Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#91

Post by sarahgoodson » 29 Dec 2015, 21:25

linamonsen wrote:There was not a single person in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s (who was not a recent immigrant from Japan or some other remote place) who was not descended from Polish or other Slavic peoples to some degree (or even to a significant degree). Slavic "blood" is a huge component in the modern people popularly called the Germans. Genetically, a distinction between people who consider themselves German and Polish is utterly meaningless, it's only a matter of culture and language, and in central/eastern Europe many people had a connection to both cultures and spoke both languages. Polish names, and other Slavic-origined names, were and are also very common in Germany.
Do you have sources to back up such a claim?

There's evidence that many Germans from Eastern Germany have some Slavic ancestry but to try and claim that every single person who considered himself an ethnic German in the 1930s and 1940s had Slavic ancestry is ridiculous.

Genetically speaking Germans and Poles are different. They are different people entirely in culture, language and racial origins.

linamonsen
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Jan 2015, 10:22
Location: Oslo

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#92

Post by linamonsen » 30 Dec 2015, 02:42

The idea that a person in Germany who was of European origin had no Slavic ancestry over the past two millennia is utterly ridiculous and highly improbable for anyone with only the slightest knowledge of history, and especially for anyone familiar with genetic anthropology.
Genetically speaking Germans and Poles are different. They are different people entirely in culture, language and racial origins.
Source? Because this claim is utterly wrong. One cannot speak of "Germans" in a genetic sense as distinct from e.g. Poles. The Germans of today are simply Europeans, heavily mixed with all neighbouring populations over millennia. There is no "German gene". Germans of Schleswig-Holstein origin are most likely more closely related to the Dutch and Danes than to Bavarians or Austrians.


michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#93

Post by michael mills » 30 Dec 2015, 06:15

Indeed. Hindenburg, who was native to the Posen Province, which in medieval times was the Polish heartland, was bilingual in German and Polish. He surprised Polish leaders in Austrian Galicia by addressing them in their language, which they thought he spoke with a Poznan accent.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#94

Post by michael mills » 30 Dec 2015, 06:21

In like manner, it is very probable that a large part of the present population of Poland has some ancestry derived from the Ancient Germanic peoples who lived in the territory of modern Poland at the beginning of the Common Era.

It is unlikely that all those Ancient Germanic peoples such as the Goths and the Vandals emigrated in their entirety; it is more likely that some parts of those peoples remained in place and were absorbed by incoming Slavic peoples who were moving westward.

User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#95

Post by sarahgoodson » 30 Dec 2015, 08:43

linamonsen wrote:The idea that a person in Germany who was of European origin had no Slavic ancestry over the past two millennia is utterly ridiculous and highly improbable for anyone with only the slightest knowledge of history, and especially for anyone familiar with genetic anthropology.
Your original claim was:
There was not a single person in Germany during the 1930s and 1940s (who was not a recent immigrant from Japan or some other remote place) who was not descended from Polish or other Slavic peoples to some degree (or even to a significant degree).
Provide proof for this assertion.
Source? Because this claim is utterly wrong. One cannot speak of "Germans" in a genetic sense as distinct from e.g. Poles. The Germans of today are simply Europeans, heavily mixed with all neighbouring populations over millennia. There is no "German gene". Germans of Schleswig-Holstein origin are most likely more closely related to the Dutch and Danes than to Bavarians or Austrians.
Straw man.

The Germans and Poles are separate ethnic groups which were formed by different tribes and thus have different racial origins, the German culture is different to the Polish culture and the German language is Germanic whilst the Polish language is Slavic.

User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#96

Post by sarahgoodson » 30 Dec 2015, 20:00

The brochure for the 1938 Nuremberg rally the Nazis announced Slavs as part of the "Indogermanic peoples":
Central and Northern Europe are the homeland of the Nordic race. At the beginning ofthe most recent Ice Age, around 5,000 BC, a Nordic Indogermanic Utvolk of the Nordic race [artgleicher nordrassischer Menschen] existed, with the same language and unified mode of behavior [Gesittung], which divided into smaller and larger groups as it expanded. From these went forth Germans, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Persians, and Aryan Indians. . . The original racial unity and common ownership of the most important cultural artifacts remained for thousands of years the cement holding together the Western peoples.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#97

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 31 Dec 2015, 00:08

I have recently registered at "Anthrogenica.com" forum.

