What did the Nazis think of Czechs?

[Stiltzkin]

Interesting data. The question is: How representative is the study and how reliable is it from a geneticists view? I have a few reservations with the tables: Hungary.
a) Hungary was under Ottoman occupation and it is strange not to find "turks" amongst these.
b) On the 2nd place it says "Russian 30" (this applies to the other nations as well), it seems that the author did not differentiate and rather aggregated all former Soviet republics, this is especially visible in the Polish subsection, to my understanding (correct me if I am wrong, as I am only vaguely familiar with their history), they should have mixed with Ukrainians and Lithuanians.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Sforza was published in 1994 - before most modern genetic techniques were developed. I would suggest that the list is probably not "state of the art" a quarter of a century later.

Turkish rule in Hungary was comparatively short compared with the southern Balkans and the ethnic imprint presumably correspondingly much less. I would suggest that the main evidence of a Turkish presence in the area are the Gypsies, who apparently originated as the camp followers of the Turkish armies and remained when the Turkish armies retreated.

Incidentally, Turkish armies were not necessarily very "Turkic". The elite Jannissary corps, for instance, was drawn from Christian-born boys raised as Moslems. They, at least, presumably had almost no Turkic ethnic background to leave imprinted on the Hungarian population.

The author also does not identify the Slovaks separately from the Czechs. I would suggest that his data was captive to the geo-political circumstances prevailing before 1994, which limits its utility in some areas.

Cheers,

Sid

[henryk]

b) On the 2nd place it says "Russian 30" (this applies to the other nations as well), it seems that the author did not differentiate and rather aggregated all former Soviet republics, this is especially visible in the Polish subsection, to my understanding (correct me if I am wrong, as I am only vaguely familiar with their history), they should have mixed with Ukrainians and Lithuanians.

The author also does not identify the Slovaks separately from the Czechs. I would suggest that his data was captive to the geo-political circumstances prevailing before 1994, which limits its utility in some areas.
Sid

Have faith. Russians were Russians, and Czechs were Czechs. If Czechs includes Slovaks, there would be much closer relationship shown with Poles. Just like the Hungarians who are mainly ethnic Slovak. Unfortunately the study did not include all ethnicities, Slovaks,Ukrainians,etc

DNA surveys must have very large samples. Even siblings may show drastically different etnicities:
https://www.genealogyexplained.com/dna- ... -same-dna/

In the example illustrated above, the mother is only 50% German, so the daughter (also 50% German) might assume that her father is part German, too.

Similarly, she might also suspect that her mother is part Scottish since both her and her father are 14% Scottish.

But considering the ethnicities of the different family members, there are more likely scenarios that explain how the genes were passed down.

The daughter’s DNA is 50% German, but the son is only 27%. Also, the daughter is 14% Scottish, just like their father, but the son has no Scottish DNA.

No, it's not adultery!

[Stiltzkin]

Have faith. Russians were Russians, and Czechs were Czechs. If Czechs includes Slovaks, there would be much closer relationship shown with Poles. Just like the Hungarians who are mainly ethnic Slovak. Unfortunately the study did not include all ethnicities, Slovaks,Ukrainians,etc

Then what are americans and canadians. Define...
I do not think it is that easy and also agree with the above poster that it might be politically influenced (or simply flawed), a lot of data is.

[henryk]

Have faith. Russians were Russians, and Czechs were Czechs. If Czechs includes Slovaks, there would be much closer relationship shown with Poles. Just like the Hungarians who are mainly ethnic Slovak. Unfortunately the study did not include all ethnicities, Slovaks,Ukrainians,etc

Then what are americans and canadians. Define...
I do not think it is that easy and also agree with the above poster that it might be politically influenced (or simply flawed), a lot of data is.

The researchers about 20, are reputable academics. Read their bios.

[Stiltzkin]

The researchers about 20, are reputable academics. Read their bios.

