Lebensborn - what was actually its aim

Discussions on the role played by and situation of women in the Third Reich not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#31

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002, 13:58

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Well, I think the Redskins were savages by American or European standards. And so would anybody whose children had been stolen. Nevertheless, "savages" are still human beings.
The Slavs, on the other hand, were not exactly human in the Nazis' eyes.

They were "sub-humans" (Untermenschen) or, in Himmler's words, "human animals" (Menschentiere).

Thanks for pointing out the difference.
Or, perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism.
:idea:
Smith obviously hasn't read Himmler's own words, as kindly translated by one of his fellow true believers:
[...]Whatever people may tell you about the Russians, it's all true. It's true that some of the Russians are fervently pious, and fervently believe in the Mother of God of the Khasans or someplace else, it's absolutely true. It's true that the Volga boatmen sing beautifully; it's true that the Russian of today, in modern times, is a good improviser and good technician. It's true, for the most part, that he's even a lover of children. It's true that he can work very hard. And it's just as true that he is stinking lazy. It's just as true that he is an uninhibited beast, who can torture and torment other people in ways a devil would never permit himself to think of. It's just as true that the Russian, high or low, is inclined to the perversest of things, even devouring his comrades or keeping his neighbour's liver in his lunch bag. It's all part of the scale of feelings and values of the Slavic peoples. It's often purely a matter of chance which lot he draws; and to people who don't know the beast, he is often a very great riddle: what is the fellow up to now?

The Russians themselves know each other very well, and have invented a very practical system, whether it was the Czars with the Ochrana, or Mr. Lenin and Mr. Stalin with the GPU or the NKVD. When four Russians get together, with little father, little mother, and their little children, not one of the 4 or 5 knows who is betraying whom at the moment: which one is the informer betraying the father now: is it the mother, or the daughter? And who, in return, is betraying them? In doubtful cases there may be two, even three, informers in this family. I am not exaggerating. This remark is entirely accurate with regards to the city. In the countryside, our comrades who have been over there in the East can confirm that there are still 20 or 30 NKVD informers and agents in every village, even after the withdrawal of the Bolsheviks. This ensures, to an absolute certainty, that no conspiracy can get started, because everything will still be reported to the top by means of this informer apparatus. Then comes the pistol or deportation, and that is how this entire people must be governed.

Heart in the wrong place

It is basically wrong for us to project our whole harmless soul and heart, all our good nature, our idealism, onto foreign peoples. This applies to Herder, who wrote the "Voices of the Peoples", probably in a drunken hour, and caused us, in later generations, such boundless suffering and misery. That applies to the Czechs and Slovenes, to whom, after all, we brought their national feeling. They themselves were absolutely incapable of it; rather, we invented it for them.

For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down <umfallen> from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany.

We will never be hard and heartless when it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, the only ones in the world with a decent attitude towards animals, will also adopt a decent attitude with regards to these human animals; but it is a sin against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, so that our sons and grandchildren will have a harder time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I can't build tank ditches with children <?> or women. That's inhumane, they'll die doing it." Then I must say: "You are a murderer of your own blood, since, if the tank ditches are not built, then German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. That is our blood." That is how I would like to indoctrinate this SS, and, I believe, have indoctrinated, as one of the holiest laws of the future: our concern, our duty, is to our people, and to our blood. That is what we must care for and think about, work for and fight for, and nothing else. Everything else can be indifferent to us. I wish the SS to face the problem of all foreign, non-Germanic peoples, particularly the Russians, with this attitude. Everything else is moonshine, a fraud against our own people, and an obstacle to earlier victory in the war.[...]
Source of quote:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Emphasis is mine.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#32

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002, 16:59

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Well, I think the Redskins were savages by American or European standards. And so would anybody whose children had been stolen. Nevertheless, "savages" are still human beings.
The Slavs, on the other hand, were not exactly human in the Nazis' eyes.

They were "sub-humans" (Untermenschen) or, in Himmler's words, "human animals" (Menschentiere).

