampf and the Nazi concepts of racial struggle.


I wasn't relating the settlement of Ireland to Hitler's policies, but more so talking about the development of white supremacy and its associated ideologies, such as anti-Semitism. The Nazi movement was the culmination and height of white supremacy's development.The lumping together of "white supremacy" into some global and timeless movement is not something I can agree with. The Irish plantations and German lebensraum were fundamentally different movements that took place at different times and for different reasons. They, and US treatment of Native American populations, cannot simply be treated as various strands (or "associated ideologies") of a central racist "white supremacy" movement or doctrine

Which is I feel the central point of disagreement here. I view Nazi policies, and I think I am perfectly correct to do so, as the response to the specifically German intellectual climate of the late 19th C and early 20th C. It obviously has similarities with racial movements that developed elsewhere but cannot be said to be particularly influenced or drawn from them


In both countries there were strong racial feelings and national policy that often acted on these sentimentsWhich is nothing short of an obscene simplification of the points I've made above. There was absolutely nothing in US policy, and this is borne out by the quotes provided by others, that suggests that racial thought in Manifest Destiny was equivalent to the Nazi concepts of racial struggle and race suicide that were so integral to its programme for government and the lebensraum campaigns. Simply saying that both the US and German governments were racist is a gross simplification and a ridiculously broad assertion on which to base a comparison


Economically both were trying to give more land to their 'farming' classAgain this is a gross simplification that ignores a number of hugely important distinctions. In the first place there is absolutely no reason for lumping peasants and small farmers into a single "farming class". The US has never possessed a peasantry of a European scale or nature but rather rested on a bedrock of small farmers (a yeomanry if you will). There are very real economic, social, and political differences between this and the German peasantry

Its also worth noting that the likes of the Homestead Act was never the primary focus of government (a la Nazi Germany); the likes of this act (and indeed Manifest Destiny itself!) only arose in the latter stages of US continental expansion; the process was bitterly opposed by many within the plantation states (who were amongst the staunchest supporters of the Mexican wars); and the various programmes were not particularly comprehensive in dividing up the land, ie only a relatively small percentage of available territory was signed over to small farmers. In addition I've yet to see any proof whatsoever that US expansion was driven by pressing population concerns

In contrast the Nazis did not simply want "to gain new farming land", except in the most banal sense, but preserve both their social order and racial purity. The land itself was merely a means to an end. That is, Nazi expansion was, in the ideological rather than practical sense, not motivated by a simple economism. Unlike say Britain or the US where it was the profit motive that really drove expansion


Where before you were stressing racial reasons now you seem to be stressing economic tensionsExactly, the Nazi programme was a synthesis of the two concerns. This is a violent combination that is completely lacking in US expansion. Well, beyond the general disdain for those of different colour/religion that typically marks imperialist campaigns


I believe this warrants some more explanation. There was about a century's worth of technological differences between the time periods we are talking about. In this time methods of farming advanced exponentially. However in both cases farmers who didn't have land or didn't have enough land wanted to settle on the expanded landed. If on average the European peasant in need of land was "very desperate" where the US farmer was "somewhat desperate" then you may be splitting historical hairsIn the first place the peasantry are not a particularly technologically adapt class. In addition to possessing vastly larger plots of land, the farms of the US would have been considerably more mechanised than their German counterparts. Which was a factor in the 'American depression' that affected European agriculture from the late 19th C onwards

Secondly, the by 1939 the US farmer was certainly not "somewhat desperate" for land and indeed may never have been. Certainly US agriculture benefited from continental expansion (although again its worth nothing that vast tracts of land had already been opened up before the wars with Mexico and the coining of 'Manifest Destiny') but not as a nation of peasant producers. That difference in plot sizes (by a magnitude of 6!) was consistent with the gulf between the US and the rest of the world. Only Canada possessed larger plot sizes on average and both New World nations were well ahead of the next nation on the list - Denmark had a mere 4.1 farmers per hectare in 1939