After journal "Nature" published a genetic study on prehistoric Kennewick Man, showing that he was "racially" a Native American, and even showing with which modern tribes he was most closely related (for example with the Colville tribes, as it turns out), I started a thread at Anthrogenica, asking other users whether it is possible to establish similar links between individual prehistoric Europeans, and modern ethnic groups from Europe - can it be established which prehistoric groups are ancestral to which modern groups?

Here is what one of other users answered, comparing Europeans and Native Americans:
the problem is that all Europeans from across the north of the continent share a lot of ancestry with Corded Ware and Yamnaya, because the Early Bronze Age population movements from the steppe into Northern Europe were so massive. This was followed by a lot of local migrations and mixing. It's not like among Native Americans, where there's probably still a lot of [regional] structure dating back 8,000 years.
Corded Ware and Yamnaya are archaeological cultures of early Indo-European speakers, as was the Bell Beaker culture. The study by prof. Dan Bradley which I quoted on 29 Dec 2015 01:28, shows that those Bronze Age migrations swept entire Europe all the way to Ireland. Aboriginal Non-IE populations in some parts of Europe - for example Scandinavia - recorded the arrival of those IE migrants in their art. Rock carvings in Scandinavia were created by indigenous Stone Age hunters, the oldest of them are at least 6500 years old. But then - much later, at the beginning of the Metal Ages (Copper and Early Bronze), these petroglyphs recorded the arrival of new strange immigrants, arriving on ships, in large fleets, carrying weapons such as battle axes, and carrying sun disks. Those were groups of Indo-Europeans.

Another user at Anthrogenica wrote the following answer to my question:
Northern Europe was homogenized a couple times over by massive long range population movements.
And by "Northern Europe" they basically mean everything north of the Iberian Peninsula, the Italian Peninsula, and the Balkan Peninsula - all the way from Ireland and Bretagne to Estonia and Russia. There is a lot of genetic similarity between Slavs and Germanics mostly because of common origins of both groups, but also due to more recent mixing such as mentioned by Linamonsen and Michael Mills above.

So not only do most of Europeans descent from largely the same ancestral prehistoric populations, but also there has been a lot of mixing within Europe later on (as Michael and Linamonsen wrote), including Germanic and Slavic migrations back-and-forth.

The main genetic divide in Europe is between Southern Europe and Northern Europe, while differences between Europe's North-Western and North-Eastern populations are much smaller, thought with a high enough resolution they might still be traced.

By the way, I was actually disappointed by those answers because I hoped that it would be possible to establish which prehistoric skeletons belonged to direct ancestors of ethnic Poles, which of ethnic Germans, etc., but apparently it is not so easy in Europe.

Europeans are too similar to each other. There are only some genetic outliers (like for example Sardinians and Lapps). Even the Basques are not as indigenous to Europe as they think - genetic studies show considerable Steppe admixture in them. They just preserved the language of the Non-Indo-European part of their ancestors, but their genetic heritage is mixed, with Indo-European blood as well.

Sardinians are the only perfect proxy for Neolithic Europeans, before Indo-European migrations described by Marija Gimbutas in her Steppe Hypothesis (which has now been confirmed by genetic studies). Sardinians have nearly no "Steppe admixture".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marija_Gimbutas

Scandinavians have a lot of their ancestry derived from the Early Bronze Age Steppe, as do Balto-Slavic peoples.

The Steppe itself was also a place where huge migrations have taken place - original Indo-European inhabitants eventually mixed with Turkic and Mongolic tribes, who came later (during the Iron Age and the Middle Ages) from Eastern Siberia and Mongolia. Proto-Turks and Proto-Mongols originated from two very multi-ethnic tribal confederations mentioned in Ancient Chinese texts - Xianbei and Xiongnu.

The Steppe worked as a "highway" connecting peoples and ideas all the way from East Asia to Europe. The Steppe is what made Eurasia the center of human civilization. Cultures which evolved in the Americas had much harder time to exchange ideas and genes - between the Anasazi culture, Mesoamerican cultures, and Andean cultures, there were nearly impenetrable jungles, deserts and mountains.