Thanks for pointing out the difference.
Or, perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism.
:idea:
Smith obviously hasn't read Himmler's own words, as kindly translated by one of his fellow true believers:
[...]
Source of quote:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Emphasis is mine.
Yes, we have discussed the Posen speech before, and without electronic analysis of the recorded disks to support their dubious origins and finding the complete recorded speech, not just the smoking-gun parts and text used at Nuremberg, it doesn't have much credibility, IMHO. Himmler had a lot of power but he wasn't Führer. And in any case, you have taken it out of context. It sounds like a pep-talk given to the Obergruppenführers, and most of the three-hour speech was pretty dull. Besides, lots of wartime firebrands wanted to "kill the Krauts and grease the treads of our tanks with their guts," and so on; that doesn't quite make bellicose hyperbole literal American policy. Besides, there's no need to translate the IMT's document 1919PS; it is printed in English in the Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Red Books. I can get you complete chapter and verse exactly as published in 1946 if you want. I'm sure it is also online in English at Yale's Avalon site as well, so I don't see your point.

Nice try.
:)


User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#33

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002, 17:59

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Well, I think the Redskins were savages by American or European standards. And so would anybody whose children had been stolen. Nevertheless, "savages" are still human beings.
The Slavs, on the other hand, were not exactly human in the Nazis' eyes.

They were "sub-humans" (Untermenschen) or, in Himmler's words, "human animals" (Menschentiere).

Thanks for pointing out the difference.
Or, perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism.
:idea:
Smith obviously hasn't read Himmler's own words, as kindly translated by one of his fellow true believers:
[...]
Source of quote:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Emphasis is mine.
Scott Smith wrote:Yes, we have discussed the Posen speech before, and without electronic analysis of the recorded disks to support their dubious origins and finding the complete recorded speech, not just the smoking-gun parts and text used at Nuremberg, it doesn't have much credibility, IMHO. Himmler had a lot of power but he wasn't Führer.
Poor Smith must be feeling very uncomfortable with Himmler's Posen speech, for he's already squealing "forgery".

Which doesn't get him anywhere, of course, because the confirmations by witnesses and coincidence with handwritten notes and typewritten transcripts leave little room for doubt as to the authenticity of the tape recording of Himmler's speech (whose origins, needless to say, are "dubious" only in Smith's twisted mind).

If Smith thinks he can nevertheless prove that the recording is not authentic by submitting it to electronic analysis, he is welcome to give it a try. Fellow true believers, as Smith knows, have been given a chance to do so and got cold feet.
Scott Smith wrote:And in any case, you have taken it out of context.
Boy, does that sound feeble. I quoted the whole chapter of the speech wherein the highlighted statements were made so that there is no doubt about the context, and provided a link to Porter's translation of the speech for those who want to read the whole of it. Porter considered it necessary to manipulate the translation of the passage related to the "Jewish Question", but what Himmler said about about the "human animals" doesn't seem to have bothered him.
Scott Smith wrote:It sounds like a pep-talk given to the Obergruppenführers,
To a true believer like Smith, perhaps, who for obvious reasons tries to put off every statement that doesn't fit into his bubble as mere "rhetoric". What we have here, however, is an insider addressing an audience of other insiders about about policies and principles the fulfillment of which is their task and their reason of being. No rhetoric there.
Scott Smith wrote:and most of the three-hour speech was pretty dull
Exactly, Mr. Smith. How does that go with rhetoric to fire up the troops?
Scott Smith wrote:Besides, lots of wartime firebrands wanted to "kill the Krauts and grease the treads of our tanks with their guts," and so on; that doesn't quite make bellicose hyperbole literal American policy.
The statements Smith is referring to here are propaganda rhetoric, not the discussion of matters and principles deemed important among insiders, which is what Himmler's speeches were.

Smith knows this, of course.

Why else would he consider it necessary to dispute the authenticity of the recording?
Scott Smith wrote:Besides, there's no need to translate the IMT's document 1919PS; it is printed in English in the Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression Red Books. I can get you complete chapter and verse exactly as published in 1946 if you want. I'm sure it is also online in English at Yale's Avalon site as well, so I don't see your point.
Oh, so Smith has read it before.

