Oppression of Germans as Prelude to the Final Solution

[fireofice]

I came across this article:

https://jottopohl.substack.com/p/revisi ... h-of-ernst

In it, the author takes the holocaust as a historical event for granted. However, he argues that it was essentially a response to Jews in the Soviet Union targeting ethnic Germans. This was apparently a view held by Ernst Nolte and points out that other historians are coming to the same conclusions. This is also useful information from a revisionist/denial perspective.

It would also be ironic from the perspective of the current Israel attack on Gaza. Everything that they do is handwaved away by pointing to October 7, as if that apparently justifies everything they do (ignoring of course the fact that Oct 7 itself was not just an attack from nowhere, but also a response to things Israel has done). Well from the same logic, everything the Nazis did to the Jews was justified even if there was a holocaust. Apparently only Nazis have to be proportional in their responses but Jews don't have to be. Very interesting standards.

Here's the author's book on the subject of the Soviet oppression of Germans that goes into more detail:

https://www.amazon.com/Years-Great-Sile ... 83821630X/

[Numar Patru]

Does Pohl offer any evidence of this in Nazi decision making? None of the pre-Barbarossa orders are particularly specific and none mention Volga Germans, at least that I can remember.

[Hektor]

Does Pohl offer any evidence of this in Nazi decision making? None of the pre-Barbarossa orders are particularly specific and none mention Volga Germans, at least that I can remember.

I think the evidence was mostly circumstantial with Policies on Jews occurring after there were policies against Germans. That part is however virtually skipped in historiography and completely absent in the media presentation. The NS JP was in response to developments in the Weimar period. Sure, there were Germans hostile to Jews already previous to this, but those were mostly related to questions of religion, partially to business practices and I think in some cases those were private conflicts that were dragged onto a more social or political level.

[Numar Patru]

What is JP?

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf before 1925. It is thoroughly racially antisemitic. This was nearly a decade before Stalin undertook any program against Volga Germans.

[fireofice]

What is JP?

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf before 1925. It is thoroughly racially antisemitic. This was nearly a decade before Stalin undertook any program against Volga Germans.

No one is claiming Hitler wasn't antisemitic before that.

[Callafangers]

What is JP?

Presumably Judenpolitik.

[Hektor]

What is JP?

Hitler wrote Mein Kampf before 1925. It is thoroughly racially antisemitic. This was nearly a decade before Stalin undertook any program against Volga Germans.

Jewish Policy.
Now what gives you the idea that Mein Kampf is 'racially antisemitic'... It has racialist parts. That is true. But it the stuff it got to say about Jews is separate from this.

It does not say Jews should be deported or interned neither. Let alone be 'exterminated'.
Mein Kampf was reacting to the role Jews played e.g. in the early Weimar Republic or with culturally degenerate tendencies.
So it is always a response. The "Anti-Semites" hardly ever have the initiative.

[Hans]

I came across this article:

https://jottopohl.substack.com/p/revisi ... h-of-ernst

In it, the author takes the holocaust as a historical event for granted. However, he argues that it was essentially a response to Jews in the Soviet Union targeting ethnic Germans.

I believe the connection is greatly exaggerated.

The Soviets deported the Volga Germans away from the advancing frontline. The Nazis wanted to use the Jews as leverage to prevent this, but the Soviets did not care. The Nazis ordered the deportation of Jews in Western Europe as "retaliation" and they were not really useful as leverage anyway (Soviet policymakers hardly cared about the fate of Jews in Germany). If this were all, there would have been tens of thousands of Jewish casualties, and that's it.

Not at least 5 Million.

[fireofice]

I believe the connection is greatly exaggerated.

The Soviets deported the Volga Germans away from the advancing frontline. The Nazis wanted to use the Jews as leverage to prevent this, but the Soviets did not care. The Nazis ordered the deportation of Jews in Western Europe as "retaliation" and they were not really useful as leverage anyway (Soviet policymakers hardly cared about the fate of Jews in Germany). If this were all, there would have been tens of thousands of Jewish casualties, and that's it.

Not at least 5 Million.

Strange argument. Obviously I disagree about how many Jews were killed. But putting that aside, retaliation is not always proportionate. For example, what Israel is doing to Gaza is in some sense retaliation for Oct 7, but way more people have been killed in the assault on Gaza than were killed in Oct 7.

This isn't a moral argument that such disproportionate retaliations are justified, just that they are retaliations in some sense, even if the retaliation is way over the top compared to the original offense.

[Hektor]

I believe the connection is greatly exaggerated.

The Soviets deported the Volga Germans away from the advancing frontline. The Nazis wanted to use the Jews as leverage to prevent this, but the Soviets did not care. The Nazis ordered the deportation of Jews in Western Europe as "retaliation" and they were not really useful as leverage anyway (Soviet policymakers hardly cared about the fate of Jews in Germany). If this were all, there would have been tens of thousands of Jewish casualties, and that's it.

Not at least 5 Million.

Strange argument. Obviously I disagree about how many Jews were killed. But putting that aside, retaliation is not always proportionate. For example, what Israel is doing to Gaza is in some sense retaliation for Oct 7, but way more people have been killed in the assault on Gaza than were killed in Oct 7.

This isn't a moral argument that such disproportionate retaliations are justified, just that they are retaliations in some sense, even if the retaliation is way over the top compared to the original offense.

