View Full Version : Colonials Favouring Assistance to Europe, a Loyalties Question

Monday, May 18th, 2009, 04:15 PM
The related topics of emigration as treason (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=112743) and intra-Germanic immigration (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=110496) have been discussed, but I wish to address the scenario wherein a colonial assists a Germanic European land in a military capacity or as an expert or agent in some other way, and where there is (1) a definite advantage to the European host with (2) a definite disadvantage to the colonial's nation in doing so, and (3) it can be assumed that the colonial in question is able to assimilate fully into the host country (which can be applicable to this issue or not, depending on what the reason behind the colonial's assistance is). So, for argument's sake, assume the question here is rather one of both countries being on the verge of war, and one country gains an agent or soldier while the other loses one.

Some Boer fora have seen the appearance of posts about Flemings expressing the option of using Afrikaners/Boers, who would in turn only be granted Flemish citizenship, if it came to Flanders needing soldiers. This was understandably not well received by these fora's memberships, considering we have our own fight on our hands (on the ideological and political front now, possibly a literal fight later on), and according to them, any cooperative endeavour should count towards victory for Afrikaner Nationalism in SA as well, that is, saving their own if it does not count towards the preservation of the Afrikaner/Boer identity and culture is not good enough.

On Skadi, however, having a Germanicist orientation and with many pan-Germanic attitudes, I'd expect there to be a greater diversity of opinions on matters like these. Additionally, one reason why I raise the issue in terms of colonials assisting Europe, and not the other way around, is because a lot of our Germanic identity, as with any ethnic identity, is linked to our origins, and as such there is an unshakable sentiment that the European Germanic lands should therefor be considered sacred, regardless of whether or not you put your own country's well-being above that of others, regardless also of how your religious orientation makes you define the word sacred. If nothing else, it speaks of a personal connection to our ancestral lands, which can be either present or absent when regarding colonial lands.

So, in cases where a colonial decides to aid a European Germanic folk and do so at the cost of his own country; in cases where it can arguably be seen as treason towards his own countrymen (even if not breaking the national law), but undeniably as favouring his own folk's preservation less, is there any redemption from such an act in pledging loyalty to a European Germanic sister folk from the point of view of the Germanocentrist or the Pan-Germanic?

Will the answer to this be different in proportion to how great a degree the fight for one's country is already considered lost (as is often the opinion with regards to South Africa)?

Saturday, June 6th, 2009, 03:38 AM
When considering the European colonies of the likes of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.A., I consider them as outposts of Europe. Certainly the U.S.A. is big enough and ugly enough to look after itself, but I would think that Europe has a vested interest in ensuring the survival of these outposts. Surely all should be done to ensure their ongoing stability and security. To this end South Africa has been failed by Europe to date.

As a heathen colonial (lol), there most surely is a strong connection with Europe. In New Zealand we are not offically referred to as New Zealanders, but as New Zealand Europeans. Ethnicity is a vital component of our country. But for all the ties to Europe, a colonials primary concern should be the wellbeing of their outpost. If another outpost is in peril, but the one you reside in is not, then the obligation should then shift to the protection of that outpost. Which when considering the New Zealanders were so quick to join Britain in the war against the Boers, the evidence doesn't really support me on that one. lol. But I would like to think that in this day and age there would be a different approach.

Thinking in almost a military sense, Europe is the fallback position. If the outpost fall, then those who survive, regroup in Europe. So from a personal viewpoint, I don't agree with favouring assistance to Europe as a primary loyalty, Europe should be favouring assistance to the colonies. And in ensuring the colonies, surely that would strengthen Europe?

Just as an aside, I was thinking about Volksdeutsche, and the Americans who answered the call to return and fight for the Fatherland. And the various colonials who joined the British Freikorps. Obviously a different scenario as that war was pitting colonials against Europe which was a real tragedy of the War, but was thinking how different their participation in the Wehrmacht and the SS was viewed by the various Colonies. The Americans treated the German-Americans as German POW's. The New Zealanders gave old Roy Courlander of the British Freikorps a lengthy jail sentence. Interestingly the Australians, South Africans and Canadians gave them a slap on the wrist.

Thursday, September 24th, 2009, 02:59 AM
You should not look for a rote answer to a complicated question. There is not only one correct answer. The individual circumstances are crucial, as are your personal feelings.

For one thing, the implications that faced your ancestors when they made the move may have been very different than the ones faced today.

When the English line of my paternal grandfather moved to Virginia in the 17th Century, they were moving to an English colony. There was no question of moving to a land filled with a hodgepodge of random cultures.

Furthermore, you are not obligated to validate your ancestors' decisions. I am in America because I was born here, not because I chose to live here. I remain only because:

a.) My wife and I have not firmly decided where to move. The increasing loss of freedom of speech occurring in European countries is a bit scary, as, from our perspective, are some of the gun laws. And then there are pets, and quarantine issues.

b.) Moving to another country can be expensive, and is not therefore immediately within everyone's means, especially if one has some intention of retaining one's belongings.

However, I don't happen to feel "American" at all. So, I personally wouldn't feel any compunctions about helping a European power I am ethnically connected to in a manner disadvantageous to my nation of residence. From my perspective, my nation of residence largely sold us out anyway. Mind, I would not engage in espionage, or some kind of deceptive aid that exploited my citizenship here, such as so many Jewish-Americans do on behalf of Israel.

I might go fight for another nation, even against the one I'm in now, but openly. Further, I wouldn't expect them to happily take me back afterward. I would expect that they might justly see me as a citizen of the nation I aided.

But, assuming there is no deception, no abuse of trust, I see no shame in choosing your loyalties, and following your heart, if it comes to that.

Of course, that doesn't mean you should feel obligated to aid the other nation, either. Do they represent something important to you, culturally or ideologically, something that must be preserved? If so, that you obviously have a (self-made) obligation. If that is not the case, however, than you do not.

As another example, I feel no particular loyalty to the Parliamentarian government that has ruled England and the United Kingdom since 1645, which my ancestors fought against, and moved here to avoid, merely because of my English heritage.

Governments sometimes have to be judged on their own merits, without regard for the culture they preside over.

Finally, the cause you would be aiding is crucial, when considering the ethics of the issue. What does the government you would aid stand for? What are they trying to achieve? Is it a goal worthy of your effort?

If the nation you want to aid is representing the interests of your culture and ethnicity better, than there is no need to feel sentimental about a land that doesn't support your values. Just be honest with all concerned about your choice, and realize that the nations involved have their own right to judge your actions.

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009, 06:35 AM
It depends what is at stake. What cause both countries are supporting. If the European country is fighting for a nationalist cause, and the colony is fighting for a foreign cause, then it's not contemptible if you aid the European country of origin. However, you're still fighting against your own countrymen, and innocents will die in the confrontation. So, it's technically still treason. But as long as winning the confrontation results in positive effects for your folk, it's understandable.