Talk:Ruanda-Urundi

Slant

Ruanda-Urundi was not a German colony. When the area was in German hands it was simply a part of German East Africa. It was only after that colony was split between Britain and Belgium that the separate colony of Ruanda-Urundi came into being. - SimonP 00:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it was under administration, and the template should be on this article.r9tgokunks 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Great Lakes region later covered by Ruanda-Urundi was under German control, but the government entity of Ruanda-Urundi was never a German colony. An American equivalent would be labeling West Virginia as a former British colony, despite there being no WV in the colonial period. Also, when German East Africa existed there was essentially no German presence in the far western portion, and it was German territory in name only. - SimonP 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read otherwise; that the German administration was minimal at first, but in later years highly non-minimal and in fact in some ways responsible for the social stratification and arbitrary separation between Hutus and Tutsi in the two kingdoms. Have to look into the books for references, though, as very little about the pre-1916 administration in these territories is visible to Google (except for that fine list of Colonial heads of Burundi (Urundi), of course.) --Whiske Pete, 20 December 2006

This article is very anti-Belgian. It needs to be re-written without personal bias and cite any viewpoints with facts that can be backed up

99.4.106.235 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Vera Ferguson

can anyone point out examples of bias in the article? Ottawakismet (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Belgian administrators believed in the racial theories of the time and convinced themselves that the Tutsi were racially superior", "convinced themselves" could be rewritten into something more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.3.49 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Belgian economic politics

The link that leads to article "cleptocracy" is not a neutral point of view, but the one of Britain regarding Belgian Congo. The Belgian, of course, have a far different point of view (I was thaught the history in Belgium). The use of a German word in this english text to lead to "cleptocracy" is unfair.

--Lucyin (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the link, for more neutral "economical policy", which is explained further in the sentence.

World War II deaths

The current Wikipedia article on WW II casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties has a table showing 7.89% of the population of Ruanda-Urundi died due to famine and disease during the war. If that is correct, was this event directly related to the war?

Tashiro~enwiki (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be the Ruzagayura famine which has very little to do with the war. During the early 20th century, Rwanda had major famines roughly every 5-10 years usually relating to crop failure.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Brigade Piron I agree that the famine is not related to the war. @ WW2 Casualties this was added in June 2010 as a result of a request by an editor. I objected at that time to the inclusion of the famine, see history of the talk page @ WW2 Casualties May 28, 2010 for the discussion related to this issue. Wow, after six years finally someone agrees with me.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)