Its also worth noting as well that Germany did not have a settler class and nor was there any large scale migration in the occupied lands. Beyond a few government controlled pilot programmes at any rate. While you can arguably talk of the US as a "settler state" this was clearly not the case in Germany. The peasantry were "very desperate" for land only in an economic sense or in the minds of National Socialist ideologues. There was no great push 'from below' for land and most peasants who could not remain competitive (even after government subsidies) simply migrated to the cities. In contrast to the US, where you did have waves of settlers moving west, German expansion was almost entirely a 'top down' programme. Not surprising given the yawning disconnection between the racist intellectuals and the actual German peasantry

Just another reason as to why it makes very little sense to talk of Manifest Destiny as a "successful lebensraum". The two are only comparable on the broadest level. That's one where inconvenient differences such as the above are simply ignored

[FreeFocus]

Come now, you cannot be seriously comparing a single passage in the US Declaration of Independence (referring to those Native American tribes aligned with the British Crown) to Mein Kampf and the Nazi concepts of racial struggle.

The lumping together of "white supremacy" into some global and timeless movement is not something I can agree with. The Irish plantations and German lebensraum were fundamentally different movements that took place at different times and for different reasons. They, and US treatment of Native American populations, cannot simply be treated as various strands (or "associated ideologies") of a central racist "white supremacy" movement or doctrine

That single passage was in the state's founding document. It isn't some obscure, insignificant group of words, it was a state of mind, a goal and indeed a policy. Jackson was not the one to come up with the idea of Indian removal to west of the Mississippi. That distinction goes to Jefferson.

You can disagree with viewing white supremacy that way. I never called it a "movement," but it's more of a tendency or ideology. I do consider things like the settlement of Ireland, the settlement of North America and lebensraum to be associated ideologies. They weren't all born of the same material circumstances, but people do look to history and what ideas were already in existence, and they adopt or adapt them accordingly. They are related. It's not a coincidence that everywhere Euro colonialism reared its head that racism accompanied it - and it wasn't like the British in Kenya and the Portuguese in Angola had separate racial policies. The British didn't say to Kenyans, "OK, only the British are above you, these other white people are your equals." The Portuguese didn't say to Angolans, "OK, only us Portuguese are your superiors, you can do whatever you want to these other whites." No, the ideology was the same: "We are white, we are superior."

I believe it's correct to view Nazism as the culmination of decades of European antisemitism and white supremacy. If you take the latter two away, I don't think you get the vitriolic, genocidal racism of the former. It's possible that a form of expansionist racism could have developed, but certainly not the monster we saw in this reality.


I would add that, even if America did not have a peasant class, Westward expansion most definitely served as a valve to release class tensions in the industrializing Northeast. I even wonder (though this is admittedly quite speculative) whether the extreme focus today on individual upward social mobility, as basically the reply to any attempt to point out a class structure in America, is a legacy of that fact.

Regardless of what one thinks about J. Sakai (personally I think he's had some valuable theoretical contributions, and raises good points), I think you have to read Settlers. On pg. 6 he argues that


Where land was not available, settlers refused to
come. Period. This is why the British West Indies, with
their favorable climate, were less attractive to these settlers
than wintry New England. As early as 1665 a member of
the Barbados Assembly complained, noting that the
limited space of that island had already been divided up:
"Now we can get few English servants, having no lands to
give them at the end of their time, which formerly was their
main allurement." And British servants, their terms up,
would leave the Indies by the thousands for Amerika.(8)

It was this alone that drew so many Europeans to
colonial North Amerika: the dream in the settler mind of
each man becoming a petty lord of his own land. Thus, the
tradition of individualism and egalitarianism in Amerika
was rooted in the poisoned concept of equal privileges for
a new nation of European conquerors.

There are certain sociological realities that stem from historical circumstances and development. Something like this is simply embedded in the culture, imo.

[The Situationist]

I see little difference between Hitler's belief that fate/God wanted Germans to control Eastern Europe and the belief by Early Americans that fate/God wanted them to control all the land from both oceans. Both hideous policies led to genocide and were crafted on the deaths of the local populations.