Dark hair was common among Vikings, genetic study confirms

[Angela]

After the Nazis were to achieve Lebensraum, they planned a mass extermination of the conquered peoples, in order to repopulate it with ethnic Germans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Ethnic group / Nationality targeted	Percentages of ethnic groups to be eliminated by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas.[17][18][19]
Russians[20]	70 million
Estonians[19][21]	almost 50%
Latvians[19]	50%
Czechs[18]	50%
Ukrainians[18][22]	65% to be deported from West Ukraine, 35% to be Germanized
Belarusians[18]	75%
Poles[18]	20 million, or 80–85%
Lithuanians[19]	85%
Latgalians[19]	100%

Yes, they rank right up there with the Mongols. Maybe worse. As I said, but some insist on denying: there are gradations of evil.

Perhaps I'm misremembering because I read them long ago, but I believe that per the notes it was also discussed at the Wannsee Conference. A mania for record keeping has its drawbacks.

How on earth the love of Nazism has such a hold in Eastern Europe is ironic, to say the least. One of them actually went public with his reasons: he said it's just that the Nazis were wrong; it was the Slavs who were the real Aryans.

I guess it depends upon the circle of "your" space. Make it big enough, world wide, and any other group makes it too heterogeneous for you.

 

[Jovialis]

so the nazis viewd latvians and estonians as slavs
thats crazy ......

It doesn't say they viewed them as Slavs. Nevertheless, they were slated for ethnic cleansing.

 

[Jovialis]

Like I said, I don't want to discuss this unpleasant topic at length, but just to give you two hints, first, "Slavs" encompasses much more people than those living in areas which Germans should have colonised going after the plan, so its something completely different from a general genocidal plan "on all Slavs". On the contrary, most friendly or unfriendly relations were determind by the political framework of the time much more so than by "Slavic or non-Slavic" in Eastern Europe.
Secondarily, even this rather one sided article on Wikipedia speaks about this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

So with all these fantasy numbers and hypothetical plans, they even mix up completely different things like extermination (like with Jews by Germany), expulsion (like with Germans by Czechs and Poles), Germanization (like with Germans in France or the USA) or enslavement (?). These are obviously very different things which shouldn't be mixed up and need to be defind in detail. That "the Nazis" would have wanted to "eliminate" (!) 85 percent (!!!) of the Lithuanians (not even Slavs by the way) is such an absurd statement, if being ripped out of any context, like about which province and project they even talk about. And to use the term "eliminate" is absurd in this case. This table is completely misleading (on purpose?).

What do you think the ultimate consequence of Nazi enslavement was? They worked until they died.

 

[Jovialis]

Yes, they rank right up there with the Mongols. Maybe worse. As I said, but some insist on denying: there are gradations of evil.

Perhaps I'm misremembering because I read them long ago, but I believe that per the notes it was also discussed at the Wannsee Conference. A mania for record keeping has its drawbacks.

How on earth the love of Nazism has such a hold in Eastern Europe is ironic, to say the least. One of them actually went public with his reasons: he said it's just that the Nazis were wrong; it was the Slavs who were the real Aryans.

I guess it depends upon the circle of "your" space. Make it big enough, world wide, and any other group makes it too heterogeneous for you.

Amazing that with all this proof some people refuse to acknowledge it; it's invalidated because they actually knew nothing about the genetics of the people in the east, and they were defeated before they could put it all into practice. Incredible, isn't it?

Here are images I took from the Topography of Terror exhibit during my trip to Berlin:

 

[Angela]

Amazing that with all this proof some people refuse to acknowledge it; the plans aren't proof because the Germans actually knew nothing about the genetics of the people in the east,and they were defeated before they could finalize all the details and put it all into practice. After all, they barely had time to finish with the Jews and gypsies and other undesirables. Also, I guess if they only wanted to exterminate the people of certain provinces it would have been ok, or if a huge number were to be worked to death rather than put right into gas chambers.

Incredible, isn't it, how certain people's minds work when they look at everything in terms of whether the perpetrators are somehow related to them?