And add to this that this has been done by friendly fire.


The internment of Jews wasn't disproportionate neither. There was internment of people of German descent, if they were e.g. members of a German cultural organization or friends with such people in several Allied countries. People also died in internment and their families were subject to all kinds of harassment and obstruction in public life. Such escapades also happened prior to the NSDAP becoming the governing party in Germany. So the Anti-German sentiment can not be explained with "Nazism" (which some dimwits apparently think is an acceptable term).

The reason for the emergence of Anti-German sentiment precedes WW2 and it's simply stemming from envy and resentment. 1.) With the 'Second Reich' Germany became a major industrial producer and Germans rather successful. In the immigration countries (like the US) Germans tended to be more successful than others and this in a more virtuous way then others, too. In the Arts and Sciences Germans were successful as well and they had a good reputation. So the World Wars gave resentful people an opportunity to take it out on the Germans that weren't under the protective hands of Wehrmacht.


Based on previous experiences there were of course major security concerns with regards the Jews, so there were reasons to intern them and put them other lockdown.

Heinrich Himmler addressed the issue with Norbert Masur as well:
https://archive.org/details/norbert-mas ... h/mode/2up

[Callafangers]

Strange argument. Obviously I disagree about how many Jews were killed. But putting that aside, retaliation is not always proportionate. For example, what Israel is doing to Gaza is in some sense retaliation for Oct 7, but way more people have been killed in the assault on Gaza than were killed in Oct 7.

This isn't a moral argument that such disproportionate retaliations are justified, just that they are retaliations in some sense, even if the retaliation is way over the top compared to the original offense.

"October 7th" was, at worst, an event that is heavily exaggerated and was allowed to happen by the Israeli government for propaganda purposes.

More likely, only a tiny fraction of it has any resemblance to truth whatsoever. It has been discussed, here (at RODOH):

https://rodoh.info/thread/648/mini-holo ... 7th-israel

[Hans]

I believe the connection is greatly exaggerated.

The Soviets deported the Volga Germans away from the advancing frontline. The Nazis wanted to use the Jews as leverage to prevent this, but the Soviets did not care. The Nazis ordered the deportation of Jews in Western Europe as "retaliation" and they were not really useful as leverage anyway (Soviet policymakers hardly cared about the fate of Jews in Germany). If this were all, there would have been tens of thousands of Jewish casualties, and that's it.

Not at least 5 Million.

Strange argument. Obviously I disagree about how many Jews were killed. But putting that aside, retaliation is not always proportionate. For example, what Israel is doing to Gaza is in some sense retaliation for Oct 7, but way more people have been killed in the assault on Gaza than were killed in Oct 7.

This isn't a moral argument that such disproportionate retaliations are justified, just that they are retaliations in some sense, even if the retaliation is way over the top compared to the original offense.

Retaliation, by definition, means returning a similar or corresponding harm. Policy makers know this game too well, and the Nazis were no exception; figures like Rosenberg understood this concept.

When parties apply excessive harm and intentionally escalate conflicts, they may frame their actions as "retaliation" to maintain moral high ground and mask other agendas. But just because they slap a "retaliation" sticker on it doesn't mean we have to accept getting fooled. Saying "retaliations in some sense" means it is not just retaliation; it's more like retaliation plus other agendas driving the escalation. And it's this actual driver that we need to uncover to properly reconstruct and understand the actions and the history.

It is not like the Nazis were just eager to keep the Jewish people in Germany, and only because of the deportation of the Volga Germans had to take such actions. Prior to and independently of the deportation of the Volga Germans, Nazi agencies were already pushing Hitler to order the deportation of Jews from Western Europe to the East. For instance, Peter Witte's article here discusses these early initiatives.The deportation of the Volga Germans likely helped to break Hitler's resistance and accelerate events - but it was a train that was already prepared to leave the station, the only question was when. This breakthrough could have been sooner or latter achieved by other factors as well, such as the stalling offensive in the East and, ultimately, the events of December 1941.

I am not aware of evidence that retaliation for the deportation of Volga Germans played any significant role in the Nazis decision in December 1941 to exterminate all Jews in Europe. Hitler mentioned nothing less than the existence of a world war and the alleged danger posed by the Jewish people - not the deportations of the Volga Germans. The latter pre-poned deportation plans toward Western Jews to September 1941, but it does not account for the large scale mass extermination.

[Hektor]

....
I am not aware of evidence that retaliation for the deportation of Volga Germans played any significant role in the Nazis decision in December 1941 to exterminate all Jews in Europe. Hitler mentioned nothing less than the existence of a world war and the alleged danger posed by the Jewish people - not the deportations of the Volga Germans. The latter pre-poned deportation plans toward Western Jews to September 1941, but it does not account for the large scale mass extermination.

Oh, did the document that said they are exterminating the Jews in Europe not stipulate that they are doing that to retaliate for the deportation of Volga Germans?

Is there a document like this? If not, what are you basing your conclusion on. Or is it simply an idol of the mind that tells you how to interpret texts you are reading?!


The danger that Jews posed wasn't just an allegation. They were based upon previous experiences. e.g. during WW1, but also based on intelligence they gathered in the interbellum period on the USSR as well as the countries between Germany and Russia proper.

It really helps to read the Report of Norbert Masur on this. Apparently Himmler had no problems explaining to him why he did what he did (through his staff naturally).