"Germany didn't have any annihilatory intention pre-1939"

[bf109 emil]

Intentions obviously, planning before 1939 can be debated.

The gears that set the whole thing in motion were there. One point though and it is a matter of opinion the lead up to genocide is as much a part of the genocide then jusf the physical act. Just like the preparations for war are part of the war.

Without the perpetration there can be no act.

intent is hard to prove, documented evidence is not...something Germany can not hide post 1939 irregardless of any pre-intention is evidence showing eventual evidence of German acts and crimes.

perhaps we can use the same logic to assume intention as Mr. Mills proclaimed and posted in a different thread along the assumption of...'The fact that evidence for something that may have happened over 60 years ago cannot be found today does not mean that that something definitely did not happen. Particularly if the possible perpetrator of that something has had over 40 years to hide or destroy that evidence.' from source http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1617565#p1617565 and along the same logic or thinking maybe Germany also had 12 years to hide this evidence before succumbing to defeat in may 1945. Although a different posting, the same ideals and logic can be applied to this thread likewise.

[waldzee]

Sid,

On Friday 25 you wrote:

Of course the Nazis intended to eliminate the Czechs.

Now you write:

It is highly probable that Czech, Latvian and Estonian predominance in their own lands was preserved only by the turn of wider events

"Loss of predominance" is quite clearly not the same thing as "elimination". Even if Czechs, Latvians and Estonians had lost predominance in their own lands through becoming minorities, they would still have been in existence. "Elimination" implies that a people is removed, either expelled or physically exterminated.

I suggest that you decide which case you are arguing. Is it that the Czechs were to be "eliminated"? Or is it that they were simply to "lose predominance"?

Documentary evidence shows that Hitler had ordered the "elimination" of those Czechs who were anti-German, in particular the nationalist leadership, by deportation to conquered Soviet territory. But he had also agreed to the assimilation of the remainder, ie they would be absorbed into the German people, hardly a fate worse than death.

Quite a lot of Germans were already of Czech origin. For example, after the defeat of the Bohemian Protestants in 1618, large numbers of of them fled to the Protestant German states such as Brandenburg, where they became absorbed into the German population.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PArtly correct. Germany North & east has a historic *Slavic base*- Wends, Polabians, Lusitanians, etc,& still has minority Slavic languages.
However, you are assuming a forced assimilation,not a benevolent integration, as the best possible outcome.

[waldzee]

Do you have any hard data to add to this discussion? For example, contemporary documents indicating German intentions?

Or only opinions?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I beleive I have presented this to you repeatedly. Ignoring evidence is not absence of evidence.
remember our debate over the 1920 news articles inthe NASDAP official press.....

[BillHermann]

I find this quite amusing, and I hope no offense is taken but the passion and drama behind the argument of the yes camp that "Germany didn't have any annihilatory intention pre-1939" is troubling because it somehow suggests that the NAZIs were only forced to do it because of war and that they were less at fault for this then the circumstances.

I will use a simple example that maybe can be understood. The record and date of when I joined AHF is clear. There is no record that I was thinking of joining AHF for the last 2 years. The same can be said for buying a car, joining a club, going on a holiday. Because there is no paper trail does not mean that there is no intention. We do not know half of what was being discussed behind closed doors and as I said before records do get destroyed. Something as big as the Holocaust would have had build up over time. All evidence pionts to the fact that it was not a single year or event that made the Germans change their mind.

I stepped away because there was no need to run around circles with the camp that was defending this, however I thought I would jump back in.

[waldzee]

I find this quite amusing, and I hope no offense is taken but the passion and drama behind the argument of the yes camp that "Germany didn't have any annihilatory intention pre-1939" is troubling because it somehow suggests that the NAZIs were only forced to do it because of war and that they were less at fault for this then the circumstances.

I will use a simple example that maybe can be understood. The record and date of when I joined AHF is clear. There is no record that I was thinking of joining AHF for the last 2 years. The same can be said for buying a car, joining a club, going on a holiday. Because there is no paper trail does not mean that there is no intention. We do not know half of what was being discussed behind closed doors and as I said before records do get destroyed. Something as big as the Holocaust would have had build up over time. All evidence pionts to the fact that it aw not a single year or event that made the Germans change their mind.

I stepped away because there was no need to run around circles with the camp that was defending this, however I thought I would jump back in.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What I find amusing is the idea advanced by the usual suspects of the Highly Professional German Staff doing ABSOLUTELY no invasion studies until weeks before the invasions....
Either gross neglect of duty, or the 'Faulty Towers' staff in charge....

"Wot!! Invade Poland! Next Month? Whodda guessed it. chaps..."
Seriously, after 1938 Adolph Hitler shows advanced symtons of Parkinsons disease:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/406713.stm

& made disasterous choices in an attempt to 'reshape; the world" before he shut down.
Unfortunatley, there was no mechanism to usher him off the throne.

It has been proved that Adolf Hitler suffered from idiopathic Parkinson's disease. No indication for postencephalitic parkinsonism was found in the clinical symptoms or the case history. Professor Max de Crinis established his diagnosis of Parkinson's disease in Hitler early in 1945 and informed the SS leadership, who decided to initiate treatment with a specially prepared 'antiparkinsonian mixture' to be administered by a physician. However, Hitler never received the mixture, this implies that the SS intended to remove the severely diseased 'Leader'. Two different character traits can be analysed in Hitler's personality: on the one hand the typical premorbid personality of parkinsonian patients with uncorrectable mental rigidity, extreme inflexibility and insupportable pedantry. On the other an antisocial personality disorder with lack of ethical and social values, a deeply rooted tendency to betray others and to deceive himself and uncontrollable emotional reactions. This special combination in Hitler's personality resulted in the uncritical conviction of his mission and an enormous driving for recognition. The neuropsychiatric analysis of Hitler's personality could lead to a better explanation of the pathological traits of one of the most conspicuous historical personalities.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10053222

As his disease progressed, the official state of violence increased in Germany.