 

[kingjohn]

It doesn't say they viewed them as Slavs. Nevertheless, they were slated for ethnic cleansing.

thanks for clarification jovialis
i know its off topic
but slavic woman are so pretty
and to me personaly more appealing than german woman
but thats just my taste

 

[Jovialis]

thanks for clarification jovialis
i know its off topic
but slavic woman are so pretty
and to me personaly more appealing than german woman
but thats just my taste

I think both groups have some very attractive women.

 

[Northener]

Short of time so some short statements:

Ever read works on social disciplination and how in the occident the discipined bourgeois society was created? In part by massive indoctrination and punishment, the exertion of control by the state and church. So over the generations, already ethnoreligiously more homogeneous societies became even more ordered and law abiding. The more so, the more they could open up, without chaos, to Liberal ways of life. Homogeneity therefore allows to reduce the pressure on the individual and free it, because, especially if it being manipulated, distracted and fairly wealthy in its society, it won't do violent things and resist. The relative freedom of the Western individual was also possible and made possible by their high degree of disciplination. That's the Western way of "ruling". People "feel the rules" and have internalised them to such a high degree, that brute force and suppression is no longer necessary. Obviously, if you have people which don't function the same way, for whatever reason, you have problems if applying the same rules, education and control, because it might not be enough to keep them under control.
This inevitably leads to problems, because you create "parallel societies" and "hotspots" etc. Would be an interesting experiment if you could transfer a group of Vikings into modernity and how they would react to modern Western rules

on the contrary it's a matter of self-discipline, self-reliance, self-control certainly not external (extreme) authoritarianism.....
To exemplify it with my gggg-grandfather in the 18th century, he was initially skipper brought on own account peat to Hamburg and brought back Scandic wood etc.Later on he started a proto-industry. So a a small businessman.This meant that had to be self reliance, basics in finance and also negotiate and communicate. That's the true bourgeois or capitalist spirit! He also engaged as a patriot (against the orangist) that was kind of liberal, partly because he was a small businessman and partly because he belonged to a religious minority (in casu Catholic). He was in everything against authoritarianism!

"Diversity" is a broad term, which can mean many things, it does matter what kind of diversity you have. But let's say its significant (!) tribal and religious diversity, you always end up in a fractured society with more centrifugal forces pulling people apart. Its like in a recipe, you can mix up some ingredients, and it fits, but if you add something else, it causes trouble. And if that happens, if there is a too much of diversity injected which can't be easily processed, there are only two options: The state itself collapses, or it turns more authoritarian and suppresses the centrifugal forces and conflicts caused by the problematic kind of heterogeneity with force.
There is no clear definition as to what kind of diversity exactly is too much or problematic, since it depends on the involved elements, people, economy and state etc., but that's just how it usually works. The most democratic and peaceful societies were not exactly known for a high level of religious and ethnic diversity of significance. The emphasis is on signficant, because diversity which is non-exclusive doesn't matter, but if, for whatever reasons, like political, ideological, religous, ethnic etc. the involved elements approach an exclusive stance, the peaceful society is in trouble.

The sense of democratic politics is that it can deal with diversity without violence! So it combines diversity with a way to express the collective will. Totalitarianism can't stand diversity it even expels it!

So either you have a population which is by default united where it matters, so that the state doesn't need to suppress its members, which allows a hypothetical undefined, "empty place" like you said, or you slip into a situation in which this can't be upheld and done any more without the state crumbling. Don't forget that one totalitarian political movement in the early 20th century caused the other, because without Communism/Bolshevism, the rise of Fascism would have been much less likely to impossible. The problem was that the centre of the political spectrum had the urge to decide between two different authoritarian approaches to get order back again and after knowing what happened in Russia, that decision was clear for many at that point in time. Many would have decided otherwise, if seeing an alternative, but they saw none any longer, because the extreme positions dominated the discourse and the centre had failed.

I don't think communism provoked fascism, they are in some sense same kind, "the extremes touch each other" (as the French say), Mussolini was at first extremest left, and we got the national socialist movement of HH.