At the same time, the steppe was also home to many of the most warlike and dangerous groups in Eurasian history. Steppe nomads (first PIEs, then other groups) either migrated to, settled in, or repeatedly invaded both Europe, the Middle East, India, and China.
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#98

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 31 Dec 2015, 03:46

sarahgoodson wrote:The brochure for the 1938 Nuremberg rally the Nazis announced Slavs as part of the "Indogermanic peoples":
Central and Northern Europe are the homeland of the Nordic race. At the beginning ofthe most recent Ice Age, around 5,000 BC, a Nordic Indogermanic Utvolk of the Nordic race [artgleicher nordrassischer Menschen] existed, with the same language and unified mode of behavior [Gesittung], which divided into smaller and larger groups as it expanded. From these went forth Germans, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Slavs, Persians, and Aryan Indians. . . The original racial unity and common ownership of the most important cultural artifacts remained for thousands of years the cement holding together the Western peoples.
"Indogermanic" is another (today obsolete) term for Indo-European (abbreviation: IE, and PIE stands for Proto-IE).

The idea that Proto-Indo-European homeland was in Central-Northern Europe has been proven wrong. It was in the Steppe.

But the idea that all mentioned groups had a common origin (and have large parts of their ancestry in common) is true.

As for Indo-Aryans and Persians:

Contrary to what the Nazis claimed, Aryans are most closely related to Slavs and Balts (East Europeans), not to Germans.

Here is a publication about this:

"Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311057/

And here is the excerpt about the relationship between Aryan Indians and Eastern Europeans (especially Slavs and Balts):

"(...) To explore the impact of West Eurasians on contemporary Indian caste populations, we compared mtDNA ... and Y-chromosome ... variation in ∼265 males from eight castes of different rank to ∼750 Africans, Asians, Europeans, and other Indians. For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly to Eastern Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank. Nevertheless, the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome each represents only a single haploid locus and is more susceptible to large stochastic variation, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps. Thus, to increase the power of our analysis, we assayed 40 independent, biparentally inherited autosomal loci (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu elements) in all of the caste and continental populations (∼600 individuals). Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians. (...)"

The close relationship of Slavs and Aryans is due to the common origin of both groups, around 5000 years ago (3000 BC).

Term "Aryan" today is used only in relation to Indo-Iranians, but in the past it was used as a name for all Indo-European folks.

See for example H. G. Wells in his 1922 book - the chapter about Proto-Indo-Europeans, titled "The Primitive Aryans":

http://www.bartleby.com/86/19.html

Indeed, Early Aryans were relatively uncivilized compared to some of Non-Aryan civilizations of their time. It is the amazing expansion of the Aryans which followed, that made them special. But their beginnings were rather modest (even though they did invent or / and propagate several great innovations of key importance to human history - such as the use of horses and wheeled chariots for warfare).

The Nazis mythologized Aryans (in particular their Germanic branch) and worshipped them as supposedly "innately superior".
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#99

Post by sarahgoodson » 31 Dec 2015, 15:18

Peter K wrote:"Indogermanic" is another (today obsolete) term for Indo-European (abbreviation: IE, and PIE stands for Proto-IE).
Who said anything to the contrary? I was posting what the Nazis said in 1938.
Contrary to what the Nazis claimed, Aryans are most closely related to Slavs and Balts (East Europeans), not to Germans.
The Nazis considered all of the European peoples including Balts and Slavs as Aryans. However, by 1935 the term had disappeared from legal documents as the Nazis knew that the term could not be used in a racial context which is why they adopted the term "German or related blood" when the Nuremberg Laws were announced, but like the word "Aryan" this term was also not defined. Nevertheless, the term Aryan was still used in propaganda and even by some experts.
Term "Aryan" today is used only in relation to Indo-Iranians, but in the past it was used as a name for all Indo-European folks.
The term has been used differently throughout history and today you never hear people really use the term.
See for example H. G. Wells in his 1922 book - the chapter about Proto-Indo-Europeans, titled "The Primitive Aryans":
Today? It's 2015, not 1922. I could post the Nazis usage of the term from the 1920s in a different context. The term is hardly ever used these days.