And was thus aware of the "human animals" passage.

And nevertheless suggested that
Scott Smith wrote:perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism
What shall we call such procedure, Mr. Smith?

Another of your transparent lies, perhaps?
Scott Smith wrote:Nice try.
Poor Smith is flattering himself. His try was a rather miserable one, in my opinion.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

KILL da KRAUTS...

#34

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002, 18:46

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:and most of the three-hour speech was pretty dull
Exactly, Mr. Smith. How does that go with rhetoric to fire up the troops?
By throwing in something to wake them up, silly. Himmler wanted to make sure they got off their asses and adopted the cruel mindset thought necessary to win the war. His audience were high-ranking SS bureaucrats, some of whom probably didn't smell the blood and cordite much.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:Besides, lots of wartime firebrands wanted to "kill the Krauts and grease the treads of our tanks with their guts," and so on; that doesn't quite make bellicose hyperbole literal American policy.
The statements Smith is referring to here are propaganda rhetoric, not the discussion of matters and principles deemed important among insiders, which is what Himmler's speeches were.
Sure, parts of it were propaganda rhetoric, obviously so.
Smith knows this, of course.

Why else would he consider it necessary to dispute the authenticity of the recording?
That the IMT tried to make cash out of it, and that the origins of the recording are suspect, is reason enough for skepticism regarding its authenticity. As I said, it was a three-hour speech, and all we have are the smoking-gun portions. Curious.
Oh, so Smith has read it before...
Smith even has a copy in his possession photocopied from the 1946 Red Books. We've debated the Posen speech before and unless you have some new evidence I don't see the point. You obviously put great faith in smoking-guns, as long as they say what you want them to.
Roberto wrote:...and was thus aware of the "human animals" passage.

And nevertheless suggested that
Scott wrote:perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism
I guess Germans must really be "human vegetables," then.
:mrgreen:

Or does Roberto simply wish to rehabilitate American nationalism?
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#35

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002, 19:37

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:and most of the three-hour speech was pretty dull
Exactly, Mr. Smith. How does that go with rhetoric to fire up the troops?
Scott Smith wrote:By throwing in something to wake them up, silly.
Well, that "something" came very much at the beginning of the speech, didn’t exactly follow a passage more boring than any other, and seems to have been loaded with important messages like:
For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down <umfallen> from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany.

Scott Smith wrote:Himmler wanted to make sure they got off their asses and adopted the cruel mindset thought necessary to win the war.
I didn’t find much in the speech that sounded like Himmler thought he was talking to beginners or softies, but maybe Smith can enlighten us.
Scott Smith wrote:His audience were high-ranking SS bureaucrats, some of whom probably didn't smell the blood and cordite much.
Those seem to have been in the minority, if you consider this passage:
Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard.
Smith wrote:Besides, lots of wartime firebrands wanted to "kill the Krauts and grease the treads of our tanks with their guts," and so on; that doesn't quite make bellicose hyperbole literal American policy.
Roberto wrote:The statements Smith is referring to here are propaganda rhetoric, not the discussion of matters and principles deemed important among insiders, which is what Himmler's speeches were.
Scott wrote:Sure, parts of it were propaganda rhetoric, obviously so.
“Obviously” platitudes are hardly a substitute for arguments that Smith doesn’t have.

Let’s look at the context of the above quoted passage:
I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation <Ausrottung> of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated" <wird ausgerottet>, says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination <Ausschaltung> of the Jews, extirpation <Ausrottung>; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it's quite clear that the others are pigs, but this one is one first-class Jew. Of all those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard.
Porter’s feeble attempts to mistranslate Himmler’s words notwithstanding, what becomes clear from the above is that an insider is talking to insiders about insider matters here.

"We know what nobody else knows, and we had the guts to do what nobody else would", he is telling his listeners.

Hardly mere rhetoric.