Similarly some highly diverse societies will always slip back onto an authoritairan regime, because more Liberal freedom of the Western kind won't result in a more peaceful and developed society, but in accelerated and more extreme conflicts of the centrifugal forces. Ethiopia is, right now, one sad example of this pattern.

Strongly against this, because many western democracies (English, Dutch, US etc) never developed into an authoritarian system!

You have to consider that a lot of the Germanic development came from the East also, not just the West. Like the "second Latenisation" or the Iranian influences came from the Goths, which influenced Germanic people up to Scandinavia. So there was the Roman influence to the West and the genuinly Germanic new culture in the East, both fusing to new expressions. The more hierarchic and structured society first came up in the East interestingly, not the West. The original Germanic culture was very egalitarian, a segmentarian clan society, but the 2nd Latenisation changed that, with the Roman influence giving yet another boost to the development.

Of course there is a major eastern influence! Agree....I consider the Germanics of Roman/migration times as the 'original' Germanic culture, before that we don't know Germanics imo.

 

[Northener]

Excuse dear members I was hasty but corrections afterwards don't always stick.....

 

[Riverman]

What do you think the ultimate consequence of Nazi enslavement was? They worked until they died.

And the Nazis planned to exterminate all Lithuanians by forced labour? Its ridiculous. There was never such a plan which came close to being taken for serious as far as I know of. Even the Generalplan Ost was never activated, but it was a map exercise by specific NS agencies. Like when an US think tank is making a map exercise on the Near East and thinks about doing this or doing that. The German Wikipedia entry is much more careful about the listing of plans and numbers:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

If you translate it, you can even see that very much was plan games and what was effectively planned never reached the kind of nonsense produced by that table. The main plan was to resettle people from regions which were planned to be Germanised, with giving some percentage of the locals, in a lot of cases, the opportunity to "become Germans" and to assimilate. That's what the table could have meant, the percentage of people to assimilate vs those to resettled, because they were not planned to be "Germanised":

Percentages of ethnic groups to be eliminated by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas.

And this did only affect those living in areas which were supposed to future German settlements, like for Lithuania only small strip of land. Obviously this had no consequences for Lithuanians as a whole. This is not about numbers for "extermination", like if the Germans would have planned to "exterminate" 50 percent of the Estonians and 85 percent of the Lithuanians. The table is just totally misleading and absolutely no proof for any genocidal plans. Only one comment in the table makes some sense:

Ukrainians^[18][22] 65% to be deported from West Ukraine, 35% to be Germanized

So more than 1/3 was considered to be Germanised, the rest resettled to the East and even that's just in a hypothetical map exercise. Like if you get such plan games from any superpower, to this day, about what a think tank wants to have or thinks could be done. Again, I'm not justifying any policy of this sort, I just want to point out that the very statement of a planned "extermination plan for all Slavs" is absolutely non-factual. Even if you follow the established, mainstream historical record and writings, this is pretty much over the top. As a trained historian, I have more insight than just Wikipedia articles.

Here are images I took from the Topography of Terror exhibit during my trip to Berlin:

That was the equivalent to this in France:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-female-collaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/

Similar things happened in Norway, in Denmark etc. Those which had "relationships with the enemy" were publicly humiliated, in some cases even tortured or executed during and after the war, by resistance groups. "Fraternization" was initially also forbidden even between American soldiers and German women by the way:

To impress the German people with the Allied opinion of them, a strict non-fraternization policy was adhered to by General Dwight Eisenhower and the Department of War during World War II. However, because of pressure from the US State Department and Congress, the policy was lifted in stages.
In June 1945, the prohibition against speaking with German children was made less strict. In July, it became possible to speak to German adults in certain circumstances. In September, the policy was abandoned in Austria and Germany.^[1]
In the earliest stages of the occupation, US soldiers were not allowed to pay maintenance for a child they admitted having fathered since to do so was considered as "aiding the enemy". Marriages between US soldiers and Austrian women were not permitted until January 1946 and with German women until December 1946.^[2]
The British military had a similar ban in place for their troops during the Allied occupation. The War Office notably published that German women "will be willing, if they can get the chance, to make themselves cheap for what they can get out of you" in its handbook distributed to soldiers stationed in Germany. In spite of the ban, soldiers still knowingly had contact with local women, especially civilian employees. Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, Eisenhower's counterpart, was against the ban, and it was lifted in July 1945.^[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternization

This is no proof of any sort of "extermination plan".

