Generalplan Ost

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 13 Apr 2003 14:13

witness wrote:

This was really a war against Slavic people with the ultimate purpose for the "Master race'' to occupy the territories inhabited by Slavic nations from the dawn of history.


Oversimplifying is the wrong road to better comprehend the history of Europe in the twentieth century or whatever period and place in history. The Twentieth Century Thirty Years Old War in Europe was not a war between "Hitler" and the Slavs and even less so between Germany and the Slavs. Unless you credit Hitler (and Himmler and others) for his (their) own mumblings and utterances. Which I don't.

And what "Slavs" are we talking about? Kashubians, Sorbs? Bulgarians, Croats, Slovaks? Bosnian and Sandjak Muslims? Macedonians? Czechs? Montenegrinians and Serbians? Poles? Belarussians, Ukrainians? Russians? And what about all those Germans with Slav roots (and more than a few had and have Slav roots)? And Italians, Hungarians and Romanians with Slav roots? And Greeks with Slav roots?

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 13 Apr 2003 14:21

witness wrote:

...I doubt that Russian people would give in their country to the foreign occupiers -The example of Napoleonic Grand Army invasion comes to mind...


Really? And what about the Tatars? Are they already forgotten?

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 13 Apr 2003 14:42

Roberto wrote:

I'm told a great many Belarussians and Ukrainians looked upon Adolf as their liberator...


Adolf? They could have looked upon for the Germans. For Adolf hardly so.

...and were sorely disappointed at finding themselves treated like "subhumans", exploited, starved or slaughtered at the tiniest pretext or for no reason at all.


I'm well aware of it. But at the beginning many could have been deceived, couldn't they? And even afterwards more than a few Belarussian and Ukrainians continued to see the Germans as the lesser of the two evils. More so of the Finns and the other German allies. And we should not forget that many Russians semed to be quite sincere when they joined the Vlassov Army. You have even exchanged some posts about it recently.

Concerning your quotations of Rosenberg and Bräutigam, it only shows that not even the entire NSDAP machine could think the same way which by the way is not a surprise knowing that the entire party was simply a big chaos. For tactical reasons? Or for more that that? Whatever reason things were not as monolithical as sometime we find reading them.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 13 Apr 2003 19:17

viriato wrote:witness wrote:

...I doubt that Russian people would give in their country to the foreign occupiers -The example of Napoleonic Grand Army invasion comes to mind...


Really? And what about the Tatars? Are they already forgotten?

Yes really. You forget that during the Mongol-Tatar invasion Russia was not at all united .It was more a conglomerate of several dukedoms
constantly warring each other - the main reason why the Tatar Mongol invasion was succesful. Besides Tatars didn't really rule Russia . They
were not constanly physically present on the Russian territories -
They considered Russia as a conquered country ,that's true.But not as an occupied country.Russia's status was more of a vassal
The Tatar messengers from the "Gold Horde" were coming regularly to demand " dan " - contribution which Russia was obligated to pay to the
Horde. That's all . Other then these regular payments Russia was goverened by her own Russian dukes . There was no Tatar warriers on her territory if the "dan'' was paid without delays.
In those times when some of the Russian dukes refused to pay the Tatar
cavalry was send to this particular dukedom to wreak havoc so that to make this duke to pay or( if he was really detemined in his refusal) to kill him and find some of his relatives as a more cooperative substitute.
Since Russia became a united state - there was no any examples when she was ruled by the foreign occupiers despite numerous invasions throughout her history.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 14 Apr 2003 00:29

Witness wrote:

Since Russia became a united state - there was no any examples when she was ruled by the foreign occupiers despite numerous invasions throughout her history.


In the early 17th century, Moscow was captured by a Polish army, and for a short period Muscovy was ruled by a puppet Tsar' controlled by the Poles - the "False Dmitri", as I recall.

It seems that, historically, the greatest enemies of Slavs were other Slavs.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 14 Apr 2003 01:46

michael mills wrote:Witness wrote:

Since Russia became a united state - there was no any examples when she was ruled by the foreign occupiers despite numerous invasions throughout her history.


