Himmler: Treatment of Alien Races in the East (1940)

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#16

Post by walterkaschner » 09 Nov 2004, 23:03

Michael Mills wrote:
Making allowances for Himmler's hyperbole, it is obvious that he was proposing a basic level of education, literacy and numeracy for that part of the Polish population, roughly equivalent to the level of education and literacy among the majority of American Negroes in 1940 (and probably equivalent to the average level of literacy among the Polish peasantry at the time).


What Himmler wrote was this:
For the non-German population of the East there must be no higher school than the four-grade elementary school. The sole goal of this school is to be--

Simply arithmetic up to 500 at the most; writing of one's name; the doctrine that it is a divine law to obey the Germans and to be honest, industrious, and good. I don't think that reading is necessary.
David Thompson responded to Mr. Mills by asking:
If you have some proof to accompany your claims about American Blacks in 1940 and the Polish peasantry at the time, please post it.
I have no information to furnish as to the relevant information as to the Polish peasantry, but to save Mr. Mills the trouble of researching as to the situation with American Blacks, I will offer the following statistics, taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1870:

1940 % of Population Illiterate:

Total: 2.9%

White: 2.0%

Black and other: 11.5%


Note that the category "Black and other" is not well defined, and probably includes a substantial number of Hispanic (at that time probably primarily Mexican) immigrant agricultural workers; also the precise meaning of "illiteracy" is not defined, and whether it goes beyond the ability to write one's name - the limit set by Himmler - can not be determined.

An 11.5% illiteracy rate is obviously shameful, but still vastly less than the 100% intended by Himmler for the undesirable Poles. Moreover, Himmler's policy as approved by Hitler was to maintain that level among what was obviously intended to be the vast majority of Poles, Sorbs and Wends so as to create in the General Gouvernement an "inferior population" constituting a vast pool of illiterate "laborers without leaders" which could serve as migrant labor and carry out the "heavy work" required in Germany proper for its "roads, quarries and buildings." In other words, a formally approved German governmental policy of eternal peonage for those felt to be racially inferior.

Admittedly, there were broad areas in the Southern U.S. where local governmental policy towards its black population was still, in 1940, very similar to that proposed by Himmler and approved by Hitler for the "inferior" Poles, Sorbs and Wends. But this was absolutely contrary to the policy of the U.S. federal government. That policy was articulated in the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and was arrived at only at the cost of the bloodiest war in this nation's history. Indeed, it was formally reflected in the post-Civil War Constitutions of most of the States of the defeated Confederacy, but all too often and all too broadly ignored in practice until things began to change in the mid-20th Century.

And despite the refractory attitudes and policies on the part of many local governmental officials in the South, the Southern States by and large took measures, admittedly in many cases laggard and grudging and in most cases by the establishment of separate public schools - purporting to be equal but generally far from it - to provide education for their Negro population. In 1870 80% of U.S. blacks were illiterate, but by 1900 the proportion had shrunk to 44% and by 1940 to something less than 11.5%. The proportion continued to drop thereafter until by 1979 it was down to 1.6%. See Chapter 1 of 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait (Edited by Tom Snyder, National Center for Education Statistics, 1993).

Again, the comparison of the policies of the U.S. Government regarding its African-American citizens with the policies of Nazi Germany toward the Poles and other "inferior" conquered races is ludicrous. And again, I would suggest to Mr. Mills that his contributions to this forum would be greatly enhanced were he to acquire a broader and deeper knowledge of U.S. history and the conditions and attitudes that influenced it. I would suspect that there should be a wealth of reliable literary sources available even in Canberra for such purpose.

Regards, Kaschner

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

#17

Post by michael mills » 10 Nov 2004, 00:46

It is clear that I need to repeat the essential point made in my iniytial post on this thread, since the various responses to my post seem to be ignoring that point.
Obviously, as of May 1940, there was no German extermination plan or intention, not even in regard to the Jews.

Accordingly, the root cause of the mass exterminations perpetrated by German agencies from 1941 onward must be sought elsewhere than in the mind of Hitler or his followers. Rather, it must be sought in the objective circumstances of the war against the Soviet Union and the situation Germany found itself in.
My post addressed German intentions and plans as of May 1940, not subsequent actions that were determined by the course of the war, in particular Germany's failure to achieve a swift victory and resulting necessity to fight a long, grinding war of attrition against enemies who refused to negotiate. German practice did become harsher than the concepts sketched out by Himmler in May 1940; but that was because Germany's position was becoming increasingly desperate.