In fact, the only people you see continuing to use the term are the pseudo-Nazis on sites like Stormfront.
The Nazis mythologized Aryans (in particular their Germanic branch) and worshipped them as supposedly "innately superior".
Really?

Here is some interesting quotes from the Nazis:
In line with national socialist thinking which does full justice to all other peoples, there is never the expression of superior or inferior, but alien racial admixtures.
This is from the Ahnenpaß document section "Racial Tenet", this document was the most common way a German citizen used to prove their ancestry was of Aryan/German or related blood descent.
We appreciate the fact that those of another race are different from us. This scientific truth is the basis, the justification and, at the same time, the obligation of every racial policy without which a restoration of Europe in our day is no longer practicable. Whether that other race is "better" or "worse" is not possible for us to judge. For this would demand that we transcend our own racial limitations for the duration of the verdict and take on a superhuman, even divine, attitude from which alone an "impersonal" verdict could be formed on the value or lack of such of the many living forms of inexhaustible Nature. But we of all people are too conscious of the inseparable ties of the blood and our own race to attempt to aspire to such an ultra-racial standpoint, even in the abstract.
Walter Gross on National Socialist Racial Thought
Believe me, my dear German fellow citizens, it is not true, as some say, that this doctrine is a sign of arrogance or superiority or boasting. We do not think ourselves better than the other races on the earth. No, we do not think ourselves better, nor do we believe that others are worse than we are. We insist only on one thing — a law established by the Creator himself.

The others may not be better or worse, but they are different than we are, and because they are different than we are, there is a kind of wall between us that is part of the laws of life. That is the core of National Socialism’s racial thinking. Our goal is not to insult others, to say: “What a great guy I am!” Rather, we hold to the humble recognition that each healthy piece of life has its corner of the world, and its special tasks. This is just as true of humans as it is of plants and animals in all their multiplicity. We know that one type is no more valuable than another. But we also know that each variety of life has a right to existence only as long as it keeps itself pure and strong. Only when a tree bears the proper fruit does it have a right to live. Otherwise it will be cut down and destroyed. We do not know why things are the way they are, and it would be foolish to ask the reason. That is how things are. Our task is to humbly accept the laws that govern our human existence, and to accept the fact that we are born Germans in Germany, not as Chinese or Eskimos. That is not because of our virtues, nor it is our fault, nor was it our will. It was fate that came from above. We have no choice but to accept this fate and to develop the abilities that fate has given us according to necessity and law.
Walter Gross speech to German women
The fundamental reason for excluding foreign-raced groups from a people’s body is not discrimination or contempt, but rather the realization of otherness. Only through such thinking will the peoples again become healthy and able to respect each other.
Karl Bareth and Alfred Vogel teaching guide for racial instructions "Heredity and Racial Science for Elementary and Secondary Schools"

And if we are to regard the documents between Hitler and Bormann as genuine then Hitler on February 13, 1945 said:
I promise you I am quite free from all racial hatred. It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race -- and that does not imply contempt for other races -- is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#100

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 31 Dec 2015, 16:49

sarahgoodson wrote:The term has been used differently throughout history and today you never hear people really use the term.
(...)
The term is hardly ever used these days.
(...)
In fact, the only people you see continuing to use the term are the pseudo-Nazis on sites like Stormfront.
Nope. It is still commonly used among Indo-Iranian peoples.

And today historians and linguists still use this term to refer to Indo-Iranians, because that's how they called themselves.

See for example Persian Royal Inscriptions: http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/DNa.html

Quote: "(...) I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. (...)"

I'm not sure why should we stop using a historically accurate term just because it was misused by some German idiots.

BTW, the word "Aryan" is ultimately derived from the PIE language*. This term is essentially Indo-Iranian, but it has cognates in other Indo-European languages, ultimately derived from PIE language. For example Greek term "aristos" (from which English "aristocracy" and Polish "arystokracja" originated), Latin term "ars" ("art"), etc., ultimately derive from the same PIE root as Indo-Iranian "arya".