By the way, not everything written by some NS political agency being planned to be realised in practise. You know, there was some "diversity of opinions" on issues and not everything fixed.

To write that the German plan was to "eliminate 85 percent of the Lithuanians" is so ridiculous, I don't know how this went through Wikipedia without further comment, since its so misleading. That's a table published by some private Wikipedia author, it has no serious background to it at all. As source the Wikipedia author gives this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Baltic-States-Years-Dependence-1940-1990/dp/0520082281

Written by these authors:
https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Romuald-J-Misiunas/3974
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rein_Taagepera

Both are essentially politicians and have no historical background, but let's just assume the book is good, which it could be, I didn't read it, at least the usage for this table is obviously totally off and misleading. Because if people just look at it, they might think Germans planned to "eliminate" that percentage of the total ethnic population, when in fact it was just about some specific provinces, and about which people could stay and how many should be resettled (like in some Czech areas 50 percent could stay), and even that just in a map exercise which practical usage in reality would have been up to debate. There were some regions for which such plans became concrete, mostly close to the German border in todays Poland, but even there it was essentially about resettlement policies.

@Northerner:

on the contrary it's a matte of self-discipline, self-reliance, self-control certainly not external (extreme) authoritarianism.....
To exemplify it with my gggg-grandfather in the 18th century, he was initially skipper brought on own account peat to Hamburg and brought back Scandic wood etc.Later on he started a proto-industry. So a a small businessman.This meant that had to be self reliance, basics in finance and also negotiate and communicate. That's the true bourgeois or capitalist spirit! He also engaged as a patriot (against the orangist) that was kind of liberal, partly because he was a small businessman and partly because he belonged to a religious minority (in casu Catholic). He was in everything again authoritarianism!

You speak about people which already went through various processes of disciplination before. This was a process which didn't start in the 18th century, but with Christianity and early Medieval Europe, the break up of old traditional ways of life, clans, family honour, classical patriarchy, harsh punishment for minor offences etc.

The sense of democratic politics is that it can deal with diversity without violence! So it combines diversity with a way to express the collective will. Totalitarianism can't stand diversity it even expels it!

There is diversity everywhere, even in totalitarian societies can be some sort of "diversity", you need to define what it means in which context, otherwise its meaningless.

Strongly against this, because many western democracies (English, Dutch, US etc) never developed into an authoritarian system!

Well, not since they homogenised themselves, but keep watching the ongoing experiment. The USA and GB get more authoritarian every year. Just look at surveillance, privacy and free speech, as some examples. Definitely not getting more "diverse" where it matters politically, only as a political mantra.

 

[Jovialis]

And the Nazis planned to exterminate all Lithuanians by forced labour? Its ridiculous. There was never such a plan which came close to being taken for serious as far as I know of. Even the Generalplan Ost was never activated, but it was a map exercise by specific NS agencies. Like when an US think tank is making a map exercise on the Near East and thinks about doing this or doing that. The German Wikipedia entry is much more careful about the listing of plans and numbers:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

If you translate it, you can even see that very much was plan games and what was effectively planned never reached the kind of nonsense produced by that table. The main plan was to resettle people from regions which were planned to be Germanised, with giving some percentage of the locals, in a lot of cases, the opportunity to "become Germans" and to assimilate. That's what the table could have meant, the percentage of people to assimilate vs those to resettled, because they were not planned to be "Germanised":


And this did only affect those living in areas which were supposed to future German settlements, like for Lithuania only small strip of land. Obviously this had no consequences for Lithuanians as a whole. This is not about numbers for "extermination", like if the Germans would have planned to "exterminate" 50 percent of the Estonians and 85 percent of the Lithuanians. The table is just totally misleading and absolutely no proof for any genocidal plans. Only one comment in the table makes some sense:


So more than 1/3 was considered to be Germanised, the rest resettled to the East and even that's just in a hypothetical map exercise. Like if you get such plan games from any superpower, to this day, about what a think tank wants to have or thinks could be done. Again, I'm not justifying any policy of this sort, I just want to point out that the very statement of a planned "extermination plan for all Slavs" is absolutely non-factual. Even if you follow the established, mainstream historical record and writings, this is pretty much over the top. As a trained historian, I have more insight than just Wikipedia articles.