The moderator insists on advancing documents dating from 1942 and 1943 in an effort to prove the harshness of German measures against ethnic Poles. Of course German practice had become a lot more severe by 1943; but that increasing radicalisation and severity is irrelevant to the issue of German plans and intentions as of May 1940.

The fact is that in May 1940, Himmler rejected the physical extermination of both Poles and Jews as "Bolshevik" and "un-German", and Hitler agreed with that view, commenting that it was "very good and correct" (sehr gut und richtig).

The moderator has made the rather absurd suggestion that both Hitler and Himmler, as at the time of the memorandum, intended and planned a program of extermination targeting Poles and Jews, but that Himmler simply omitted any mention of that program in the memorandum.

However, Himmler did not simply omit mention of a planned program of extermination; he explicitly rejected it.

The moderator appears to be implying that when Himmler wrote a memorandum to Hitler proposing a demographic policy, he wrote the opposite of what he really meant, ie his explicit rejection of physical extermination was actually a tacit approval of it under some sort of secret code known only to the top German leaders, and that Hitler's explicit agreement with Himmler's rejection was actually a tacit agreement with the opposite of what Himmler was saying.

That interpretation rests on the thesis that when top German leaders such as Hitler and Himmler wrote memoranda to each other on matters of the highest importance, they deliberately wrote the opposite of what they meant for the purpose of deceiving future historians. Such a thesis borders on insanity.

As to the suggestion that Himmler was proposing 100% illiteracy for the part of the Polish population that was not to be assimilated into the german people and that would provide a labour force, it is quite obviously mistaken, and takes Himmler's hyperbole at face value.

Himmler was proposing four years of elementary education for Polish children belonging to the unassimilated group. It is clear that by the end of four years of elementary education the children would have achieved basic literacy and numeracy, certainly more than the ability to write their own names and count up to ten.

I recall that by my second year of primary school, when I was six, I could read and write at the basic level, and that after completing four years I could read books and do all the basic arithmetical functions.

Furthermore, Himmler proposed more advanced education for those young Poles who were selected for full assimilation into the German people. The proportion of the Polish population considered suitable for germanisation through education was quite large, certainly appreciably greater than the proportion of descendants of African slaves in the United States which in 1940 had achieved educated, middle-class status. None of my interlocutors has addressed that point.

Himmler also laid down that there should be no discrimination against or abuse of Poles who were being educated for assimilation into the German people. That contrasts with the social position of that small minority of descendants of African slaves in the United States which had achieved a higher level of education; despite their education and middle-class status, and whatever the legal situation, they were discriminated against and not accepted as equals by the "White" middle class anywhere in the United States in 1940. Again, none of my interlocutors has addressed that point.


User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#18

Post by WalterS » 10 Nov 2004, 07:06

Michael Mills wrote
increasing radicalisation and severity
Pray tell, what was this increasing radicalisation and severity?

Once again, Mr. Mills attempts to exonerate the Nazi government of any wrongdoing. He is, again, attempting to skillfully dance around the issue.

The increasing radicalisation and severity was the decision to murder the Jews of Europe. Mr. Mills wants us to exonerate the Nazis because, in May 1940, they hadn't settled upon a plan to murder the Jews of Europe. That came later.

Mr. Mills wants us to believe that the Nazi government's policy toward Jews was totally benign, one of "emigration" and "deportation." Mr. Mills tells us that the Nazi government, while going about its business of conquering and subjugating other countries, was forced to deal with this "Jewish problem" because the locals, i.e. Lithuanians, started murdering people.

I have been admonished by the moderator of this forum not to "excoriate," that is, I should not use terms such as "Holocaust denier," "Nazi apologist," "liar," and "one who misrepresents sources." So, I won't.

I will point out that Mr. Mills's evaluation of the historical record is deeply flawed, one might almost say, pejorative [sorry, David Thompson. I really tried hard not to say "liar"].

I would also point out that Mr. Mills skillfully tries to play word-games. Because Himmler spoke well of Poles in 1940, Mr. Mills argues, he didn't try to murder them in 1941 or 1942, etc. [Damn. Sorry, David. I used that murder word again.]


Mr. Mills, despite repeated requests, has never defined for us what he means by a "radicalisation of German policy" toward Jews. This is because he doesn't want readers to know what he means. He wants you to think that the Germans were benign conquerors duped by the evil Lithuanians into murdering people.

"Radicalisation" of German policy was the decision, taken at the highest levels, to escalate from shooting Jews, which is what the Einsatzgruppen were doing, to murdering them wholesale by gassing them in large numbers. This is what Heydrich presented at Wannsee in January, 1942, not some ludicrous plan to establish day care facilities for Jews on the White Sea.