In the early 17th century, Moscow was captured by a Polish army, and for a short period Muscovy was ruled by a puppet Tsar' controlled by the Poles - the "False Dmitri", as I recall.

It seems that, historically, the greatest enemies of Slavs were other Slavs.

You are referring to the times of Great "Smuta"( I don't really know how to translate it in English .Maybe the "Great commotion " would be the most close term ) when Russia was "ruled " by Boris Godunov . Russia
was not really united at those times either.But yes I am corrected this is the second example when the foreigners for the very short period seized power in Russia.

It seems that, historically, the greatest enemies of Slavs were other Slavs

Absolutely wrong ! How do you come to such a conclusion ?
The greatest enemy of the Slavs (even if just to consider it through the perspective of the number of casualties inflicted ) was Germany then probably Tatars and then Napoleonic French .

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 14 Apr 2003 09:30

viriato wrote:Roberto wrote:

I'm told a great many Belarussians and Ukrainians looked upon Adolf as their liberator...


Adolf? They could have looked upon for the Germans. For Adolf hardly so.


OK, let it be "the Germans", if that makes you feel better.

viriato wrote:
...and were sorely disappointed at finding themselves treated like "subhumans", exploited, starved or slaughtered at the tiniest pretext or for no reason at all.


I'm well aware of it. But at the beginning many could have been deceived, couldn't they?


Which says a lot about Stalin’s regime, just like the feat of forfeiting that sympathy and largely turning it into enmity says a lot about Hitler’s.

viriato wrote: And even afterwards more than a few Belarussian and Ukrainians continued to see the Germans as the lesser of the two evils.


Such as the Kaminski brigade, the Vlassov troops and others who knew the Soviets wouldn’t treat them too nicely on account of their involvement with the German invaders, right?

viriato wrote:More so of the Finns and the other German allies.


The allies (among whom I count the Baltic countries, brutally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940) I wasn’t referring to. The Finns were smart enough to get in touch with the Soviets when they realized that the "Continuation War" was lost, by the way.

viriato wrote: And we should not forget that many Russians semed to be quite sincere when they joined the Vlassov Army. You have even exchanged some posts about it recently.


Certainly so. As Kokampf explained, this was related to their treatment at the hands of the Soviet government on the one hand and the fact that they were not fully aware of German intentions in regard to the Soviet Union on the other.

viriato wrote: Concerning your quotations of Rosenberg and Bräutigam, it only shows that not even the entire NSDAP machine could think the same way which by the way is not a surprise knowing that the entire party was simply a big chaos. For tactical reasons? Or for more that that?


Well, I didn’t see Rosenberg or Bräutigam invoking humanitarianism, but maybe I missed something.

viriato wrote: Whatever reason things were not as monolithical as sometime we find reading them.


No, there were some voices in the wilderness. But the attention given to them leaves much to be desired, to say the least.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 14 Apr 2003 10:54

viriato wrote:witness wrote:

This was really a war against Slavic people with the ultimate purpose for the "Master race'' to occupy the territories inhabited by Slavic nations from the dawn of history.


Oversimplifying is the wrong road to better comprehend the history of Europe in the twentieth century or whatever period and place in history. The Twentieth Century Thirty Years Old War in Europe was not a war between "Hitler" and the Slavs and even less so between Germany and the Slavs. Unless you credit Hitler (and Himmler and others) for his (their) own mumblings and utterances. Which I don't.

And what "Slavs" are we talking about? Kashubians, Sorbs? Bulgarians, Croats, Slovaks? Bosnian and Sandjak Muslims? Macedonians? Czechs? Montenegrinians and Serbians? Poles? Belarussians, Ukrainians? Russians? And what about all those Germans with Slav roots (and more than a few had and have Slav roots)? And Italians, Hungarians and Romanians with Slav roots? And Greeks with Slav roots?

Just noted this post.

Oversimplifying is the wrong road to better comprehend the history of Europe in the twentieth century or whatever period and place in history

You didn't prove anything yet but already start lecturing .."oversimplifying " .. :roll:

The Twentieth Century Thirty Years Old War in Europe was not a war between "Hitler" and the Slavs and even less so between Germany and the Slavs.