That was the equivalent to this in France:
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-female-collaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/

Similar things happened in Norway, in Denmark etc. Those which had "relationships with the enemy" were publicly humiliated, in some cases even tortured or executed during and after the war, by resistance groups. "Fraternization" was initially also forbidden even between American soldiers and German women by the way:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternization

This is no proof of any sort of "extermination plan".

By the way, not everything written by some NS political agency being planned to be realised in practise. You know, there was some "diversity of opinions" on issues and not everything fixed.

To write that the German plan was to "eliminate 85 percent of the Lithuanians" is so ridiculous, I don't know how this went through Wikipedia without further comment, since its so misleading. That's a table published by some private Wikipedia author, it has no serious background to it at all. As source the Wikipedia author gives this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Baltic-States-Years-Dependence-1940-1990/dp/0520082281

Written by these authors:
https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Romuald-J-Misiunas/3974
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rein_Taagepera

Both are essentially politicians and have no historical background, but let's just assume the book is good, which it could be, I didn't read it, at least the usage for this table is obviously totally off and misleading. Because if people just look at it, they might think Germans planned to "eliminate" that percentage of the total ethnic population, when in fact it was just about some specific provinces, and about which people could stay and how many should be resettled (like in some Czech areas 50 percent could stay), and even that just in a map exercise which practical usage in reality would have been up to debate. There were some regions for which such plans became concrete, mostly close to the German border in todays Poland, but even there it was essentially about resettlement policies.

@Northerner:


You speak about people which already went through various processes of disciplination before. This was a process which didn't start in the 18th century, but with Christianity and early Medieval Europe, the break up of old traditional ways of life, clans, family honour, classical patriarchy, harsh punishment for minor offences etc.



There is diversity everywhere, even in totalitarian societies can be some sort of "diversity", you need to define what it means in which context, otherwise its meaningless.



Well, not since they homogenised themselves, but keep watching the ongoing experiment. The USA and GB get more authoritarian every year. Just look at surveillance, privacy and free speech, as some examples. Definitely not getting more "diverse" where it matters politically, only as a political mantra.

I don't think they are the equivalent considering the sign says they are "race changers". ich bin ein rassenschänder


I don't think it can be any clearer that they viewed Poles much differently to Germans.


There's only about 2 million Lithuanians, so yes, that could be accomplished. There are cities that are larger than that.


Frankly, I have more faith in those authors, than your skepticism.

 

[Riverman]

I don't think they are the equivalent considering the sign says they are "race changers".

If that would have been the main reason, explain to me why some Russian and Polish descended people could be fully accepted German citizens? The main reason for this escalation was that Germans and Poles were at war, otherwise the "Slavic background story" would have been of practically no importance.

There's only about 2 million Lithuanians, so yes, that could be accomplished.

Sure, but never ever there was a plan to "exterminate Lithuanians physically". I'm not aware of ethnic elimination either, but probably some nutcase made such plans or forged them, so somebody could come up with one paper and blow it up. But that was never ever official policy.

Frankly, I have more faith in those authors, than your skepticism.

Then you should read them and not rely on a misinterpreted table made up by a Wikipedia author in which its clearly written, by the way, that its about specific provinces and Germanisation plans. Its not about "exterminating" this percentages of the total population. I doubt the book wrote anything about the "extermination of Estonians and Lithuanians", otherwise it would not just be a popular one sided work, but outright nonsense.

