Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 20 Aug 2015 01:16

The Nuremberg Laws the Nazis passed in 1935 stated that only those of German or related blood could be Reich citizens.

After reading through various Nazi documents, it appears the term was just another way of saying "other Europeans" since the Ahnenpaß document stated that Poles, Czechs, Italians, British, Swedish and French were of related blood ("artverwandten Blutes"). So all Europeans were considered to be of related blood except those of non-European origin e.g Jews, Gypsies, Negroes, Mongols, etc.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by David Thompson » 20 Aug 2015 19:42

kuba kowalski -- You wrote:
The Nuremberg Laws the Nazis passed in 1935 stated that only those of German or related blood could be Reich citizens.

After reading through various Nazi documents, it appears the term was just another way of saying "other Europeans"[. . .]
Not quite.
Reich Citizenship Law of 15.September 1935

Article 2

1. A citizen of the Reich is a subject of the state who is of German or kindred blood only, and proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit to faithfully serve the German people and Reich.

2. Reich citizenship is acquired through the granting of a Reich citizenship certificate.

3. A citizen of the Reich is the sole bearer of full political rights in accordance with the law.
http://germanpropaganda.org/nuremberg-laws/

Your formulation also omits the numerous supplementary decrees to the Reich Citizenship Law, added after 1935, like this one:
First Decree under the Reich Citizenship Law

In accordance with Article 3 of the Reich Citizenship Law of . ….. .15. September 1935, the following is decreed:

Article 1

1. Until further rules regarding citizenship papers are issued, all subjects of German or kindred blood who had the right to vote in the Reichstag elections at the time the Citizenship Law came into effect shall for the time being have the rights of Reich citizens. The same shall be true of those to whom the Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, has given preliminary citizenship.

2. The Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, can withdraw this preliminary citizenship.
http://germanpropaganda.org/nuremberg-laws/

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 20 Aug 2015 20:33

David Thompson wrote:Not quite.

Reich Citizenship Law of 15.September 1935

Article 2

1. A citizen of the Reich is a subject of the state who is of German or kindred blood only, and proves by his conduct that he is willing and fit to faithfully serve the German people and Reich.

2. Reich citizenship is acquired through the granting of a Reich citizenship certificate.

3. A citizen of the Reich is the sole bearer of full political rights in accordance with the law.

http://germanpropaganda.org/nuremberg-laws/
I was referring to those who were eligible for it due to them being of related blood to the Germans, not the other requirements to be a Reich citizen.
Your formulation also omits the numerous supplementary decrees to the Reich Citizenship Law, added after 1935, like this one:

First Decree under the Reich Citizenship Law

In accordance with Article 3 of the Reich Citizenship Law of . ….. .15. September 1935, the following is decreed:

Article 1

1. Until further rules regarding citizenship papers are issued, all subjects of German or kindred blood who had the right to vote in the Reichstag elections at the time the Citizenship Law came into effect shall for the time being have the rights of Reich citizens. The same shall be true of those to whom the Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, has given preliminary citizenship.

2. The Reich Minister of the Interior, in conjunction with the Deputy of the Führer, can withdraw this preliminary citizenship.

http://germanpropaganda.org/nuremberg-laws/
[/quote]

Nowhere did I say that the Nuremberg Laws were never modified after 1935 when they were initially passed but even after such modifications, other Europeans were still open to be Reich citizens and it was not just limited to Germans or other Germanic peoples.

Here is another paragraph from the Reich Citizenship Law, this time speaking about racially related groups living currently in Germany:
A member of any minority group demonstrates his ability to serve the German Reich when, without surrendering membership in his own specific Volk group, he loyally carries out his civil duties to the Reich, such as service in the armed forces, etc. Reich citizenship is, therefore, open to racially related groups living in Germany, such as Poles, Danes, and others. It is an altogether different matter with German nationals of alien blood and race. They do not fulfill the blood prerequisites for Reich citizenship. The Jews, who constitute an alien body among all European peoples, are especially characterized by racial foreignness. Jews, therefore, cannot be seen as being fit for service to the German Volk and Reich. Hence, they must necessarily remain excluded from Reich citizenship.
I'm not talking about the other requirements that were necessary for one to be a Reich citizen but rather who were defined as related blood ("artverwandtes Blut").