[The Wannsee notes can be found at http://www.prorev.com/wannsee.htm]

Mr. Mills's arguments have been refuted at every turn. The historical record does not support him at all. This is why he now resorts to comparing Nazi oppression to racial inequities in the United States. Mr. Mills's goal is not one of "historical discussion" or "debating." Mr. Mills's goal is one of establishing moral equivalency, a common denier tactic. [Sorry, David. I used that denier word again.]

The "increasing radicalisation and severity" that Mr. Mills talks about in euphemisms is, of course, the decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe.

Mr. Mills has told us that the impetus for the wholesale slaughter of Jews was foisted upon the Germans by the Lithuanians. Mr. Mills willfully misrepresented source material, an essay by Professor Porat, in an effort to support his preposterous thesis.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

Mr. Mills was called out on that fraud [sorry, David. I used the "fraud" word] so now he devolves to the latest denier tactic, seeking moral equivalency.

Our esteemed Moderator, Mr. David Thompson, has repeatedly told us that this is a "research forum" for historical discussion. This implies that the participants respect the historical record. I have seen no such respect for history in any of Mr. Mills's posts.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#19

Post by David Thompson » 11 Nov 2004, 04:13

Michael -- You wrote:
It is clear that I need to repeat the essential point made in my iniytial post on this thread, since the various responses to my post seem to be ignoring that point.
That's because your other "non-essential" points were so strikingly erroneous that they literally cried out for correction.

Then you said:
The moderator insists on advancing documents dating from 1942 and 1943 in an effort to prove the harshness of German measures against ethnic Poles. Of course German practice had become a lot more severe by 1943; but that increasing radicalisation and severity is irrelevant to the issue of German plans and intentions as of May 1940.
Assuming you read my reply to your first post on this subject, at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 635#570635 you would have seen the following:
(2) The arrest and/or execution of most of the Polish leadership class in the first year of the occupation. On September 27, 1940, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich, head of the RSHA, stated at a conference of senior SS leaders:
Quote:
"Of the Polish upper classes in the occupied territories only a maximum of 3 per cent is still present." (Hoehne 339)

This policy is also mentioned at:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 194#210194
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 998#489998
If you checked those references, you would see that they refer to events which are prior to or contemporaneous with Himmler's remarks, and refute your interpretation of them.

You went on to say:
The fact is that in May 1940, Himmler rejected the physical extermination of both Poles and Jews as "Bolshevik" and "un-German", and Hitler agreed with that view, commenting that it was "very good and correct" (sehr gut und richtig).
Well, given the references above, neither Hitler nor Himmler seem to have been squeamish about the physical extermination of both Poles and Jews, nor were they inhibited by the fact that such practices were "Bolshevik" and "un-German," notwithstanding Himmler's hypocritical reference.

Then you remarked:
The moderator has made the rather absurd suggestion that both Hitler and Himmler, as at the time of the memorandum, intended and planned a program of extermination targeting Poles and Jews, but that Himmler simply omitted any mention of that program in the memorandum.

However, Himmler did not simply omit mention of a planned program of extermination; he explicitly rejected it.

So far from explicitly rejecting it, Himmler ordered such crimes, as can be seen from the references.

You then said:
The moderator appears to be implying that when Himmler wrote a memorandum to Hitler proposing a demographic policy, he wrote the opposite of what he really meant, ie his explicit rejection of physical extermination was actually a tacit approval of it under some sort of secret code known only to the top German leaders, and that Hitler's explicit agreement with Himmler's rejection was actually a tacit agreement with the opposite of what Himmler was saying.
We know what Hitler ordered, and what Himmler did in response, and how Hitler handled the issue, from the thread "Hitler and the murders in Poland" at:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 194#210194

This is sufficient for the readers to understand why you have chosen to misinterpret or mischaracterize the proof against your point of view.

You next remarked:
That interpretation rests on the thesis that when top German leaders such as Hitler and Himmler wrote memoranda to each other on matters of the highest importance, they deliberately wrote the opposite of what they meant for the purpose of deceiving future historians. Such a thesis borders on insanity.

Of course! Since I disagree with you something must be terribly wrong with my mind, even if it requires you miscast the argument to make your point! Even worse for you, I have successfully proven my contentions, while you cannot prove yours. Under circumstances like this, what countermeasure remains, or could be more natural, than an insulting slur?

In addition, you made this statement:
As to the suggestion that Himmler was proposing 100% illiteracy for the part of the Polish population that was not to be assimilated into the german people and that would provide a labour force, it is quite obviously mistaken, and takes Himmler's hyperbole at face value.
By what standard do you distinguish when Himmler is being hyperbolic from when he is being sincere?
Last edited by David Thompson on 11 Nov 2004, 20:06, edited 1 time in total.