So I assume you don't "oversimplify ".. Then what was this war for the millions of Russians ,Ukranians,Poles, Belorussians if the Nazi doctrine proclaimed them ''subhumans " who should get out of their lands to provide so much needed for the "Master race " "Living space "
( "Lebensraum " ?If I spell it right..)?
Unless you credit Hitler (and Himmler and others) for his (their) own mumblings and utterances.

Of course I do. After all it was on the Hitler initiative the war on Poland and USSR was declared .They were acting out their "mumblings and utterances" pretty seriously..
And I think you should get familiar with the chicken farmer' plans for the Russian territories .

And what about all those Germans with Slav roots (and more than a few had and have Slav roots)? And Italians, Hungarians and Romanians with Slav roots? And Greeks with Slav roots

What about them ? 8O
In the Nazis eyes it was the racial war as well as the war against Bolshevism.
But it doesn't mean that they were ready to trace origin of every "Aryan"
at least in this time although AFAIK some attempts were already made.
Be they succesful ..who knows ..Maybe those with some Slavic roots
would be declared "less Aryans " among the perfect "Aryans ' and therefore not that precious ..

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 15 Apr 2003 04:28

Witness wrote:

Then what was this war for the millions of Russians ,Ukranians,Poles, Belorussians if the Nazi doctrine proclaimed them ''subhumans " who should get out of their lands to provide so much needed for the "Master race " "Living space "
( "Lebensraum " ?If I spell it right..)?


There is a common but mistaken view that the German Government intended to completely clear the lands in Eastern Europe inhabited by Slavic peoples and resettle them with Germans.

In part, that mistaken notion derives from a misunderstanding of the German geopolitical term "Lebensraum", which is best translated as "vital space". That is, it did not simply mean territory to be lived on by Germans only, but also the territory that would provide the German people with resources needed to establish economic independence. Thus, all of Eastern Europe, including Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia was intended to become Germany's "Lebensraum", even though it was never intended that the whole area would be settled by Germans (if only because there were nowhere enough Germans to fill such a large space).

That being said, it was planned to "germanise" certain defined areas, ie those areas would be inhabited by persons of German ethnicity only. Those areas included all of Poland, the Baltic States, the area near Leningrad (Ingermanland), parts of Belorussia and Ukraine (eg Zhitomir District), the Dnepr bend and the Crimea.

The germanisation was to be achieved by three factors:

1. Settlement of ethnic Germans from elsewhere;
2. Assimilation of part of the existing population; and
3. Expulsion of the rest of the existing population (the destination most often cited was Siberia).

The plan for this process of germanisation was called the Generalplan-Ost, and was developed by parts of Himmler's organisation, first by the RSHA and subsequently by the RKFdV (Reichskommissariat fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums).

Himmler's agencies estimated what proportion of the existing population of the above areas could be germanised, and what proportion would need to be expelled. They concluded that a total of 34 million persons would need to be transferred east of the Urals over a 20-year period, with a much smaller number of Germans being resettled in the vacated areas (about 12 million, as I recall). Thus the population in the affected areas would be greatly reduced, consisting of a minority of the original population in process of germanisation, plus a small number of German settlers.

The Generalplan-Ost was opposed by the Ostministerium (Roenberg's ministry) which saw it as unworkable and counter-productive. Its criticism was voiced in an analysis of April 1942, written by a senior official, Erhard Wetzel, the Ostministerium's main expert on "racial" matters.

Wetzel came up with three main criticisms:

1. Himmler's agencies had grossly underestimated the existing population of the affected areas, not having taken population growth into account. Therefore, either the number to be deported would have to be much greater, or else the number to be left in the affected areas and germanised would have to be greater.

2. The number of ethnic Germans available for settlement in the affected areas had been grossly over-estimated.

3. The proposal to deport millions of Balts, Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians to Siberia would be counter-productive to Germany's interests. Forced deportation would turn them into sworn enemies of Germany, and their resettlement in Siberia would greatly strengthen the existing slavic element in that region outside German control, thereby creating a centre of future opposition to German hegemony in Eastern Europe.