He is sharing consciousness of the burden of a gruesome task that he and his minions have taken upon themselves to carry out.
Roberto wrote:Smith knows this, of course.

Why else would he consider it necessary to dispute the authenticity of the recording?
Scott wrote:That the IMT tried to make cash out of it, and that the origins of the recording are suspect, is reason enough for skepticism regarding its authenticity.
“It was used by the IMT, so something must be wrong with it”, Smith is reasoning.

Why so, Mr. Smith?

Because the IMT’s findings don’t fit into your ideological bubble, perhaps?
Smith wrote:As I said, it was a three-hour speech, and all we have are the smoking-gun portions. Curious.
Well, apart from the fact that only those portions are of interest to criminal investigation, Porter’s translations doesn’t exactly consist only thereof.

On the contrary, most of what he translated is rather innocuous stuff about the course of the war, economy, the Vlassov movement, SS principles and other perfectly boring stuff.

I thought Smith had read document 1919-PS.

In case he has not, here is the link to his fellow true believer's translation, once again:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html
Roberto wrote:Oh, so Smith has read it before...
Smith wrote: Smith even has a copy in his possession photocopied from the 1946 Red Books. We've debated the Posen speech before and unless you have some new evidence I don't see the point.
The point, my dear Smith, is that Himmler’s assessment of the Slavs makes your apologetic assertions look rather ridiculous.
Smith wrote:You obviously put great faith in smoking-guns, as long as they say what you want them to.
“Smoking-guns” say what the author wanted to convey to his listeners or readers, not what any self-serving interpretation wants them to.

Smith will thus have to live with the fact that his apologetic interpretations are based on wishful thinking rather than the contents of the document in question.
Roberto wrote:...and was thus aware of the "human animals" passage.

And nevertheless suggested that
Smith wrote:perhaps the "Untermensch" thesis is a bit overblown by those who wish to discredit German nationalism
Smith wrote:I guess Germans must really be "human vegetables," then.
:mrgreen:

Or does Roberto simply wish to rehabilitate American nationalism?
:)
Know something, buddy, I’ll just put that imbecile attempt at “comic relief” next to Himmler’s statement:
We will never be hard and heartless when it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, the only ones in the world with a decent attitude towards animals, will also adopt a decent attitude with regards to these human animals; but it is a sin against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, so that our sons and grandchildren will have a harder time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I can't build tank ditches with children <?> or women. That's inhumane, they'll die doing it." Then I must say: "You are a murderer of your own blood, since, if the tank ditches are not built, then German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. That is our blood." That is how I would like to indoctrinate this SS, and, I believe, have indoctrinated, as one of the holiest laws of the future: our concern, our duty, is to our people, and to our blood. That is what we must care for and think about, work for and fight for, and nothing else. Everything else can be indifferent to us. I wish the SS to face the problem of all foreign, non-Germanic peoples, particularly the Russians, with this attitude. Everything else is moonshine, a fraud against our own people, and an obstacle to earlier victory in the war.
(emphasis is mine)

and let our readers draw their own conclusions about the mind of Mr. Smith.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#36

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Oct 2002, 20:07

Roberto wrote:“It was used by the IMT, so something must be wrong with it”, Smith is reasoning.

Why so, Mr. Smith?

Because the IMT’s findings don’t fit into your ideological bubble, perhaps?
Because the IMT had an agenda to find Germany guilty, which would be obvious to anyone who was not a "human vegetable."

"Slavs are animals!" ~ "KILL da KRAUTS!"

Are you trying to rehabilitate American nationalism, Roberto, with your moral-equivalency arguments?
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#37

Post by Roberto » 03 Oct 2002, 20:46

Roberto wrote:“It was used by the IMT, so something must be wrong with it”, Smith is reasoning.

Why so, Mr. Smith?

Because the IMT’s findings don’t fit into your ideological bubble, perhaps?
Scott Smith wrote:Because the IMT had an agenda to find Germany guilty, which would be obvious to anyone who was not a "human vegetable."
Well, it seems that it's obvious only to the Führer's faithful followers.