The furthest one can go is this interpretation, which was probably done by the same author, like in the Generalplan Ost entry, or even if not, in the same spirit:

Rosenberg felt that the "Estonians were the most Germanic out of the people living in the Baltic area, having already reached 50 percent of Germanization through Danish, Swedish and German influence". Non-suitable Estonians were to be moved to a region that Rosenberg called "Peipusland" to make room for German colonists.

The removal of 50% of Estonians was in accordance with the Nazi Generalplan Ost plan, the elimination of all Jews, was just the start.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Estonia_during_World_War_II

This is an extreme interpretation of some map exercises and "found papers", but even with these, this is nowhere near to any sort of "extermination plans", but assimilation and resettlement policy. This is all highly speculative, but even with the most speculative plans and papers used for some one sided perspectives on German plans, you can't interpret it like there was some sort of "extermination by forced labour planned". Even on the contrary, the majority was to be integrated. There is no serious historian who claims that kind of genocidal plans, especially not for the Baltic people.

So please take the table as what it is, written by some Wikipedia author based on questionable sources, but even if taken seriously, its nowhere close to a proof for some sort of extermination plan for "all Slavs", even less so for the Baltic people.

 

[Angela]

Jovialis, it's like arguing with Holocaust deniers. It's pointless. The arguments are absurd and the motivations clear.

Any thread where posters are upset because "Scandinavians" weren't all blonde and blue-eyed is bound to end badly, because you know what kind of posters you're going to attract.

 

[Jovialis]

Jovialis, it's like arguing with Holocaust deniers. It's pointless. The arguments are absurd and the motivations clear.
Any thread where posters are upset because "Scandinavians" weren't all blonde and blue-eyed is bound to end badly, because you know what kind of posters you're going to attract.

Indeed, I'm not going to bother.

 

[Riverman]

Jovialis, it's like arguing with Holocaust deniers. It's pointless. The arguments are absurd and the motivations clear.

Any thread where posters are upset because "Scandinavians" weren't all blonde and blue-eyed is bound to end badly, because you know what kind of posters you're going to attract.

What is absurd about my arguments? These are debates going on among serious scholars, because these were just map exercises by specific think tanks and organisations of the NS state, the sources are incomplete and conflicting. Since you mainly quoted from Wikipedia, here the translation from the German entry on the subject, which is still the gold standard talking about that issue:

Der Grad des tats?chlichen Umfangs und die Frage, welche Teile des GPO tats?chlich umgesetzt worden w?ren bzw. wurden, ist bis heute Gegenstand verschiedener wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen. Hierbei ist anzumerken, dass es sich beim GPO um verschiedene, teils konkurrierende Planungen unterschiedlicher Stellen handelte. Diese Planungskonkurrenz kann hierbei als typisch f?r viele NS-Projekte angesehen werden, da das F?hrerprinzip zumeist eine klare Abgrenzung der Planungshoheiten verhinderte. Insofern ist unklar, welche Planungen oder Planungsaspekte tats?chlich weiter verfolgt worden w?ren. Auch das Fehlen einiger Planungsdokumente (seit 1945 verschollen) erschwert die Forschung.

Translation:

The degree of actual scope and the question of which parts of the GPO would actually have been or have been implemented is the subject of various scientific controversies to this day. It should be noted here that the GPO involved different, sometimes competing plans from different bodies. This planning competition can be seen as typical for many Nazi projects, since the leader principle mostly prevented a clear delimitation of planning sovereignty. In this respect, it is unclear which plans or planning aspects would actually have been pursued further. The lack of some planning documents (missing since 1945) also makes research difficult.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

But even if you take the questionable papers seriously and create a table from it, like in the English Wikipedia entry, the numbers are not meant to quantify "extermination plans", but how many people would have been assimilated or resettled in given provinces. That's just a fact, because there was no actual plan, approved by the highest authorities and put into practise. These were think tanks making map exercises and even those wrote mainly about specific provinces and settlement projects. You can't come up with such a table as a prove for German plans to "exterminate all Slavs".