Wetzel made some counter-proposals for the resettlement of those elements of the Baltic and Polish populations that were considered ungermanisable. With regard to the Balts, he proposed that they be resettled all over occupied Russia, where they would serve as the second level of administrators under the German rulers, a function that many Balts had carried out in Tsarist times. With regard to the Poles, he recommended fostering their emigration to Brazil, which was already a destination of much voluntary Polish emigration and which had vast areas of land available for settlement.

Since Germany lost the war, it is impossible to know whether the Generalplan-Ost would ever have been implemented in the form foreseen by Himmler's planners, or whether it would have proved to be largely unworkable, as Wetzel thought. It is just as likely that, if implemented at all, the germanisation of areas of Eastern Europe would have been carried out in a greatly modified form, along the lines preferred by Wetzel and the Ostministerium.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 15 Apr 2003 11:08

michael mills wrote:The plan for this process of germanisation was called the Generalplan-Ost, and was developed by parts of Himmler's organisation, first by the RSHA and subsequently by the RKFdV (Reichskommissariat fuer die Festigung deutschen Volkstums).

Himmler's agencies estimated what proportion of the existing population of the above areas could be germanised, and what proportion would need to be expelled. They concluded that a total of 34 million persons would need to be transferred east of the Urals over a 20-year period, with a much smaller number of Germans being resettled in the vacated areas (about 12 million, as I recall). Thus the population in the affected areas would be greatly reduced, consisting of a minority of the original population in process of germanisation, plus a small number of German settlers.

The Generalplan-Ost was opposed by the Ostministerium (Roenberg's ministry) which saw it as unworkable and counter-productive. Its criticism was voiced in an analysis of April 1942, written by a senior official, Erhard Wetzel, the Ostministerium's main expert on "racial" matters.

Wetzel came up with three main criticisms:

1. Himmler's agencies had grossly underestimated the existing population of the affected areas, not having taken population growth into account. Therefore, either the number to be deported would have to be much greater, or else the number to be left in the affected areas and germanised would have to be greater.

2. The number of ethnic Germans available for settlement in the affected areas had been grossly over-estimated.

3. The proposal to deport millions of Balts, Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians to Siberia would be counter-productive to Germany's interests. Forced deportation would turn them into sworn enemies of Germany, and their resettlement in Siberia would greatly strengthen the existing slavic element in that region outside German control, thereby creating a centre of future opposition to German hegemony in Eastern Europe.

Wetzel made some counter-proposals for the resettlement of those elements of the Baltic and Polish populations that were considered ungermanisable. With regard to the Balts, he proposed that they be resettled all over occupied Russia, where they would serve as the second level of administrators under the German rulers, a function that many Balts had carried out in Tsarist times. With regard to the Poles, he recommended fostering their emigration to Brazil, which was already a destination of much voluntary Polish emigration and which had vast areas of land available for settlement.


Erhard Wetzel, the Race Referent (Rassereferent) for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete - RMO) between 1941 and 1944, was the author of a commentary on the Generalplan Ost, in which he spoke of the "resettlement" of 46-51 million eastern Europeans. He also conferred with Eichmann about the murder of Latvian and German Jews by gas and authorized this procedure on behalf of the RMO in October 1941. The same Wetzel seems to have pleaded for "special treatment" of handicapped children in the Baltics in concrete cases as late as 1944.

Wetzel’s race mania, as mentioned by Gerlach in Kalkulierte Morde (see the thread

Shooting Asians
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 6fa61f4159 )

also led him to conduct racial investigations in camps holding Soviet prisoners of war in 1941, which resulted in the shooting of prisoners with "Mongolian" aspect.

Not the kind of fellow I would expect any good from.

A transcription and translation of Wetzel's letter to Lohse of 25 October 1941 can be found under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 15 Apr 2003 12:34

Michael Mills wrote :

That being said, it was planned to "germanise" certain defined areas, ie those areas would be inhabited by persons of German ethnicity only. Those areas included all of Poland, the Baltic States, the area near Leningrad (Ingermanland), parts of Belorussia and Ukraine (eg Zhitomir District), the Dnepr bend and the Crimea.

The germanisation was to be achieved by three factors:

1. Settlement of ethnic Germans from elsewhere;
2. Assimilation of part of the existing population; and
3. Expulsion of the rest of the existing population (the destination most often cited was Siberia).