Which is not surprising, given that the IMT's "agenda" was to establish the defendants' guilt by assessment of evidence and to give them a fair trial.
Scott Smith wrote:"Slavs are animals!"
An ideological article of faith and a political principle.
Scott Smith wrote:"KILL da KRAUTS!"
A propaganda slogan.

When will poor Smith learn to tell apples from oranges?
The history of German rule in occupied Russia in general, and of its security measures in particular, also reveals much about Hitler’s responsibility for the immeasurable atrocities that took place during the war. Certainly, although he gave orders of great cruelty concerning the policies to be pursued towards the Russian people, they included no mention of any desire to commit genocide. Perhaps, therefore, it could be argued that he had no intention of allowing his political officials and soldiers to engage in the destruction of twenty million Russians, of whom at least 750,000 were Jews - the enormity of which figures becomes clear when it is realized that the number of Soviet soldiers and partisans killed in battle amounted to around one third of the total. Perhaps, even, it might be said that the Führer had no knowledge that such wholesale slaughter, initiated solely by subordinates such as Heinrich Himmler, was taking place. Perhaps. But what can be established beyond doubt is that it was Hitler, and he alone, who created the conditions whereby such evil could be done. He shaped the mentality of the invaders. Without his diatribes against the Slavs and the Jews - the Untermensch - and without his orders, or those emanating at his instigation and with his approval from his military staffs, the High Commands of the Wehrmacht and the Army, the atrocities perpetrated by his SS men and his soldiers would not have taken place. As Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, Chief of the SS Anti-Partisan formations, was to tell the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg after the war: ‘If, for decades, a doctrine is preached that the Slav race is an inferior race, and the Jews not even human at all, then such an explosion is inevitable’. For that, Hitler must bear responsibility.
Source of quote:

The Phantom War
The German struggle against Soviet partisans 1941-1944

by Matthew Cooper
Macdonald and Jane’s Publishers Limited, London, 1979

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#38

Post by Scott Smith » 04 Oct 2002, 01:40

Roberto wrote:
"Slavs are animals!"

An ideological article of faith and a political principle.
But not at all a propaganda slogan, I assume you are saying.
Roberto wrote:
"KILL da KRAUTS!"

A propaganda slogan.
Apparently much more than that, as millions of dead German "vegetables" would attest.
:roll:

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 14:51
Location: Australia

#39

Post by Davey Boy » 04 Oct 2002, 07:05

And just because someone has Nordic characterstics in Poland doesn't mean they're of German descent. They might be pure Poles. On the other hand, those with dark hair may have German blood. Why weren't such people "re-Germanized" Michael? Answer me that.

Michael Mills, where is the answer to my question? Why didn't the Nazis sift through old church records trying to find Polish children of German heritage? Why did they instead measure heads and check eye and hair color? Waiting...

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

#40

Post by michael mills » 04 Oct 2002, 10:59

Hetman wrote:
Michael Mills, where is the answer to my question? Why didn't the Nazis sift through old church records trying to find Polish children of German heritage? Why did they instead measure heads and check eye and hair color? Waiting...
How can I possibly answer this question? In order to do so, I would need to have access to all the files on the Polish children who were taken away for germanisation (Eindeutschung), so that I could see on what basis they were selected. Obviously, I do not have that access.

The macro-level fact is that Himmler believed that over the centuries many tens of thousands of persons of German blood had been absorbed into the the Polish nation through the process of ethnic assimilation ( and this belief was historically correct), and he set out to identify the descendants of those persons and "reclaim" them for the German nation.

Whether he correctly identified those descendants, and whether the methods used to identify them had any scientific validity, is an entirely different issue.

The essential issue is that, according to Nazi racial theory, persons of "alien blood" could not and should not be absorbed into the German people, since that would have the effect of "polluting the blood". However, according to that same theory, persons belonging to non-German ethnic groups (eg Slavs, Balts) who were descended from persons of German "blood" could be safely absorbed into the German people through a process of acculturation (learning German etc), since their inherited "blood" was presumably German and not alien.