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by David Thompson » 22 Aug 2015 19:34

kuba kowalski -- You wrote:
I'm not talking about the other requirements that were necessary for one to be a Reich citizen but rather who were defined as related blood ("artverwandtes Blut").
The Nazis couldn't establish a scientific definition of "German blood," much less establish what was kindred or related blood might be. For a modern study showing the junk science basis of this political fantasy, see Rachel E. Boaz, The Search for “Aryan Blood:” Seroanthropology in Weimar and National Socialist Germany
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10 ... 1247676999 and

Frank Thadeusz, Blood Purity: How a Bizarre Obsession Advanced Science
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 02865.html (part 1)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 865-2.html (part 2)

The delusion became popular in certain circles following the publication of Artur Dinter's bestselling sci-fi novel The Sin Against Blood (1917) which hypothesized a fundamental difference between "Jewish" and "German blood," in which "Jewish blood" was infectious.

The concept of "national blood" also turns out to be bogus when applied to other nationalities:

Jennifer Robinson, Hemato-nationalism: The past, present and future of "Japanese Blood"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 20#preview

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 23 Aug 2015 20:31

David Thompson wrote:The Nazis couldn't establish a scientific definition of "German blood," much less establish what was kindred or related blood might be. For a modern study showing the junk science basis of this political fantasy, see Rachel E. Boaz, The Search for “Aryan Blood:” Seroanthropology in Weimar and National Socialist Germany
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap/10?0::NO:10 ... 1247676999
This first reference was about defining "Aryan", the Nazis knew that the term "Aryan" was not a racial term but was defined as any European and was used for propaganda purposes. The term is not found within the Nuremberg Laws text but instead "German or related blood". The same as "non-Aryan" essentially meant "Jewish" for the most part but other people were defined as non-Aryans as well such as the Gypsies and Negroes - the Nuremberg Laws were extended to define the non-Aryans besides the Jews as "Gypsies, Negroes or their bastard offspring".

Most Nazi anthropologists rejected the idea of Aryan as a racial term (see: Christopher Hutton, Race and the Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology and Genetics in the Dialectic of Volk, chapter "The Myth of an Aryan Race", p.80).

In 1933, after the introduction of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which required all civil servants to own an Aryan Certificate, the definition of Aryan was given as:
The Aryans (also Indo-Germans, Japhetiten) are one of the three branches of the Caucasian (white race);they are divided into the western (European), that is the German, Roman, Greek, Slav, Lett, Celt [and] Albanesen, and the eastern (Asiatic) Aryans, that is the Indian (Hindu) and Iranian (Persian, Afghan, Armenian, Georgian, Kurd). Non-Aryans are therefore: 1. the members of two other races, namely the Mongolian (yellow) and the Negroid (black) races; 2. the members of the two other branches of the Caucasian race, namely the Semites (Jews, Arabs) and Hamites (Berbers). The Finns and the Hungarians belong to the Mongoloid race; but it is hardly the intention of the law to treat them as non-Aryans. Thus . . . the non-Jewish members of the European Volk are Aryans...
Source: Eric Ehrenreich, The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution, p.10

However, this definition of 'Aryan' was viewed as unsatisfactory since it included non-Europeans and was later redefined in the Ahnenpaß ("ancestors passport") as:
Arischer Abstammung (deutschblütig) ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volke aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraume lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muß, mag er nun in seiner Heimat oder in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein.
which can be roughly translated as:
Aryan is thus the one man who looked free from, the German people, strange racial impact is blood. Deemed to be a stranger here, especially the blood of the living room and in the European settlement of Jews and Gypsies, the Asian and African breeds, and the aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), while, for example, a Swede or an Englishman, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or Italian, if he is free of such, even that is foreign blood strikes, when used, must therefore be considered severally liable, he may now live in his home, in East Asia or in America or he likes a U.S. citizen or a South American Free State be.
Source: Cornelia Schmitz-Berning, Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (in German). Walter de Gruyter. p. 61

In lay man's terms, any European free of non-European origin (Jewish, Gypsy, Asian, African, etc) was considered an "Aryan". When the Nazis used the term German or related blood, the term "related blood" remained imprecise for a long time but in all the documents available the term simply meant other Europeans.
and

Frank Thadeusz, Blood Purity: How a Bizarre Obsession Advanced Science
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 02865.html (part 1)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 865-2.html (part 2)