Quote:
==================
"Indo-Iranian ar-ya- descends from Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *ar-yo-, a yo-adjective to a root *ar "to assemble skillfully", present in Greek harma "chariot", Greek aristos, (as in "aristocracy"), Latin ars "art", etc. Thus, according to this theory, an Aryan is "one who skillfully assembles". proto-Indo-Iranian arta, asha was a related concept of "properly joined", expressing a religious concept of cosmic order."
==================

Term "Iran" also has the same root as "Aryan":

Quote:
==================
"Iran - from Persian Iran, from Middle Persian Ērān "(land) of the Iranians," genitive plural of ēr- "an Iranian," from Old Iranian *arya- (Old Persian ariya-, Avestan airya-) "Iranian", from Indo-Iranian *arya- or *ārya- (see Aryan), a self-designation, perhaps meaning "compatriot." In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia."
==================

The original meaning of "Aryan" was "compatriot" and "companion" (who skilfully assembles), later it also meant "noble".

*Here a rather funny, but still very informative, video about the PIE language and their culture:

There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#101

Post by sarahgoodson » 31 Dec 2015, 21:49

Peter K,

You seem to be missing the point.

Nobody is saying that the term is never used in articles, journals, etc but rather that in the mainstream media the word is always used in documentaries on the Nazis who always mention the Aryan race and the master race.

Copying and pasting some lengthy quotes was totally pointless and doesn't prove a thing. I'm already aware of what the term means, you don't need to try and lecture people on the meaning of the word.

Ask the average Joe Bloggs in the street and you'll find he'll have believed the propaganda that Hitler wanted to create a blonde hair blue eyed race of what he called the Aryan race.

Anyways, the Nazis weren't the first people to propose that Aryans were a race. And as I've already shown you that these "German idiots" as you call them realised that the term was not a racial concept and done away with it in legal documents. Similarly, the Nazis spoke of the Jews as a race but they also knew this was not the case as well.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#102

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 01 Jan 2016, 07:36

sarahgoodson wrote:Slavs not slaves.
Indeed.

The association of Slavs with "slaves" emerged after original Slavic-speaking invaders enslaved many ethnic Non-Slavs, and then allowed them to join their communities (this is one of reasons why Slavs were so successful in colonizing half of Europe in a very short time - they increased their numbers not just due to natural growth, but also by enslaving Non-Slavic locals and "turning them into Slavs", assimilating them).

Ethno-linguistic ancestors of modern South Slavs came to the Balkans from North-Eastern and North-Central Europe after 500 AD.

I never really understood this whole idea that modern South Slavs are supposedly the most "mixed" and the "least Slavic" of all Slavs. The most "mixed" (chiefly with Ugro-Finns and with Turkic tribes) are perhaps some of East Slavs. All archaeological and written evidence point to replacement in the Balkans during the Slavic invasion and colonization (even though sources also describe Slavs as enslaving Roman citizens and then liberating them and incorporating into their own tribes - so some degree of mixing with local Non-Slavs certainly took place).

Emperor Maurice in his "Strategikon" noticed, that Slavs treated their slaves (captives) in different ways than other peoples did.

Quote:

"(...) Slavs, unlike all other peoples, do not keep captives in perpetual slavery, but they demarcate for them a limited period of time, after which they give them a choice: they can either return home if they purchase their freedom, or stay among them as free people and friends. (...)"

So, according to "Strategikon", Slavic invaders used to incorporate captives into their ranks. They had an unusual habit of liberating their slaves and incorporating them into their own communities as free people - thus increasing their own numbers very fast.

This also hints to the origin of association of ethnonym Slavs with the new, Early Medieval Latin term for "slaves".

Slavic warriors enslaved thousands of Non-Slavs, and incorporated them into their own tribes as free people - unlike the majority of other peoples, who used to keep their captives in perpetual slavery, rather than mixing with them.

Therefore Slavic tribes which emerged in the Balkans must have included some descendants of former Byzantine citizens who got captured by the Slavs, then liberated, then linguistically and culturally assimilated into Slavic communities.

This is also confirmed by other sources, for example by these excerpts from Procopius of Caesarea:

Procopius of Caesarea, Book VII, XIII - describing the events in year 545 AD:

Quote:

"(...) For a great throng of the barbarians, the Sclaveni [Slavs], had, as it happened, recently crossed the Ister [Danube], plundering the adjoining country and enslaved a very great number of Romans. (...)"