Of course, it may well be that the theory that the Polish children seized were of German racial descent may have been purely a rationalisation, a way of justifying the absorption of alien "blood" that should theoretically have been prohibited under Nazi racial doctrine.

Himmler's rationalisation for the process of germanising persons of Slavic origin bears an uncanny resemblance to the traditional Judaic justification for the acceptance of converts. As you probably know, Judaism teaches that a Jew is a person descended from the ancient 12 tribes of Israel, which theoretically precludes the conversion of gentiles. However, that problem was obviated by claiming that proselytes were not really gentiles, but actually descendants of the 10 tribes which according to biblical tradition had been dispersed by the Assyrian invasion; hence, they were actually persons of Israelite blood who had lost their connection to the Jewish people, and were being "reclaimed" through the process of religious conversion.

It was the usual practice to attribute converts to Judaism to the tribe of Dan. The soubriquet "haddani" always indicates convert origin.

The similarity between that Judaic tradition and the concept that the East European peoples contained manypersons of Germanic origin who needed to be "reclaimed" need not surprise. Many of the key concepts of European racism in fact had their origin in Judaic ideology, eg the concept of "purity of blood". These concepts were transmitted from Jews to Christians in Spain, and first appeared in gentile society in the 15th century, in the form of "limpieza de sangre". That racial concept then spread from Spain to other European countries.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#41

Post by Roberto » 04 Oct 2002, 11:14

Roberto wrote:
"Slavs are animals!"

An ideological article of faith and a political principle.
Scott Smith wrote:But not at all a propaganda slogan, I assume you are saying.
Propaganda to a certain extent, but the Nazis took it far more seriously than that. It actually had the quality of science in their eyes.
Roberto wrote:
"KILL da KRAUTS!"

A propaganda slogan.
Scott Smith wrote:Apparently much more than that, as millions of dead German "vegetables" would attest.
Boy, and I thought most of those millions were killed in the course of military actions aimed at bringing about the surrender of a military enemy.

Most German military casualties were attributable to the Soviet army, by the way. Which didn't call them "krauts" (after Sauerkraut, a dish that Germans are supposed to be very fond of and actually originated in Alsace, IIRC) but "fritzes" (after the popular German first name "Fritz", short for "Friedrich").
Last edited by Roberto on 04 Oct 2002, 11:33, edited 3 times in total.

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 14:51
Location: Australia

#42

Post by Davey Boy » 04 Oct 2002, 11:30

Mr Mills,

I don't care about all of that. The issue is this:

Himmler and his cronies believed that the Nordic race was almost holy. Never mind that there never was any scientific or historical proof to back this up. And never mind that many Nazis had actually rejected this theory (see my post in the thread of about blonds).

So off they (Himmler and his band) went to conquered Poland, to find this "holy" blood and incorporate it into the German nation. This, they firmly believed, would make the Third Reich stronger.

There is ample evidence to prove that they chose only the children who were perfect Nordics (ie. long heads, narrow faces, fair hair and eyes...). All the children who returned from Poland from Germany after the war were of this physical type.

On the other hand, children who may have been of German blood but did not posses such physical traits, were NOT chosen. And no one bothered to check whether they did have any German ancestors. In fact, many of them were sent to work camps, and only some returned alive.

Hmm, interesting. So what can we gather from this? Quite clearly that the Nazis didn't give a fig about rescuing "their" children from so called savages. All they wanted was that Nordic blood.

So, Himmler's reason for kidnapping children from Poland was utter crap. It was just an excuse for putting into practice his bizarre racial policies.

Now, you implied that Himmler wasn't "entirely" talking through his hat. That he did have at least some reason for what he did. 'Fraid not, Mr Mills. Himmler WAS talking through his hat, because he didn't go after children of German heritage. He went after children of the NORDIC phenotype. In other words, it was a sick policy fuelled by sick and utterly usless pseudo science.

Conclusion: you were wrong, my antipodean friend, and you should just admit it.