 

[Dorquest]

I didn't want to get back into this craziness this is just some little internet site. For some people I see it plays a huge part in their lives. But almost 2,000 years before the Axis powers – Nazis Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy. The Roman Empire sacked Judea. “”The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE was the decisive event of the First Jewish–Roman War, in which the Roman army captured the city of Jerusalem and destroyed both the city and its Temple.
The Jewish War, was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews against the Roman Empire, fought in Roman-controlled Judea, resulting in the destruction of Jewish towns, the displacement of its people and the appropriation of land for Roman military use, besides the destruction of the Jewish Temple and polity.
How many people were killed - did they bring civilization to Judea?
I will make no excuses for ANYBODY don’t care about somebody’s opinion about bringing civilization. To me that’s an excuse.

 

[Riverman]

Just to be sure, so that I'm saying nothing wrong on this difficult topic, I did read one of the original texts, written by a single individual for the most part, Dr. Erhard Wetzel:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Wetzel

Erhard Wetzel had, by the way, like mentioned in the PDF I linked below, recent Slavic ancestry himself.

You can find the original, from which many numbers come from, as a file of the ifz M?nchen (Institue for Contemporary History in Munich):
https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/

The paper is older but clearly not commented by any sort of NS friendly historian at all, even on the contrary. This is the original:
https://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_3_5_heiber.pdf

The whole paper, written by this single individual, is a totally speculative and unfinished, quite personal evaluation, probably best described as an expos?. Numerous times he writes about the political considerations, which makes clear its not primarily or only about "racial considerations" and that the investigations being not final, not finished. Concerning the Russians he wrote:

Prof. Abel kam in seinem hier?ber in der Osttagung der deutschen Wissenschaft gehaltenen Vortrag zu dem Ergebnis, da? in den Russen viel st?rkere nordische Ras-seneinschl?ge vorhanden seien, als wie bisher vermutet worden sei.

Translation:

In his lecture on this subject at the Eastern Conference of German Science, Prof. Abel came to the conclusion that the Russians had much stronger Nordic racial impacts than had previously been assumed.

The conclusion was, that the Russians might be more dangerous competitors if the situation becomes critical, because of their higher than assumed "racial quality"... So the Russians were, in this paper, not underestimated, but rather seen as more equal competitors. The main problem was a political one, namely that the Russians might be "too strong" to control by the Germans.

The plan of a "final solution through liquidation" or large scale forced labour or whatever, was negated in every single case of people discussed. And I have to repeat, this is the original, speculative document, from one single author, Erhard Wetzel, which wrote his own expos?. And on correspondences like this one, a lot of the debate is focused on, because if you look at the numbers, its exactly what you find in Wikipedia. This was all talk between people like Wetzel and Heinrich Himmler, which was probably the most fanatic NS leading figure of all, in nearly every respect. Yet, even this very extreme, dehumanising and unpleasent document, does in no paragraph concerning Slavs mention that they should be exterminated as such.

On the contrary, for a lot of the mentioned people it says that a relatively high percentage is able to reach the "highest racial standards" and these families should be Germanised, because they are so valuable for the future of Europe. The others should be resettled from German colonial zones if necessary, or tried to Germanise or keep them just German-friendly at home. There is no grand scale extermination plan, especially no kind of mass executions or anything violent of that sort mentioned anywhere in this highly speculative paper of Erhard Wetzel. A lot is about motivating people to move voluntarily, by giving them special privileges and new chances in other regions, and to avoid, whereever possible, force and violence, because it would make those remaining in place "hostile towards Germans".

If anybody has access to original documents which say otherwise, you are welcomed, I want to check them myself. But that's one of the major sources for all the Wikipedia entries (compare the numbers for Western Ukrainians and Czechs for example, its exactly the same numbers), and with Google translate you can check it yourself if you can't read German. This document is also one discussed by historians, as it was published by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, so nothing "Revisionist" or any dubious other source. That's a large part of the whole "Generalplan Ost", the correspondence of people like Wetzler and some institutes, working like think tanks today, with Himmler and people around him, about what might or might not be done in the future, just map exercises for the most part.

 

[Angela]

This thread should have been closed immediately. I'll redress the situation now.

This thread is closed.

Another interested in the paper can find it on other threads.

Some of you are skating on very thin ice.