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

#20

Post by michael mills » 11 Nov 2004, 05:27

The moderator has failed to recognise the difference between demographic policy, ie measures affecting a whole population, and security policy, ie measures taken against specific groups that because of their political orientation and ideology pose a security risk.

Look again at what Himmler wrote:
Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.
What Himmler was rejecting was the physical extermination of a whole people, ie what is now called "genocide".

He was not rejecting the summary execution of political elements that because of their opposition to the German occupation posed a security risk.

In the latter respect he was acting much like the political leaders of today, who quite openly express their intention to kill oppositional elements termed by them as "terrrorists". Even the hapless Democrat candidate in the recent presidential election in the United States forcefully and repeatedly expressed his determination to exterminate "terrorists".

Accordingly, reference to the measures being taken by German security forces to neutralise Polish nationalist opposition, including the arrest and imprisonment, and in some cases the summary execution, of members of anti-German (and also anti-Soviet) political groups, does not detract from the fact that at the time of those measures (eg the AB-Aktion of April 1940) Himmler expressed his opposition to the physical extermination of a whole people, both Poles and Jews, and labelled such an act as "Bolshevik" and "un-German".

There is no reason to believe that Himmler was being hypocritical in what he wrote to Hitler. As Hitler's trusted confidant, and as the Reichcommissar for the Consolidation of German Ethnicity, he was able to freely speak his mind to Hitler, and there is no reason to believe that he did not do so.

Himmler's memorandum should be taken on face value, and read as his expression of his true thoughts. He rejected physical extermination of the Polish and Jewish ethnic groups; he proposed the expulsion of the Jews to a colony outside Europe, the full assimilation into the German people of part of the Poles, and the preservation of the non-assimilable Poles in their homeland as a labour force working for the benefit of Germany.

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

#21

Post by michael mills » 11 Nov 2004, 05:45

I will also re-post what I wrote on 15 March this year, since the moderator has been kind enough to provide a link to the thread in which it appeared. It encapsulates my view of the security measures undertaken by the German occupiers in Poland up to May 1940.
Of far more importance is an analysis of the context in which the actions directed against specific parts of the Polish population were perpetrated. That context was the secret appendix to the "Borders and Friendship Treaty" of 28 September 1939.

One of the paragraphs of the secret appendix provided that Germany would undertake all action necessary to suppress any subversive activities in its zone of occupation of Poland that could affect the interests of the Soviet Union. That provision had been made at the insistence of Stalin.

The AB-Aktion, which targeted primarily intellectuals of the anti-Soviet wing of Polish nationalism, was most likely carried out under that provision.

On the other hand, some of the German actions were directed against intellectuals who were part of the anti-German wing of Polish nationalism, ie the National Democratic Party of Roman Dmowski (who had died shortly before the war). This wing was concentrated in Western Poland, the former German areas which were re-annexed by Germany.

This area of Western Poland had been the scene of ethnic cleansing after the First World War, and Polish chauvinists had committed many acts of violence against the ethnic German civilian population in the period 1918-1921. The events of late 1939 can therefore be seen as a form of revenge by the ethnic German population with the assistance of German police forces.

The shooting of 800 civilians in Bydgoszcz/Bromberg on 24 October was in that context. The persons selected were generally members of anti-German nationalist organisations, and many of them had participated in the "ethnic cleansing" of 1918-1921. They had been picked by the local ethnic German population, who had borne the brunt of their activities.

As for the killing of inmates of mental hospitals, the German historian Goetz Aly has shown that that was done to make the space available for the incoming ethnic Germans who were being repatriated from the Baltic States under agreements between Germany and those countries and the Soviet Union. I personally regard that killing as more criminal than the shooting of Polish nationalist intellectuals, since they were truly innocent, harmless people, whereas the intellectuals killed were political activists, some of whom had committed anti-German crimes 20 years earlier.

Furthermore, the scale of the killings needs to be kept in perspective. For example, the AB-Aktion, directed against enemies of Stalin (who regarded Poles as one of his main enemies), claimed the lives of 3,500 nationalist intellectuals and 3000 criminals. That should be compared with the 700,000 "enemies of the people" (many of them ethnic Poles) shot by the NKVD between mid-1937 and the end of 1938. The number of Poles shot by the German occupiers between September 1939 and June 1941 pales into insignificance against that mountain of corpses.