From the Slavic perspective looks pretty much like a war against Slavs to me .

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 15 Apr 2003 12:45

Who would have been worse of, those expelled or those remaining behind to serve the German masters?

From the report of the Wirtschaftsstab Ost, Gruppe Landwirtschaft of 23.05.1941:

[…]Eine Zerstörung der russischen Verarbeitungsindustrie in der Waldzone ist auch für die fernere Friedenszukunft Deutschlands eine unbedingte Notwendigkeit. […] Aus all dem folgt, daß die deutsche Verwaltung in diesen Gebieten sehr wohl bestrebt sein kann, die Folgen der zweifellos eintretenden Hungersnot zu mildern und den Naturalisierungsprozeß zu beschleunigen. Man kann bestrebt sein, diese Gebiete intensiver zu bewirtschaften im Sinne einer Ausdehnung der Kartoffelanbaufläche und anderer für den Konsum wichtiger, hohe Erträge gebender Früchte. Die Hungersnot ist dadurch nicht zu bannen. Viele 10 Millionen von Menschen werden in diesem Gebiet überflüssig und werden sterben oder nach Sibirien auswandern müssen.[…]


Source of quote:

Ernst Klee / Willi Dreßen, ”Gott mit uns”. Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten 1939-1945, Frankfurt am Main 1989, page 23. Reference: Nuremberg Document 126-EC, IMT, official German text, Volume XXXVI

My translation:

[…]A destruction of the Russian manufacturing industry in the forest zone is an indispensable necessity also for the far-off peacetime future of Germany. […] From this there results that the German administration in these areas may well endeavor to milder the consequences of the famine that will doubtlessly occur. It can be undertaken to cultivate these areas more intensively in the sense of extending the land for cultivating potatoes and other high output fruits important for consume. It will not be possible, however, to stop the famine thereby. Many tens of millions of people will become superfluous in this area and will die or have to emigrate to Siberia.[…]


Alan Bullock (Hitler and Stalin. Parallel Lives 1993 Fontana Press, London, pages 756-758) wrote:[…]Beyond satisfying the immediate needs of Germany during the war, there remained to be decided the long-term future of an area which, assuming the objectives of a line from Archangel to Astrakhan was achieved, contained over a hundred million people. Hitler had never thought of the invasion of Russia ending with a conventional peace treaty; it was to be a war of conquest, the purpose of which was not only to overthrow the Bolshevik regime but to prevent the emergence of a successor Russian state. But what was to replace it?
An unusual insight into Hitler’s mind in 1941-2 is provided by his Table Talk, records of the monologues to which his guests and entourage were subjected after meals at Hitler’s HQ, either the permanent installation in East Prussia which Hitler called ‘Wolfsschanze’ (Fort Wolf), or his temporary HQ at Vinnitza in the Ukraine which he called ‘Werwolf’. Hitler would not allow a tape-recorder to be used, but he agreed to Bormann’s suggestion that a party official might be admitted to his meals who would sit in a corner and take notices unobtrusively. These were later corrected and approved by Bormann, as a record of the Führer’s genius.
The months from March to the end of October 1941 were a period in which Hitler felt more convinced than ever of his genius, the highpoint of the fantastic career in which he saw himself as the peer of Napoleon, Bismarck and Frederick the Great – characters to whom he referred in familiar terms – pursuing ‘the Cyclopean task which the building of an empire means for a single man.
The character of that empire was a subject which fired his imagination and constantly recurred in his talk. After the evening meal on 27 July he defined its limits as a line 200 – 300 kilometres east of the Urals; the Germans must hold this line in perpetuity and never allow any other military power to establish itself to the west of it.

It should be possible for us to control this region in the East, with 250,000 men plus a cadre of good administrators. Let’s learn from the English, who, with 250,000 men in all, including 50,000 soldiers, govern 400 million Indians. This space in Russia must always be dominated by Germans.
Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to educate the masses there …
We’ll take the southern part of Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist will be the soldier – peasant, and for that I’ll take professional soldiers … For those of them who are sons of peasants, the Reich will provide a completely-equipped farm. The soil costs us nothing, we have only the farm to build … These soldier peasants will be given arms, so that at the slightest danger they can be at their posts when we summon them.