I was not referring to your link, rather the work posted before that. Another thing, there are a lot of errors in the world of academia, I know that from personal experience. The methodology may be flawed also, how many people did they analyze, and (from) where? From a historians perspective this is already quite dubious, maybe the results and procedure (from a geneticists view, I have one in my family) are correct but the designation may be false. Simply put: Patching them up in such a way is already complicated, take silesians for example or basques, calling them "spaniards" or summing up ukrainians and lithuanians as "russians" is simply false. Ideal conditions probably only exist in isolated societies like oceania. How do you know if the "45% Scottish" are actually Scottish?
If they can correctly assess the heritage, then what are Tunisians? Do they inherit anything from the ancient phoenicians? They would have to show traces of Lebanese.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Stiltzkin,

You ask, "Then what are americans and canadians. Define..."

Canadians are mostly fine, loyal, upstanding sons of a largely notional and absent monarch and those who wish to identify with their brand of politeness in all things.

Americans (really in this context what the Hispanic world calls "Estadounidenses") are the people who recently let a head of state and government into power, even though he openly admits he believes in almost none of the historic values and mores of their state.

Otherwise, to us outsiders, they are just aboot indistinguishable!

Cheers,

Sid.

[offizier1916]

just a general note:

in the SPIEGEL series of the 60s about the SS was a chapter about Heydrich and the Czechs.
Heydrich knew about the skill of the Czechs industrial workers and about the importance of the war industry in the Protektorat (e.g. relatively save from allied bombing raids).
He raised considerably the food rations for the workers and the article says -if i remember correctly -, that with Heydrichs arrival, the industrial working class had better working/living cconditions than before war.
After Heydrichs assassiniation, the SD Berichte about the Stimmung im Volk emphasized - again if i remember correctly - that the "simple man"/industrial worker was "seriously in mourning" in contrast to the bourgoisie.

Imo Heydrich saw the Czechs just as working slaves to exploit for the Reich. He only "cared" for the workers because they were important for the war industry. The other member of the Czech people were - imo - for him not importnt at all. His terror regime showed what he thought about the Czechs

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

I found the following on p. 57 of The Schellenberg Memoirs regarding the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia in early 1939:

"The SD and the German security police at once took over control of the police, working very closely, however, with their Czech colleagues. The Czech police force was an exceptional organization, the men having been most carefully selected and given excellent training. This greatly impressed Himmler. "Exceptional human material!" he exclaimed. "I shall take them all into the Waffen-SS"."

This cannot literally be true, as the Waffen-SS did not yet exist in early 1939, though its SS precursors certainly did.

Cheers,

Sid.

[offizier1916]

@Guttridge:

a little bit off topic:
in the SPIEGEL series i mentioned above, there is also a chapter about the SS and their occupation doctrine. Apparently there were advocates in the SS to introduce a completely different style of occupation.

[Lamarck]

There seems to have been a lot of inconsistency and contradictions when the Nazi treatment of the Czechs is analysed.

When the Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935, Czechs were used as an example of "related blood".

In 1937, Hitler suggested that around two million Czechs could be deported from Czechoslovakia.

Austrians with Czech ancestry were eligible for Reich citizenship after the Anschluss in 1938.

Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, p. 235.

In November 1940, a degree stated that no party member could marry a person "who had at least two grandparents who were members of the Czech, Polish, or Magyar "Volk groups" without permission of the regional party official (Gauleiter).

Eric Ehrenreich, The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution, p. 11.

Farmers that were party members were banned from marrying Czechs or Poles to ""prevent . . . [the latter from] marry into German farmstreads."

Diemut Majer, "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, p. 105.

In 1940, the following was proposed in the Germanization Plan for Bohemia and Moravia:

c. Assimilation of the Czechs, i.e. absorption of about half of the Czech nationality by the Germans, insofar as this is of importance by being valuable from a racial or other standpoint [blut-und sonst wertmaessig Bedentunghat]. This will take place among other things, also by increasing the Arbeitseinsatz of the Czechs in the Reich territory (with the exception of the Sudeten German border district), in other words by dispersing the closed Czech nationality.