Furthermore, the number of ethnic Poles killed in or deported from the parts of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union between September 1939 and June 1941 dwarfs anything done by the German occupiers in their zone. The Polish-Jewish historian, Jan Tomas Gross, in his book "Revolution from Abroad", concludes that the Soviet occupation of East Poland in that period was worse than the German occupation of West Poland.
A further comment on my post of 15 March.

The Polish civilians summarily executed by German security forces in West Poland immediately after the German occupation were mostly members of the League for the Defence of the Western borders, an extremely anti-German Polish chauvinist organisation that proposed the seizure of all German territory east of the Oder, or of the Insurgents' Union, a group which had committed acts of violence against the ethnic German population in Posen, West Prussia and Silesia in the period 1918-1921, causing some 800,000 ethnic Germans to flee from the areas of Germany that were annexed by Poland.

Source of the statistics on ethnic German refugees:

Harald von Rieckhoff, "Polish-German Relations, 1918-1933", Baltimore, 1971.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#22

Post by szopen » 13 Nov 2004, 20:36

Micheal Meals, please post Polish names of that organisations. As you may or may not know, many of intelligentsia shooted were not members of any political organisation, they were shot because theyw ere professors, teachers etc.

As for "acts of violence" you seemed to repeat propaganda about expelling 800.000 Germans. As you know class of clerks, lawyers and teachers was initlaly encouraged by German Government to leave Poland. The rest was forced to leave Poland, one may argue, because they were given choice: choose either Polish citizenship and abandon German and stay in Poland, or leave. Many decided that they do not want to abandon German citizenship and they left.

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

#23

Post by michael mills » 14 Nov 2004, 03:47

Szopen,

I suggest you read the book I referenced. It is actually quite sympathetic to Poland.

One theme that runs through the book is the Polish Government policy of de-germanising the provinces it had acquired from Germany, by exerting pressure of various kinds on the ethnic German population in the area to induce it to emigrate. That policy applied just as much to ethnic Germans who opted for Polish citizenship as to those who opted to retain german citizenship.

The reason for the Polich de-germanisation policy was to remove any German claim to regain the territories it had lost to Poland. Since Poland was subject to the Minorities Treaty, it was required to grant a special status to the ethnic German minority, in the same way as it was obliged to grant a special status to other ethnic minorities, eg Jews, Ukrainians.

Under the terms of the Minorities Treaty, ethnic Germans in Poland were to be permitted to organise as an ethnic group, to run their own schools and community organisations, and to have their own political parties. Thereby a distinct German presence in the areas annexed from Germany (Pomorze, Poznan, East Upper Silesia) could be maintained, providing a case for a revision of the western frontier in Germany's favour.

In order to counter that situation, the Polish Government exerted pressure on the German minority in order to progressively reduce its size and thereby solve what it saw as a problem. After 1921 the pressure exerted was mainly economic, ie confiscating German property. The acts of violence and terror were limited to the period immediately after the First World War, during the various "insurgencies" such as those in Posen Province and in Silesia, and during the referendum campaigns in Upper Silesia and East Prussia.

German Government policy during the 1920s aimed at achieving an economic agreement with Poland that would ease the pressure on the German minority in that country and maintain its presence, thereby supporting the German political campaign for a peaceful revision of the frontier. Details are in the book I referred to.

Some statistics of the German population in Poland:

Poznan and Pomorze:

1910 - 1.099 million (8.6% of population)
1921 - 0.503 million (17.3 %) of population)

Upper Silesia and Teschen:

1910 - 263,698 (26.2% of population)
1921 - 292,980 (28.2% of population)

Galicia:

1910 - 90,114 (1.1% of population)
1921 - 39,810 (0.5% of population)

Other parts of Poland (mainly Lodz):

1910 - 735,550 (4.6% of population)
1921 - 223,067 (1.4% of population)

ALL POLAND:

1910 - 2.189 million (7.9% of population)
1921 - 1.059 million (3.9% of population)

As can be seen, the ethnic German population of the territories that became Poland halve between 1910 and 1921.

Part of that decline was due to the ongoing "Ostflucht", so by 1914 the ethnic German population had already dropped from its 1910 level. But the big decline occurred between the end of 1918 and 1921, when several hundred thousand Germans fled westward in fear of the violence of the Polish insurgents (the latter were often not under the control of the Polish Government, and sometimes acted contrary to its wishes; Pilsudski in particular was opposed to the anti-German campaign, but could not control the chauvinism whipped up by Dmowski and Paderewski).

Of the hundreds of thousands of Germans who left Polish territory, only the 150,000 German civil servants left voluntarily. They were withdrawn by the German Government after the handover of German territory to Poland on 10 January 1920, in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles. The remainder left due to actual violence, threats of violence, or other forms of intimidation and coercion.