The delusion became popular in certain circles following the publication of Artur Dinter's bestselling sci-fi novel The Sin Against Blood (1917) which hypothesized a fundamental difference between "Jewish" and "German blood," in which "Jewish blood" was infectious.
Neither of these show anything to do with the Nazis having problems defining the term "German or related blood" but rather how the Nazis tried to establish differences between Germans and Jews by blood types.
The concept of "national blood" also turns out to be bogus when applied to other nationalities:

Jennifer Robinson, Hemato-nationalism: The past, present and future of "Japanese Blood"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 20#preview
Red herring. Totally irrelevant to the Nazis and their definition of German or related blood.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by David Thompson » 24 Aug 2015 00:58

kuba kowalski -- You wrote:
When the Nazis used the term German or related blood, the term "related blood" remained imprecise for a long time but in all the documents available the term simply meant other Europeans.
When Irmgard Elmer was gathering documents to support her ahrenpass application in early 1940, so she could work as a nurse, Europeans of Slavic descent were ineligible.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=CW3BaQ ... &q&f=false

Presumably so were Spaniards, Portugese or Italians with Moorish blood, and folks from the Balkans, Hungary or Romania who had Turkish blood. Certainly the NS-regime had no problem with repressing people of "related blood" -- Poles, Dutch, Danes, Austrians, and Norwegians, among other European groups.

As the sources I've given have pointed out, the terms "German blood or related blood" have no scientific basis. Defining a term by what is not included is the result of confusion of thought.

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 24 Aug 2015 01:25

David Thompson wrote:When Irmgard Elmer was gathering documents to support her ahrenpass application in early 1940, so she could work as a nurse, Europeans of Slavic descent were ineligible.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=CW3BaQ ... &q&f=false
This is hardly a credible and reliable source. The reference is given about her having problems collecting the birth and marriage certificates required for the document. There is no reference given for the claim in the book that to own an Ahnenpass one had to provide they had no Slavic ancestors.

Nowhere in the Ahnenpass document did it say one must not have any Slav ancestors. In fact, the Nazis own document for the Ahnenpass contradicts the claim in the book since it used two Slavic ethnic groups (Czechs and Poles) as examples of Aryans/related blood. So one could have Slavic ancestors and own an Ahnenpass and be a Reich citizen.
Presumably so were Spaniards, Portugese or Italians with Moorish blood, and folks from the Balkans, Hungary or Romania who had Turkish blood.
Red herring. Would you provide some references that the Nazis official racial laws defined these peoples as mixed as you are claiming they did? Some Nazis may have thought so, just like they thought the East was mixed with Mongols which in propaganda during the war was labeled as 'Mongoloid' and 'Asiatic' but it was nothing more than rhetoric and was not used in any laws.

The Ahnenpass document used the Italians as an example of Aryans/related blood.
Certainly the NS-regime had no problem with repressing people of "related blood" -- Poles, Dutch, Danes, Austrians, and Norwegians, among other European groups.
Another red herring. Totally irrelevant.

Also, just a bit further up you made the claim Slavs were not considered to be of related blood yet you cite Poles (who are Slavs) as being of related blood.
As the sources I've given have pointed out, the terms "German blood or related blood" have no scientific basis. Defining a term by what is not included is the result of confusion of thought.
The only sources you've provided so far is a link on searching for the Aryan race, a couple of articles from a German newspaper on the Nazis attempting to distinguish Germans and Jews via blood types, one about Japanese national blood and now a nursing review which provides no references.

Nowhere in the thread have I stated that the term "German or related blood" has a scientific basis but rather how the Nazis defined the term.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by David Thompson » 24 Aug 2015 06:25

kuba kowalski -- You wrote (1) of a source I provided:
This is hardly a credible and reliable source. The reference is given about her having problems collecting the birth and marriage certificates required for the document. There is no reference given for the claim in the book that to own an Ahnenpass one had to provide they had no Slavic ancestors.
I have no particular interest in changing your belief structure. The information is for our readers, who are free to make up their own minds on the subject. As for the reference, the quote from the article is:
Her correspondence of February and March 1940 shows that she had trouble collecting all the birth and marriage certificates the Gau required for the Ahnenpass. Germans were required to trace their bloodlines to ensure that they were of German origin (not Jewish or Slav). The Ahnenpass recorded a history of relatives, marriages, births and deaths.
If a reader cares to look through the article, he/she will see that Irmgard Elmer herself provided informational context for her correspondence.