The other half of the Czech nationality must be deprived of its power, eliminated, and shipped out of the country by all sorts of methods. This applies particularly to the racially mongoloid part and to the major part of the intellectual class. The latter can scarcely be converted ideologically and would represent a burden by constantly making claims for the leadership over the other Czech classes and thus interfering with a rapid assimilation.

viewtopic.php?t=61467

Anton Weiss Wendt in his book Eradicating Differences: The Treatment of Minorities in Nazi-Dominated Europe wrote on pages 71-74:

Shortly after the occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, the German Interior Ministry issued a degree governing racial policy in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The decree provided for those Czechs deemed racially superior to be assimilated into the German racial community. However, this right was denied to Jews, Gypsies and members of non-European races. Karl Hermann Frank, an SS leader in Prague, composed a position paper on the treatment of Czechs in August 1939. He advocated separating the racially valuable Czechs from the racially inferior ones. Those deemed inferior would be deported to make room for German settlers. He proposed that racial determination would be made by special commissions, possibly under the auspices of public health. Frank's essay was passed on to Hitler, who approved of it.

Nazi policy in the Protectorate became more apparent in September and October 1940, when Hitler met with Karl Hermann Frank and the Reich protector Konstantin von Neurath. Hitler told Neurath that many Czechs could be assimilated into the German Volk, but "those Czechs who are racially useless and hostile to the Reich will be eliminated." While estimating that one-half of the Czechs could be Germanized, he requested a thorough racial screening in order to determine their racial composition. Hitler obviously wanted Germanization for those with Nordic racial traits.

Some scholars suppose that Hitler's acquiescence to Germanization of Czechs constituted an opportunistic breach of Nazi ideology (though others have argued that Germanization policies in the Protectorate were fully consistent with Nazi racial ideology). It seems to me in this case that the interpretation stressing opportunism is based on a misunderstanding. When Hitler railed against Germanizing Poles and Czechs in Mein Kampf, he was criticizing a policy that determined one's membership in the German Volk by linguistic or cultural criteria. Otherwise he stressed the preponderance of race. Hitler never discussed in sufficient detail his views on the composition of the Slavic races and his position on Germanization to determine if the Germanization policies after 1939 marked a departure from previous ideology. However, even if Nazi Germanization policies in Czechoslovakia did mark a shift, it was a matter of refining rather than jettisoning ideology. The core idea of the primacy of race over culture remained intact. Germanizing the populations in Czechoslovakia and Poland that allegedly had featured Nordic racial traits was fully consistent both with the reigning anthropological ideas and with Nazi racial ideology. Many anthropologists assisted in formulating and implementing Nazi policies, and these anthropologists did not alter their ideology. Also, Nazis continually justified their policies on ideological grounds.

Another reason why some scholars have mistaken Nazi racial policies in the East for opportunism is because the Nazis often masked their long-term goals so as not to arouse opposition from the indigenous population. Heydrich, who headed the RSHA, explicitly discussed this point with the Nazi leaders in the Protectorate on October 2, 1941, shortly after he took charge of the Protectorate. He explained that the final goal—and here he ominously used the term Final Solution—for Nazi policy in the Protectorate was to Germanizate that territory. always distinguish between the "short-term tasks caused by wartime necessity" and the "long-range final task." The former included pacifying the population to make it contribute economically to war production. The ultimate goal, however, was to removal all Czechs who were deemed racially inferior. One of the problems with implementing this Germanization policy, according to Heydrich, was that that the regime needed to classify the population along racial lines before deciding who could be Germanized. He called for a racial survey and suggested three surreptitious methods that racial experts might use to camouflage their activities.One ruse was to send out X-ray teams posing as public health officials; another was to survey schoolchildren; and a third way was to examine youths drafted into Labor Service. Only after these racial surveys were completed would Heydrich know who was worthy of Germanization and who should be deported farther east. When discussing in greater detail what to do with the Czechs, Heydrich distinguished between four categories: (1) those who were good racially and well disposed toward Germany (subject to Germanization; (2) those who were bad racially and ill disposed toward Germany (subject to deportation to the East); (3) those who were bad racially but well disposed toward Germany (potential workforce to be sent to Germany, but prevented from reproducing); and (4) those who were racially good, but ill disposed toward Germany (subject to potential Germanization to be sent to Germany, otherwise to be "stood up against a wall."). Those placed in this last category were especially dangerous, because they could form a new Czech leadership.