Another excerpt from Procopius:

"(...) In Illyria and Thracia, from the Ionian Gulf to Byzantine surrounding cities, where Hellas and Chersonese regions are situated, (...) the Sclavenes and the Antes, penetrating practically every year since Justinian administering the Roman Empire, were inflicting irreversible damage to their inhabitants. In each invasion I estimate 200,000 Romans were either enslaved or killed (...)"

And here an excerpt from John of Ephesus:

"(...) In third year after the death of Emperor Justin, during the reign of victorious Tiberius, the damned nation of the Slavs has risen, and marching through entire Hellas, through lands of Thessaly and Thrace, captured many cities and strongholds, plundered, burned and robbed, seized the land and settled there with full ease, without fear, like in their own land. (...) they were plundering the country, burning it and robbing, as far as the Great Walls [of Constantinople], and this is how they captured many thousands of cattle, as well as many other kinds of booty. (...) Until today, that is until year 584, they still continue to live in peace in lands of the Rhomaioi, without fear and concern, plundering, enslaving and burning, getting rich and highjacking gold and silver, capturing horses and plenty of weapons; and they have learned to fight better than the Rhomaioi. (...)"

Also a passage from Menander Protector:

"(...) About the fourth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius Constantine, some hundred thousand Slavs broke into Thrace, and pillaged that and many other regions. As Greece was being laid waste and enslaved by the Slavs, with trouble liable to flare up anywhere, and as Tiberius had at his disposal by no means sufficient forces, he sent a delegation to the Khagan of the Avars. (...)"

Jordanes about the three branches of early Slavic-speaking peoples (ethnonym Slavs comes from just one of them - the Sclaveni):

"(...) These people, as we started to say at the beginning of our account or catalogue of nations, though off-shoots from one stock, have now three names, that is, Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni. (...) they now rage in war far and wide, in punishment for our sins (...) Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (...)"

Procopius of Caesarea once again (about Slavic foederati/mercenaries fighting under Belisarius):

"(...) Belisarius was eager to capture alive one of the men of note among the enemy, in order that he might learn what the reason might be why the barbarians were holding out in their desperate situation. And Valerian promised readily to perform such a service for him. For there were some men in his command, he said, from the nation of the Sclaveni, who are accustomed to conceal themselves behind a small rock or any bush which may happen to be near and pounce upon an enemy. In fact, they are constantly practising this in their slave hunts along the river Ister, both on the Romans and on the barbarians as well. (...)"

And also: http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147272.pdf

"(...) There is clear evidence from the excavations of the Athenian Agora that the late sixth century witnessed some interruption in the peaceful course of town life in Athens. Certain buildings, for example, are known to have been burnt and temporarily or permanently deserted at that time. Finds of coinage, evidently concealed in haste or abandoned in emergency and never recovered, allow a date to be assigned to events, for which, although they are well attested by archaeological discovery, it would otherwise be very difficult to demonstrate a particular historical context. Byzantine chroniclers tell of a Slavonic invasion of Greece which took place apparently at the end of the year 578 or early in 579, as a result of which large numbers of Slavs settled in Greece... It is virtually certain that some of the destruction in the Athenian Agora, for which a date in the years immediately following the invasion is here proposed, was the work of the Slavs... Menander Protector, in his work chronicling the period ca. 560-580, writes as follows (...)"

So early Slavs were famous for their slave hunts, in which they enslaved both Roman citizens, and other barbarians. Most of those captives were later becoming members of Slavic tribes, as "Strategikon" says.
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#103

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 01 Jan 2016, 08:29

sarahgoodson wrote:The Germans and Poles are separate ethnic groups which were formed by different tribes and thus have different racial origins.
Below I quote excerpts from M. Turda, "Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe".

Marius Turda cites evidence that among the main problems that the Nazis faced, was that of distinguishing Poles from Germans:

Part 1 - http://s14.postimg.org/z5c4ts8a9/Part1.png
Part1.png
Part 2 - http://s14.postimg.org/k5js5xre9/Part2.png
Part2.png
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

User avatar
sarahgoodson
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
Location: London

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#104

Post by sarahgoodson » 01 Jan 2016, 17:05

Peter K wrote:Marius Turda cites evidence that among the main problems that the Nazis faced, was that of distinguishing Poles from Germans:
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Peter K,

Enough with your straw mans. If you actually bothered to comprehend what I post then you would be able to distinguish very easily what I'm saying and what I'm posting that the Nazis said.