While you refer to
a nursing review which provides no references
Our intelligent readers can see that the article has over 100 footnotes, along with information about the author, a German physician and historian.

(2)
Nowhere in the Ahnenpass document did it say one must not have any Slav ancestors.
What is the date of the "Ahnenpass document" you refer to? And why, despite your argument that "German and related blood" should not be confused with being "Aryan," does the "Ahnenpass document" refer to Aryan descent and German blood as though they were synonyms in the very first line quoted?
Arischer Abstammung (deutschblütig)


(3) (a)
Red herring.
and
(b)
Another red herring. Totally irrelevant.
You may think so, but our readers can decide for themselves whether "German and related blood" is a real concept or an elastic political term used by and for befuddled persons.

(4)
Certainly the NS-regime had no problem with repressing people of "related blood" -- Poles, Dutch, Danes, Austrians, and Norwegians, among other European groups.
Another red herring. Totally irrelevant.

Also, just a bit further up you made the claim Slavs were not considered to be of related blood yet you cite Poles (who are Slavs) as being of related blood.
The claim that Poles were of "related blood" is yours, not mine. See your post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1963429

(5)
Poles (who are Slavs)
Really? All of them?

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 24 Aug 2015 21:07

David Thompson wrote:I have no particular interest in changing your belief structure. The information is for our readers, who are free to make up their own minds on the subject. As for the reference, the quote from the article is:
Her correspondence of February and March 1940 shows that she had trouble collecting all the birth and marriage certificates the Gau required for the Ahnenpass. Germans were required to trace their bloodlines to ensure that they were of German origin (not Jewish or Slav). The Ahnenpass recorded a history of relatives, marriages, births and deaths.
If a reader cares to look through the article, he/she will see that Irmgard Elmer herself provided informational context for her correspondence.
There is no footnote for the claim:
Germans were required to trace their bloodlines to ensure that they were of German origin (not Jewish or Slav).
Our intelligent readers can see that the article has over 100 footnotes, along with information about the author, a German physician and historian.
If you're going to quote me, at least quote the whole sentence and not just a snippet of it.

I said:
There is no reference given for the claim in the book that to own an Ahnenpass one had to provide they had no Slavic ancestors.
The "intelligent readers" can see there is no footnote for the claim that the Ahnenpass meant Germans had to prove they had no Slavic ancestors.
What is the date of the "Ahnenpass document" you refer to? And why, despite your argument that "German and related blood" should not be confused with being "Aryan," does the "Ahnenpass document" refer to Aryan descent and German blood as though they were synonyms in the very first line quoted?
Arischer Abstammung (deutschblütig)


It's from the 1933, after proving Aryan descent was made compulsory for those in the civil service when the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed.

I never said the two terms were not interchangeable, I said when referring to actual racial laws the Nazis used the term "German or related blood" but the term Aryan did appear in documents, speeches, etc.
(3) (a)
Red herring.
and
(b)
Another red herring. Totally irrelevant.
You may think so, but our readers can decide for themselves whether "German and related blood" is a real concept or an elastic political term used by and for befuddled persons.
They have absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis definition of Aryan/German or related blood so how are they not red herrings?
(4)
Certainly the NS-regime had no problem with repressing people of "related blood" -- Poles, Dutch, Danes, Austrians, and Norwegians, among other European groups.
Another red herring. Totally irrelevant.

Also, just a bit further up you made the claim Slavs were not considered to be of related blood yet you cite Poles (who are Slavs) as being of related blood.
The claim that Poles were of "related blood" is yours, not mine. See your post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1963429
You said:
Certainly the NS-regime had no problem with repressing people of "related blood" -- Poles, Dutch, Danes, Austrians, and Norwegians, among other European groups.
Indeed I did say Poles were regarded as Aryans/related blood because they were, the Nazis themselves used them as examples. Also, during the war ethnic Poles were placed outside of the ghettos on the 'Aryan side'.
(5)
Poles (who are Slavs)
Really? All of them?
Ethnic Poles are Slavs, West Slavs to be precise.

schwester
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 25 Aug 2015 12:27
Location: bass straight

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by schwester » 25 Aug 2015 12:33

kuba kowalski wrote:The Nuremberg Laws the Nazis passed in 1935 stated that only those of German or related blood could be Reich citizens.