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

#43

Post by michael mills » 04 Oct 2002, 11:52

Hetman wrote:
So, Himmler's reason for kidnapping children from Poland was utter crap. It was just an excuse for putting into practice his bizarre racial policies.

Now, you implied that Himmler wasn't "entirely" talking through his hat. That he did have at least some reason for what he did. 'Fraid not, Mr Mills. Himmler WAS talking through his hat, because he didn't go after children of German heritage. He went after children of the NORDIC phenotype. In other words, it was a sick policy fuelled by sick and utterly usless pseudo science.

Conclusion: you were wrong, my antipodean friend, and you should just admit it.
Well, the fact is that Himmler himself always talked of "Germanic" blood rather than of "Nordic" blood, ie he associated certain physical features with the Germanic ethnic group. His writings and speeches clearly indicate that he regarded the appearance of those physical features among different Eastern European peoples as signs of inheritance from Germanic tribes which had lived in the area in ancient times, and from more recent German immigrants, and that he saw himself as reclaiming "lost" German blood for the German people.

He regarded persons of German "blood", whatever their ethnicity, as genetically predisposed toward leadership. Accordingly, wherever individuals of German "blood", as identified by their physical features, existed among other peoples, they either had to be "reclaimed" for the German people, ie "regermanised", or destroyed, as they would constitute, by reason of their genetic endowment, the leadership of resistance to German rule.

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 14:51
Location: Australia

#44

Post by Davey Boy » 04 Oct 2002, 13:00

michael mills wrote:Hetman wrote:
So, Himmler's reason for kidnapping children from Poland was utter crap. It was just an excuse for putting into practice his bizarre racial policies.

Now, you implied that Himmler wasn't "entirely" talking through his hat. That he did have at least some reason for what he did. 'Fraid not, Mr Mills. Himmler WAS talking through his hat, because he didn't go after children of German heritage. He went after children of the NORDIC phenotype. In other words, it was a sick policy fuelled by sick and utterly usless pseudo science.

Conclusion: you were wrong, my antipodean friend, and you should just admit it.
Well, the fact is that Himmler himself always talked of "Germanic" blood rather than of "Nordic" blood, ie he associated certain physical features with the Germanic ethnic group. His writings and speeches clearly indicate that he regarded the appearance of those physical features among different Eastern European peoples as signs of inheritance from Germanic tribes which had lived in the area in ancient times, and from more recent German immigrants, and that he saw himself as reclaiming "lost" German blood for the German people.

He regarded persons of German "blood", whatever their ethnicity, as genetically predisposed toward leadership. Accordingly, wherever individuals of German "blood", as identified by their physical features, existed among other peoples, they either had to be "reclaimed" for the German people, ie "regermanised", or destroyed, as they would constitute, by reason of their genetic endowment, the leadership of resistance to German rule.

Yes, but you implied that what Himmler was doing actually made some sense. You even tried to justify it by giving me a brief history of the assimilation of Germans into the Polish nation.

But there is absolutely no proof that German blood was reclaimed by the Nazis as a result of this exercize. That's because they didn't bother looking for it.

Even at that time, with their dodgy view of history and anthropology, there was no evidence that people with Nordic characteristics in Poland were more Germanic than the rest of the population. So, either Himmler was a complete idiot for believing such things, or he didn't care. And then, of course, there's the issue of forcibly taking children from their natural parents.

Either way, what he did was absolutely wrong. And don't try to lessen or explain away his crime, because, as far as this argument is concerned, you do not have a leg to stand on.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002, 14:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

#45

Post by viriato » 04 Oct 2002, 14:56

Hetman wrote:
You even tried to justify it by giving me a brief history of the assimilation of Germans into the Polish nation.

But there is absolutely no proof that German blood was reclaimed by the Nazis as a result of this exercize. That's because they didn't bother looking for it.
Contrary to your assumption Hetman, the "Nazis" as you call them, tried to "reclaim German blood" from the Polish population. One case that comes to my mind is what happened near Zamosc where they looked for the descendants of colonists that settled in that region in the XVIII/XIX centuries.

Post Reply

Return to “Women in the Reich”