After 1921, the ethnic German population continued to decline, mainly due to economic pressure exerted by the Polish Government. For example, by 1931 the German minority had declined further to 741,000, of which only 325,000 lived in Pomorze and Poznan (those were official figures, which tended to deflate the numbers of most minorities, eg the Ukrainians).

I do not know the Polish name of the National Democratic Party, but it is often referred to as Endecja.

The Insurgents' Union is mentioned several times in the book by Von Riekhoff. I do not know the Polish name.

The Polish name of the League for the Defence of the Western Borders is something like Zwiazek Oborona Granic Zachodnich. I have seen the Polish name in print, but I do not have it in front of me now, so I am quoting it from memory; I am not sure of the spelling.

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

#24

Post by michael mills » 14 Nov 2004, 03:55

I have now found the correct name of the organisation.

It is "Zwiazek Obrony Kresow Zachodnich".

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#25

Post by walterkaschner » 14 Nov 2004, 07:50

michael mills wrote:It is clear that I need to repeat the essential point made in my iniytial post on this thread, since the various responses to my post seem to be ignoring that point.
Obviously, as of May 1940, there was no German extermination plan or intention, not even in regard to the Jews.

Accordingly, the root cause of the mass exterminations perpetrated by German agencies from 1941 onward must be sought elsewhere than in the mind of Hitler or his followers. Rather, it must be sought in the objective circumstances of the war against the Soviet Union and the situation Germany found itself in.
My post addressed German intentions and plans as of May 1940, not subsequent actions that were determined by the course of the war, in particular Germany's failure to achieve a swift victory and resulting necessity to fight a long, grinding war of attrition against enemies who refused to negotiate. German practice did become harsher than the concepts sketched out by Himmler in May 1940; but that was because Germany's position was becoming increasingly desperate.
*************************************************************
[Portion omitted]

As to the suggestion that Himmler was proposing 100% illiteracy for the part of the Polish population that was not to be assimilated into the german people and that would provide a labour force, it is quite obviously mistaken, and takes Himmler's hyperbole at face value.

Himmler was proposing four years of elementary education for Polish children belonging to the unassimilated group. It is clear that by the end of four years of elementary education the children would have achieved basic literacy and numeracy, certainly more than the ability to write their own names and count up to ten.

I recall that by my second year of primary school, when I was six, I could read and write at the basic level, and that after completing four years I could read books and do all the basic arithmetical functions.

Furthermore, Himmler proposed more advanced education for those young Poles who were selected for full assimilation into the German people. The proportion of the Polish population considered suitable for germanisation through education was quite large, certainly appreciably greater than the proportion of descendants of African slaves in the United States which in 1940 had achieved educated, middle-class status. None of my interlocutors has addressed that point.

Himmler also laid down that there should be no discrimination against or abuse of Poles who were being educated for assimilation into the German people. That contrasts with the social position of that small minority of descendants of African slaves in the United States which had achieved a higher level of education; despite their education and middle-class status, and whatever the legal situation, they were discriminated against and not accepted as equals by the "White" middle class anywhere in the United States in 1940. Again, none of my interlocutors has addressed that point.
Three points:

1) I quite agree with Mr. Mills that the policy of total extermination of the European Jews had not yet matured in Himmer's - and possibly Hitler's - mind by May 1940. In the burst of euphoria over the swift victory over Poland in September of 1939, Hitler approved a massive resettlement program involving the complete Germanization of East Prussia, Silesia and the Warthegau by the resettlement there of Volksdeutsche living in Eastern Europe (e.g. the Baltics, Volhynia and the area to become the General Gouvernment, which roughly corresponded to the "Congress Poland" as delineated by the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1917 Treaty of Brest Litovsk) To make room for them, the Poles, Jews and Gypsies living in the areas to be Germanized were to be expelled to the General Gouvernment in the East, with the Jews being concentrated in the area the farthest to the East around Lublin and the Poles deprived of their potential leadership elites by systematic executions.

Although some measures were taken to execute this grandiose policy, it soon faltered due to difficulties in finding appropriate space for the Volksdeutsche to be resettled, lack of adequate transportation to handle the huge numbers to be resettled, disruption in the economics of all effected areas and the opposition of the General Gouvernment officials to the influx of such a large number of undesirable Jews. By March 1940 Hitler had given up on the idea of the Lublin Reservation as the solution to the Jewish question.

But with the unexpectedly rapid military advances in the battle for France, another solution came to Himmler's attention - the establishment of Madagascar, then a French colony, as a dumping ground for the Jews of Europe. This half-baked notion, reflected as a possibility in Himmler's May 1940 Memo, was jumped upon by the Nazi bureaucracy and flourished over the summer until forced up against the harsh realization that the continuation of the war with Great Britain rendered the Madagascar Plan totally unrealistic.