After reading through various Nazi documents, it appears the term was just another way of saying "other Europeans" since the Ahnenpaß document stated that Poles, Czechs, Italians, British, Swedish and French were of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut"). So all Europeans were considered to be of related blood except those of non-European origin e.g Jews, Gypsies, Negroes, Mongols, etc.

Germans had to prove thier german ancestry for 4 /5 generations ago from 1930's. Hitler did see the British as blood brothers. However, imo Hitler looked down apond on colonise countries such as Americans and Austrlians etc...

The polish as blood brothers? I had come across and read that Hitler was anti slavic and anti polish?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by michael mills » 25 Aug 2015 13:31

I think the error being made by David Thompson in this case is to interpret the word "blood" as used in documents of the National Socialist German Government in an entirely literal sense, ie as the fluid flowing through our circulatory systems.

That is an incorrect interpretation, since it is clear that the German Government was using the word in its common metaphorical sense of "genetic relatedness", a metaphorical sense that also exists in English, and with which we are all familiar.

For example, if I asked David who his "blood relatives" were, he would immediately understand what I mean. He would not interpret my question as asking him to identify persons having the same blood group as himself, but rather the persons who are descended from the same ancestors as himself, as opposed to his relatives by marriage.

The same metaphorical sense occurs in such common expressions as "full-blooded", as in "full-blooded Australian Aboriginal", or "of mixed blood". Everybody understands that what is referred to by such expressions is an individual's ancestry, not his blood group.

To be sure, there was a minority of fanatically racist National Socialists, such as Julius Streicher, who interpreted the word "blood" in an absolutely literal sense and believed that the blood of Jews was a different physical substance from that of Germans, and hence could not be mixed, for example in blood transfusions. Hitler's personal physician, Karl Brandt, tried to explain to Streicher that the word "blood" as used in National Socialist ideology had a purely metaphorical meaning, and did not denote the actual bodily fluid, but without much success.

The bottom line is that arguments about the physical properties of blood are entirely irrelevant to the definition of the National Socialist term "kindred blood" (artverwandtes Blut), since the term refers to common descent or genetic relatedness. Thus, the term "kindred blood" meant "genetically related to the German people", and as the examples quoted clearly show, all the European peoples were considered as being genetically related to the German people, whereas non-Europeans were not considered to have that genetic relationship.

As to the question of whether Slavs were considered as being of "kindred blood" to Germans, I can give an example from my personal experience. Some 15 years ago I was acquainted with a woman here in Canberra who was the granddaughter of the Russian general Konstantin Viacheslavovich Sakharov, an anti-Bolshevik who became a refugee in Germany after the Russian Revolution. The woman's mother was the daughter of General Sakharov, and her father was a German officer who was killed in the war, shortly after her birth.

This woman showed me her mother's "Ariernachweis" (certificate of Aryanness) and asked me to translate it for her. The fact that her mother had an "Ariernachweis" issued by the German Government indicates that, despite being fully of Russian, ie Slavic, ethnicity, she was considered an "Aryan" according to the German law.

That example demonstrates quite clearly that according to the laws of National Socialist Germany, persons of Slavic ethnicity such as Russians were considered to be of "kindred blood" to the German people, provided of course that they had no identifiable non-European ancestry, eg from Mongols or Tatars.

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 25 Aug 2015 23:07

schwester wrote:Germans had to prove thier german ancestry for 4 /5 generations ago from 1930's. Hitler did see the British as blood brothers. However, imo Hitler looked down apond on colonise countries such as Americans and Austrlians etc...

The polish as blood brothers? I had come across and read that Hitler was anti slavic and anti polish?
Germans or anybody wishing to become a Reich citizen had to trace their ancestry back to their grandparents and prove they were all of 'Aryan' descent through birth/baptism and marriage certificates.