I've already previously posted:
The best example of the shift in meaning that occurred in the conception of völkisch inequality toward that of a political principle is seen in the position of the Eastern European peoples in the National Socialist scheme things. Discrimination against Poles was justified, however, because, like all Slavs, they represented a major völkisch and racial threat to Germany. The placement of the Poles under rule of special law was done from fundamentally political motives. The race-political grounds for hatred of the Poles were merely the ideological mask justifying the National Socialist policy of violent force. The political bias for the systemically fomented hatred of and malice against Poles reveals itself in the thesis, invented ex post facto, of their "threat to the community," which then became the dominant argument in both theory and practice. According to this, the Poles had to be excluded from the European community of rights on account of their "Germanophobia" and their political incompetence and "lack of culture." In contrast with this political argument, neither the racial window dressing of Nazi propaganda that commenced in 1939, according to which the Poles were "racial foes" with regard to whom restraints were not to be observed, nor the elaborate attempts of the Race Policy Office to set up a racial classification of the Poles achieved much of an echo.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1982267
The Nazis could not define Poles as a race because they knew racially speaking no such thing existed. Not speaking German was not enough for the Nazis as they knew many ethnic Germans were raised as Poles.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1982309

So as you can see, I've already stated that the Nazis had problems distinguishing Germans and Poles (on a phenotype basis alone) and Himmler had problems defining those with mixed German-Polish ancestry.
For instance, the terms Pole and Polish ethnic origin were never defined. [...] In essence, the concept of the Pole was and remained a political concept that could not be interpreted racially, so the administrative authorities spoke much more cautiously, not of Poles but "members of the Polish nationality," of "members of the Polish Volk," or of "subjects of Polish ethnic origin."
Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, p.243

But when I wrote:
The Germans and Poles are separate ethnic groups which were formed by different tribes and thus have different racial origins
Nobody was speaking about the Nazis definition of "German" and "Polish".

So as people can see, you have quite clearly purposely created a straw man when there was no need and everything you've just posted has already been discussed.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Slavs and the Nuremberg Laws

#105

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 01 Jan 2016, 19:47

sarahgoodson wrote:Not speaking German was not enough for the Nazis as they knew many ethnic Germans were raised as Poles.
The number of ethnic Poles raised as Germans throughout history was still far greater, including for example the grandfather of current German chancellor Angela Merkel - Ludwik Kaźmierczak. According to Johannes Frackowiak, 13% of Germans have Polish surnames, quote:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=tcikLC ... &q&f=false

"(...) Der folgende Beitrag wendet sich der Geschichte der polnischen Minderheit im Deutschland der Weimarer Republik und der NS-Zeit zu. Dass es sich hierbei analog zu der deutschen Minderheit in der Republik Polen nach 1918, um eine nicht unbedeutende Nachbarschaft zwischen Deutschen und Polen gehandelt hat, wird bis in die Gegenwart durch die Tatsache belegt, dass ungefähr 13 Prozent der heutigen Bewohner der Bundesrepublik polnische Familiennamen führen. (...)"

In addition to 13% of Germans with such surnames, there are many more Germans of Slavic origin who modified (Germanized) their surnames in order to make them sound German and to conceal their Slavic past (as did Merkel's Kaźmierczak, who changed to Kasner in 1930).

Examples of Germanization of surnames here (e.g. Czerwinski became Rothardt, Kurzawski became Kurzbach, Jankowski became Jankenberg, Regelski turned into Reckmann, Solarczyk - Solberg, Jerzewski - Jetzfeld, Smolinski - Schiller, Rajski - Raimann, etc., etc.):

http://pl.polskawarmia.de/images/docume ... 6276284.32

Image

The last two chairmen of the association of Lower Silesian "Vertriebene Germans" have been - and I'm now rolling on the floor and laughing while reading their surnames - Hubert Hupka and Rudi Pawelka. Can people with "Slavic to the core" surnames such as Hupka or Pawelka, coming from historically Slavic region, claim to be "ethnic" Germans? Obviously they are just trolling - what do you think about this?
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”