Hitler returned to the subject on the evening of 17 October, when Todt and Gauleiter Sauckel (who was responsible for conscripting foreign workers) provided and appreciative audience:

The Russian desert, we shall populate it … We’ll take away its character of an Asian steppe, we’ll Europeanise it. With this object we have undertaken the construction of road that will lead to the southernmost part of the Crimea and to the Caucasus. These road will be studded along their whole length with German towns and around these towns our colonists will settle.
As for the two or three million men whom we need to accomplish this task, we’ll find them quicker than we think. They’ll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries, and America. I shall no longer be here to see all that, but in twenty years, the Ukraine will already be a home for twenty million inhabitants, besides the natives …
We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them go to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned.[my emphasis] To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers – very little of that for us! We’ll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won’t get themselves run over by our vehicles.
For them the word ‘liberty’ means the right to wash on feast days … There’s only one duty: to Germanize this country by the immigration of Germans and to look upon the natives as Redskins … In this business I shall go straight ahead, cold-bloodedly.


Ten days later he declared:

Nobody will ever snatch the East from us! … We shall soon supply the wheat for all Europe, the coal, the steel, the wood. To exploit the Ukraine properly – that new Indian Empire – we’ll need only peace in the West …
For me the object is to exploit the advantages of continental hegemony … When we are the masters of Europe, we have a dominant position in the world. A hundred and thirty million people in the Reich, ninety in the Ukraine. Add to these the other states of the New Europe and we’ll be 400 millions as compared with the 130 million Americans.


Source of quote: Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin. Parallel Lives 1993 Fontana Press, London, pages 756-758.

Bullock’s translation of the highlighted passage is a rather benevolent one. Hitler’s words were actually the following:

In die russischen Städte gehen wir nicht hinein. Sie müssen vollständig ersterben. Wir brauchen uns da keine Gewissensbisse zu machen […] wir haben überhaupt keine Verpflichtungen den Leuten gegenüber.


Source of quote:

Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, page 801

My translation:

Into the Russian cities we shall not go. They must die away completely.[my emphasis] We need to have no remorse in this respect […] we have no obligations whatsoever towards these people.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 15 Apr 2003 13:11

Thank you for this translation Roberto.
We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them go to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned


They must die away completely


Probably Hitler was only "oversimplifying ".. :lol:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 15 Apr 2003 13:15

witness wrote:Thank you for this translation Roberto.
We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them go to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned

Probably Hitler was only "oversimplifying " :lol:


The above quote is Bullock's translation, not mine.

My translation from the German text transcribed in Gerlach's book is this one:

Into the Russian cities we shall not go. They must die away completely.[my emphasis] We need to have no remorse in this respect […] we have no obligations whatsoever towards these people.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 15 Apr 2003 14:32

witness wrote:

Maybe those with some Slavic roots would be declared "less Aryans " among the perfect "Aryans ' and therefore not that precious ..


Maybe they would make any German with Slav roots second-class citizens. How many they were? A quarter, a third, half the total of Germans? Probably they wouldn't even have found one German without a Slav ascendency? 8) And what about Hitler himself? Not tainted by the "inferior" Czech blood? :lol:

But then according to you Czechs seem not to be Slavs after all. And Bulgarians, Croats, Slovaks,... You after all wrote:

Then what was this war for the millions of Russians, Ukranians, Poles, Belorussians...


Not an oversimplication on your part of course... :roll:

And I think you should get familiar with the chicken farmer' plans for the Russian territories.


Sure. We're speaking after all of a "great charachter". He would "develop" the conquered territories killing the maximum number of peolple and then dumping the rest on Siberia. How? After all the "illuminates" we're talking about never wanted to conquer Siberia. Their "plans" only allowed them to reach the Urals. And no more. Of course the "subhumans" eastwards of the Urals would be content and in respect for the new "lords" of Europe would pay their "hommage" by not waving any more war, any kind of war for a "thousand years" perhaps. And receive any deportees the German presented them with a smile. Sure.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”