Thread by @Freesoilyeah

Bizarre that the term "master race" has become so inflated. First, before the end of world war 2, "race" could mean either the biological races, or colloquially as nationalities.

This has been used to deny biological race, but nobody was ever actually confused. In fact Hitler...

used race BOTH as nationality and biological race. Referencing with disappointment that he was allied with Japan that was ripping apart the empires of the white race and that war between France and Germany should be avoided as it would be a disaster for the white race.

But he would also refer to nationalities as races. So he would say both, and I don't think any modern reader with an IQ above 80 is actually "confused" by this. "He speaks of the white race, then he speaks of the Polish race? I'M SO CONFUSED" - no you're not stop lying

But first, the term "master" probably didn't have the negative connotations in Germany as it did in the English World. For example, at the peak of US hard power around 1980, the US would be said to be the "Master Country" of NATO.

Moreover, Hitler grew up in Austria, i.e. the Austro-Hungarian "Empire". Austrians ruled, with varying degrees of directness, over the other peoples in this kingdom of about 50 million. IIRC there were around 10 million Austrians and other Germans, around 10 millon Hungarians.

These two groups made up the ruling class of these kingdoms, with the Austrians being the more dominant.

Germany itself, long before Hitler, had plans to be basically a giant version of pre-dual Monarchy Austria. With Germans ruling over Eastern Europeans.

Take a look at the ethnic map of the Austro-Hungarian Kingdom, and the relative number of Germans vs. everyone else. Then compare that to a map of Germany in 1914 compared to Russia all the way to the Urals and Caucasus. It's a similar idea - an Austrian empire times 7.

Were the Austrians a "master race" of the Austrian Empire, that was only around 10% Austrian? Well, kinda. Where the Russians the "Master race" of the Russian Empire which was only about 60% Russian in 1914? Well, kinda.

And the British Empire - good night.

Now today, knowing or "knowing" what the Nazis ended up doing, then retroactively paints the term "Master race" in an atrocious light. But we had this greater German Empire writ miniature already in the Austrian Kingdom. Sans the Nazis, that's probably how it would have looked if

Germany achieved their goals either in the 1940s without Hitler, or in 1917. I think another reason why retroactively WW1 seems so stupid is that we know Germany had peaked in relative "base power" (pop+industry) by around 1900. In fact, the USSR ended up with nearly the same...

"territory value" as Germany would have. The USSR had more satellites in the Balkans, Central Asia and Siberia than the proposed extent of "Greater Germany", but didn't have west Germany. But on net, it ended up being about the same, ruled from Moscow instead of Berlin.

From purely geopolitical balance-of-powers perspective, the US totally cocked it up. The program to contain Germany ended up creating a would-be hegemon (the USSR) of mostly the same territories, that had to be balanced by the United States - something which had never been done.

Retrospectively, we can say:
1. A German hegemon would have been much nicer and genial to the west than the USSR, i.e. a larger Hapsburg empire vs. the USSR
2. A German victory in WW1 would mean a shorter war and ~90% chance no WW2, since Germany demanded nothing form France.

Basically, after WW1 every major power needed a "what was it all for" story. For Germany, they had it - big territories taken from Russia. Austria had it - the Serbs put down. Germany didn't NEED anything from France in the way France did from Germany.

Germany was willing to write off their colonies to France. They probably would have agreed to naval disarmament to end the war with Britain. So the British could go home and say they ended the Naval threat, France could say we stopped them cold and forced them to give up colonies

Both of these things are obviously just sops. The German colonies are worthless, and Germany had basically abandoned naval competition with Britain well before 1914. But the west would get SOMETHING and end the war. Germany would be occupied with holding onto the eastern lands

much as the USSR was in holding onto everything west of Belgorod. And the Germans as "master race" over Eastern Europe - okay versus what? Somebody is always in charge, and elites are always some nepotistic group that didn't gain power through merit anyway, so why not Germans?

Or more poignantly - why not the Hohenzollerns? In hindsight, knowing the alternative that comes next, and taking the rise of the United States as a given, it seems so obvious. Of course I have no loyalty to British or French elites, and in terms of actual lives, Germany ruling..

France and the British Isles probably wouldn't have made much of a difference for 99.9% of the people living there. But those boys died so that the UK Foreign office could feel bigger by having more influence over what happened on the continent.

Churchill after the war said the situation in Europe was more unstable in 1945 than it was in 1939. But I guess it was worth it to prevent a hegemon from forming on the continent ohhh... the USSR could steamroll to the Atlantic if not for a US presence you're now dependent on...

I think we need to look at the German containment wars with fresher, more cynical eyes untied to having to come up with a story that it was "for something". It was brain-dead elites willing to throw your lives away to brutally enforce their unfathomable stupidity.