Hitler's anti-Slavic feelings can be traced back to his days in Vienna, the Austria-Hungarian Empire was a multi ethnic empire and the Austrian Germans who were German nationalists despised and attempted to fight against "Austro-Slavism", Hitler remarked in Mein Kampf that he supported the Japanese against the Russians as he viewed as a defeat to Austro-Slavism. Again, Hitler's remarks on the Slavs and Poles in Mein Kampf were no more than what was common spread among the pan-Germans of the late 19th century and early 20th century. He criticised the earlier Germanisation of the Poles and regarded the Poles as racially inferior to the Germans and claimed that the Russian state was due to the German element there and not of the Slavs who he described as an inferior race.

Apart from the odd remark in Mein Kampf and his Second Book, Hitler did not mention the Poles in his writings in a negative way since Poland was neutral. Hitler's views in the 1930s was to pursue a friendly relation with Poland as he hoped it would become a satellite state against the Soviet Union and the non-aggression pact was signed in 1934. Pilsudski liked the fact Hitler was Austrian not Prussian as well.

In 1935 when the Nuremberg Laws were announced, Hitler was on friendly terms with the Poles, they were considered to be of "related blood" ("artverwandtes Blut") to the Germans. The laws did not prohibit sexual intercourse or marriage between Germans and Poles and the latter was used in documents as a potential non-German partner who was of related blood.

Hitler did not have a single way of thinking when it came to the Slavs, he viewed different Slavs differently. This can be seen from the fact he had Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania as Allies and in his Table Talks he called the Czechs to be intelligent workers, some Ukrainians to be descended from the German tribes who never migrated and that creative music came from both Germanic and Slavic people and when these two mingle a genius appears.

There is a lot of books that state the Nazis viewed the Slavs as non-Aryans but this is a lie. If the Nazis really thought of the Slavs as non-Aryans then they would have been included in the non-Aryans category of the Nuremberg Laws which considered Jews, Gypsies, Negroes and their bastard offspring as non-Aryans. The Nazis used Slavs as examples of Aryans and nowhere in any of the racial ideologies of the Third Reich could they racially separate a German and any Slav. They knew terms like Germanic and Slavic were linguistic terms not racial terms and that all the European peoples were racially related.

GregSingh
Member
Posts: 3880
Joined: 21 Jun 2012 01:11
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by GregSingh » 26 Aug 2015 01:16

Unfortunately "Slavs being considered Aryan according to German law" did not help them much. I think it was totally irrelevant for a person on the street.
Slavic Soviet political commissars did not get any preferential treatment for being Aryans.
Ariernachweis might be of value in Western Europe, in the East it would help Slavs as much as WWI medals and service record with Kaiser army helped Jews.

kuba kowalski
Member
Posts: 103
Joined: 11 Jul 2015 01:48
Location: England

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by kuba kowalski » 26 Aug 2015 02:34

GregSingh wrote:Unfortunately "Slavs being considered Aryan according to German law" did not help them much. I think it was totally irrelevant for a person on the street.
Slavic Soviet political commissars did not get any preferential treatment for being Aryans.
Ariernachweis might be of value in Western Europe, in the East it would help Slavs as much as WWI medals and service record with Kaiser army helped Jews.
Well during the war the Slavs (Aryans) were placed outside of the ghettos. In occupied Poland any Pole found giving a Jew help by forging documents so they were able to pretend to be an Aryan (Pole) were subject to the death penalty.

Image

Announcement in 1942, death penalty for any Poles for any help to the Jews.

But being an Aryan didn't stop you from being murdered. The first people put into concentration camps were Aryans (German communists).

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Nazis definition of related blood ("artverwandtes Blut")

Post by michael mills » 26 Aug 2015 05:18

The reasons why particular groups of people were targeted by the German Government for killing are totally unrelated to the concept of "German of kindred blood" in German legislation.

There were basically two reasons why a person or group of persons was targeted for killing by the German Government:

1. Constituting a danger to the German people.

2. Being useless or a burden.

It is clear that a person "of German or kindred blood" could fall into either of those two categories. For example, a person of German blood might nevertheless be a danger to the German people because of his political activities, eg a Communist, or because he was useless and a burden, eg incurably insane and unable to contribute to the German war effort.

To take the Polish people as an example, they were only classified as a danger to the German people after the Polish Government chose to make itself an enemy of Germany by entering into an anti-German alliance with Britain on 6 April 1939. Thereafter, Poles were considered enemies, and the death penalty was prescribed for a wide range of actions by them considered as harmful to Germany.

Where Poles were executed, it was not because of their "blood", but because of their actions (whether real or assumed).

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”