Two weeks later Heydrich told leading officials in the Protectorate that his planned racial survey should be kept top secret, because he did not want Czechs taking countermeasures. In order to organize a racial inventory of the Protectorate, he was going to have the security police compile a card file. By May 1942, shortly before Heydrich was assassinated, he reported that the racial survey was already underway in the Protectorate. One X-ray team was already working and four others were being assembled. These teams were ostensibly screening for tuberculosis, but their real purpose was to evaluate the individuals' racial composition. In addition to the X-ray teams, Heydrich planned to have groups of racial examiners from the RuSHA carry out surveys.

These deliberations suggest another reason why Nazi officials delayed deportations from the Protectorate and thus appeared opportunistic. First, they needed Czech labor and simply did not have sufficient German settlers to replace the German population. Second, they wanted to carry out the deportations in accordance with scientific date, which would take considerable time and effort to compile. Heydrich thought that 40-60 percent of the Czech population could be Germanized, but the ultimate decisions had to be made by SS anthropologists and racial experts trained to pass judgment on the racial fitness of individuals and families in the Protectorate. This proposal was entirely consistent with Nazi ideology with regard to race and anthropology, but it could not be accomplished in a brief time period.

To be sure, Heydrich's predecessor as leader in the Protectorate, Neurath, had not been as racially conscious as Heydrich, Neurath's regime was fairly liberal when it came to Germanizing Czechs. In this sense, Nazi policy in the Protectorate before Heydrich took over was not completely consistent with Nazi racial ideology. Isabel Heinemann argues that Neurath was replaced by Heydrich because Himmler and Hitler were dissatisfied with his Germanization policies. In any case, after Heydrich took the reins, he brought the Protectorate's policy into line with Nazi racial ideology. He even required those Czechs who had already been Germanized to be reexamined too make sure they were indeed suitable racial material. Heydrich's long-rangee plans were fully consistent with Nazi racial ideology, which would be applied more thoroughly in the future once racial surveys were completed.

Heydrich's policies toward Czechs continued after his assassination. When the Nazis retaliated for Heydrich's assassination by executing all men in two Czech villages and sending the women to concentration camps, the subjected the children from the villages to racial examination by the RuSHA. Nine of the children who had been selected as racially fit for Germanization were sent to an SS Lebensborn home to be raised as Germans (the Lebensborn organization established maternity centers and orphanages to facilitate the birth and raising of children deemed racially superior). All the rest perished in Chelmno death camp. This policy of conducting racial examinations to determine the ultimate fate of Czechs continued unabated thereafter. By the end of 1942 the RuSHA had thirty racial examiners working in the Protectorate to conduct the racial survey Heydrich had begun. Historians estimate that tens of thousands, perhaps over 100,000, Czechs underwent racial screening. As late as 1944, Karl Hermann Frank, the governor of the Protectorate, was still advocating Germanization for those Czechs deemed racially suitable and deportation for the rest. Frank did mention the impossibility of deporting all Czechs as a rationale for this Germanization policy. He did not see any contradictions, since decisions as to who would be deported and who would stay were to be based exclusively on racial considerations.

Chad Carl Bryant in his book Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism wrote on page 56:

In 1939 Nazi officials did not even legislate against sexual relations between Czechs and Germans. Indeeed, while Neurath claimed in summer 1939 that the Nuremberg Laws' prohibition on German-Jewish marriages was in force, no law prevented Jews from marrying Czechs.

I find this contradictory since Czechs were considered to be of "German or related blood" and the Nuremberg Laws prohibited sexual relations between those of "related blood" and Jews.

The Nazis also did nothing about the at least 400 marriages between German men and Czech women even when the latter could hardly speak any German.

Ibid, p. 56.