For a detailed and fully sourced description of the above see Christopher R. Browning's The Path to Genocide (Cambridge University Press, 1992", paperback ed.) in Chapter 1, "Nazi Resettlement Policy" at 6-20, and his Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers (Cambridge University Press, 2000, paperback ed.) at 3-20. Also the documents quoted in:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 62&start=0

There seems to be a general consensus among more recent historical thought that Hitler's decision to eliminate European Jewry by murder (including working to death) came about sometime in 1941. Christopher Browning gives, IMHO, a fair presentation of the different points of view as to exactly when this decision was made, and opts for mid-October as the point of time at which, in his words, "Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich - and a widening circle of initiates there after - were aware that the ultimate goal or vision of Nazi Jewish policy was now the systematic destruction and no longer the decimation and expulsion of all European Jews." Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers, op cit supra at 39. I personally lean more toward Christian Gerlach's date of mid-December 1941 as the time of the crucial decision, but in any event I agree with Michael Mills that it had not yet been made in May of 1940.

2) As to the degree of education that Himmler proposed for the Poles, I think Mr. Mill's own experience in the primary grades (which much resembles my own, as best I can remember) is entirely irrelevant to the régime that Himmler had in mind and specifically outlined in his memo.

Although after four years Mr. Mills "could read books and do all the basic arithmetical functions" Himmler specifically stated that:
For the non-German population of the East there must be no higher school than the four-grade elementary school. The sole goal of this school is to be--
Simply arithmetic up to 500 at the most; writing of one's name; the doctrine that it is a divine law to obey the Germans and to be honest, industrious, and good. I don't think that reading is necessary.
[My emphasis]
Clearly, Himmler's avowed purpose in the 4 years of elementary schooling was not to educate but to indoctrinate the Polish child, at his most impressionable years, as to the glory of Germany and the divine (probably with a nod to traditional Polish Catholicism) duty of obedience to German dictates, and, as lower class laborers, to follow them honestly, industriously and well. As far as education goes, the ability to deal with numbers up to 500 and to write one's name was altogether sufficient - literacy was specifically not necessary!

Even in the most red-necked areas of the Southern United States never was such a radical policy of indoctinated subservience to a master race officially imposed upon the descendants of African slaves.

3) Mr. Mills believes that "The proportion of the Polish population considered suitable for germanisation through education was quite large, certainly appreciably greater than the proportion of descendants of African slaves in the United States which in 1940 had achieved educated, middle-class status."

I read somewhere, and I regret that I can't now find the source, that it was estimated that about 1/8 of the Polish youths would be considered suitable for Germanization. I don't have any figures as to what proportion of the U.S. negro population at the time had "achieved educated, middle class status" - however defined - by 1940, but certainly more than 12 1/2 % had received an education entiteling them to such a status, even though such status had, as in many instances was truly the case, been denied them by the effect of private, unofficial attitudes on the part of much (but by no means all) of the white population.

And there is a great deal of truth in Mr. Mills assertion that in 1940 even those educated blacks who had achieved middle class status were not accepted as equals and were discriminated against and not accepted as equals in most (but not all) areas of the U.S. Examples such as Dorothy Dandridge's treatment at the Stork Club and the refusal to permit Marian Anderson to sing at Washington D. C.'s Constitution Hall certainly abound, but this was not the result of governmental but rather of private policy - and indeed, in the case of Marian Anderson, the public outrage at the refusal was so great that the U.S. Department of the Interior arranged for her to perform her concert at the Lincoln Memorial, at which some 75,000 attended.

Granted that there were very substantial injustices, both official at a local level and privately inspired at a broader national level, prevalent in the U. S. against Negros in the 1940s, in light of the fact that the U.S. government and- eventually- the large majority (but admittedly not the entirety) of the U.S. people have abandoned any notion of discrimination and have accepted the African-Americans as equals in every way, I would simply ask Mr. Mills two questions:

1st - Does he really believe that the policies of the U.S. government in 1940 toward the descendants of the African-American slaves were in any way equally oppresive to the Nazi policies toward the Poles, as set forth in Himmler's May 1940 memo? - and

2nd -What does he believe the attitude of Himmler and Hitler would have been toward the Negro population had the Nazis been at the head of the U. S. government in 1940 - and where does he believe that population (if it still existed) would stand today?

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#26

Post by WalterS » 14 Nov 2004, 08:25

A most excellent post, Mr. Kaschner. However, you made this statement:
1) I quite agree with Mr. Mills that the policy of total extermination of the European Jews had not yet matured in Himmer's - and possibly Hitler's - mind by May 1940
This implies that Mr. Mills has agreed that there was, indeed, at some point, a willful decision by the Nazi Government to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Mr. Mills has steadfastly argued against such an intent on the part of the Nazi government. He has stated over and over that the "Final Solution" was not extermination, but deportation. He has stated that the Wannsee Conference was called for the purpose of establishing day care camps for Jews on the White Sea and Mr. Mills has blamed the Lithuanians for unleashing the murderous tendencies of the Einsatzgruppen.

Mr. Mills has never agreed with you, Mr. Kaschner. His latest gambit of trying to equate US racial history with "The Final Solution" is merely an attempt to establish moral equivalency.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#27

Post by szopen » 14 Nov 2004, 10:49

I will reserach in my library and post answer by Tuesday or Monday. Right now i must only note, that actions of liquidating of Polish intelligentsia were not limited to insurgents, members of different organisations, and that calling Paderewski chauvinist is ridiculous.

It's true about economical pressure - though it changed from time to time. For the first tiem i have read about "confiscations" of property. But I hope M. Mills realises that situation of Polish minority in Germany was no better, or even worse than German one in Polish (if only for economical reasons: German minority in Poland was very strong economically), since in whole Germany there existed only ONE (private) school (in Bytom) and there had to be apellation to LN to not close it.

As for official data, there is no point in not trusting it: while numbers in eastern Poland are widely agreed to be skewed, the numbers in Western Poland were independently checked by German minority organisations and the differences are within statistical error.

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

#28

Post by michael mills » 15 Nov 2004, 01:03

Response to Mr Kaschner:

1. Did the Government of the United States actually have any enunciated policies in regard to the Negro population in 1940? Policies that it was enforcing?

I was under the impression that such matters were the province of individual states which in practice were left alone to do whatever they liked, regardless of the constitutional rights that existed on paper.

2. I dare say that if Hitler and Himmler had been ruling the United States in 1940, and Congress had voted to suspend the Constitution and State Governments had been replaced by Federal Commissioners, then Hitler as President and Himmler as Secretary for Homeland Security would have issued decrees confining persons of Negro race, as defined by law, to the subordinate status that most them occupied de facto at the time.

If the 1935 Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honour is any guide, persons known to be of mixed African and European ancestry would have been defined as hybrids (Mischlinge), and would have occupied an intermediate status. Persons with only 25% of Negro blood would presumably have been compelled by law to marry only "Whites" (as was the case under the afore-mentioned German law), thereby causing them to be absorbed into the "White" population.

Persons with less than 25% of African ancestry (ie persons with three "White" grandparents and one grandparent with less than 100% African ancestry) would no doubt not have been defined as "Negro", and would be legally free to integrate into the wider population (to the extent that public prejudice would allow them to do so).

If persons defined under law as "Negro" were permitted to remain in the Northern cities as cheap labour without any rights, that would no doubt have been welcomed by the Jewish businessmen who at the time were ruthlessly exploiting them.

If persons defined as "Negro" were expelled from the North and confined to the South, I dare say that would have been welcomed by WASP property-owners in the region, who would have benefitted from the flood of coerced labour.

Who knows what would have happened once Hitler and Himmler retired from office and went on the lecture circuit. If the Constitution were reinstated, no doubt history would have resumed the course it actually took, although the time-frame can only be guessed at.

The above is based on the assumption that the United States under the Hitler-Himmler Administration never found itself in the situation that Germany was in from 1939 to 1945, ie under blockade and teetering on the edge of starvation, faced with the need to deny food to some parts of the population in order to feed the more favoured parts. I cannot imagine any scenario in which the situation of the United States at war would have come anywhere near that of Germany.

WalterS mendaciously and malevolently claimed that I was trying "to equate US racial history with "The Final Solution" ".

That is as usual a falsehood. What I did was to compare the status proposed by Himmler in May 1940 for that part of the Polish population that was not fit for assimilation into the German people, ie as a pool of poorly educated cheap labour with no political rights, with the de facto status of the bulk of the population descended from African slaves in the United States, and point out the essential similarity.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#29

Post by Dan » 15 Nov 2004, 01:38

Mr. Mills has never agreed with you, Mr. Kaschner.
He's done it often, and visa versa. Why do you insist on patronising everyone on this forum? As if you feel it's your duty to protect the rest of us from heresy.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

#30

Post by Sergey Romanov » 15 Nov 2004, 02:34

> He's done it often, and visa versa.

Quite obviously, Walter S meant this particular case.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”