Hitler's Plans for the East

Another Look at "the Good War"
Post Reply
S
Strode
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:16 am

Hitler's Plans for the East

Post by Strode »

I wanted to revive this thread from the old CODOH forum.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =20&t=7943
There I gained a lot of valuable information such as the various drafts for a General plan for the East. The revisionist take on WW2 with respect to Danzig, Britain, Barbarossa being pre-emptive wholly makes sense to me. However, it does not absolve or refute the expansionist claims. I can out of hand reject anyone that claims Germany wanted to murder half the population, just out of common sense, but the goals of colonization seem to be clearly there.
In Table Talks Hitler specifically talks about ethnically cleansing the Crimea, then settling it with Germans. From the entry on July 27, 1941
We must take care to prevent a military power from ever again establishing itself on this side of the Urals, for our neighbors to the West would always be allied with our neighbors to the East. That’s how the French once made common cause with the Turks, and now the English are behaving in the same fashion with the Soviets. When I say, on this side of the Urals, I mean a line running two or three hundred kilometers east of the Urals.

It should be possible for us to control this region to the East with two hundred and fifty thousand men plus a cadre of good administrators. Let’s learn from the English, who, with two hundred and fifty thousand men in all, including fifty thousand soldiers, govern four hundred 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. It is to our interest that the people should know just enough to recognize the signs on the roads. At present they can’t read, and they ought to stay like that. But they must be allowed to live decently, of course, and that’s also to our interest.

We’ll take the southern part of the 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, whatever their line may have been previously. In this way we shall dispose, moreover, of a body of courageous N.C.O.’s, whenever we need them. In future we shall have a standing army of a million and a half to two million men. With the discharge of soldiers after twelve years of service, we shall have thirty to forty thousand men to do what we like with every year. For those of them who are sons of peasants, the Reich will put at their disposal a completely equipped farm. The soil costs us nothing, we have only the house to build. The peasant’s son will already have paid for it by his twelve years’ service. During the last two years he will already be equipping himself for agriculture. One single condition will be imposed upon him: that he may not marry a townswoman, but a countrywoman who, as far as possible, will not have begun to live in a town with him. These soldier-peasants will be given arms, so that at the slightest danger they can be at their posts when we summon them. That’s how the ancient Austria used to keep its Eastern peoples under control. By the same token, the soldier-peasant will make a perfect schoolteacher. The N.C.O. is an ideal teacher for the little country boy. In any case, this N.C.O. will make a better teacher than our present teacher will make an officer!

Thus we shall again find in the countryside the blessing of numerous families. Whereas the present law of rural inheritance dispossesses the younger sons, in future every peasant’s son will be sure of having his patch of ground. And thirty to forty thousand peasants a year—that’s enormous!

In the Baltic States, we’ll be able to accept as colonists some Dutch, some Norwegians—and even, by individual arrangement, some Swedes.
A later entry from July 2nd, 1942
I have just read a report by Gauleiter Frauenfeld on the South Tyrol. In it he proposes that the South Tyrolese should be transplanted en masse to the Crimea, and I think the idea is an excellent one. There are few places on earth in which a race can better succeed in maintaining its integrity for centuries on end than the Crimea. The Tartars and the Goths are the living proof of it. I think, too, that the Crimea will be both climatically and geographically ideal for the South Tyrolese, and in comparison with their present settlements it will be a real land of milk and honey.

Their transfer to the Crimea presents neither physical nor psychological difficulty. All they have to do is to sail down just one German waterway, the Danube, and there they are.
I know Table Talks is contentious, and therefore I do not rely solely on that. In this interview at minute 37, Germar Rudolf corroborates the existence of these orders to ethnically cleanse Crimea and settle it with South Tyroleans
https://germarrudolf.com/2018/02/on-the ... lf-hitler/
The whole interview is great.
In the previous thread someone provided a thesis looking at various drafts of the Generalplan Ost, and provided a translation
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =20&t=7943
https://web.archive.org/web/20040722015 ... anung.html

The clear pattern is one of colonization and Germanization, even if they don't explicitly cross the line into outright mass murder. Though really, it stretches credulity there would not be mass resistance to forced ethnic cleansing and displacement, which would trigger resistance from the local populations, which may or may not escalate to war.

From this and what's already known such as Mein Kampf and his Secret book on foreign policy, can the following thus be ascertained? Practical considerations (i.e. the looming threat of the USSR) had made possible the realization of the more fantastical and extreme goals of the German National Socialists, in particular Hitler, which included the conquest and colonization of Northeastern Europe (Baltics states, European Russia, Ukraine, maybe Poland), with the long-term vision of colonizing and Germanizing the area with German(ic) settlers, and definitely ethnically cleansing at least some areas (e.g. Crimea). With the locals eventually either being outbred or slowly moved behind the Urals.
User avatar
Archie
Site Admin
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:54 am

Re: Hitler's Plans for the East

Post by Archie »

In the old thread, I think hermod makes a good point that lots of Balts and others served for the Germans in the Waffen-SS and in other capacities. I believe it was something like 800K of the Red Army later served with the Germans. That is hard to square with the idea that Hitler wanted to exterminate or enslave all non-Germans in the East. That's a good common sense refutation of the cartoonish version of the East policy.

I remember reading about the Crimea colonization plan in secondary sources, probably relying on the Table Talks. Based on how they were compiled, I figure the Table Talks have a general accuracy but some caution is required since they can't be taken to be word-for-word accurate. The Crimea plan doesn't seem implausible to me.

Himmler was quite interested in ethnic policy in the East. Lothrop Stoddard's 1940 book Into the Darkness recounts an interesting interview with Himmler.
“And now, Excellency,” I went on, “a few words, if you will, about your resettlement policy?”

“That policy,” replied Himmler, “can best be expressed in the words of our Fuehrer: ‘To give lasting peace to our eastern borders.’ For centuries, that region and others in Eastern Europe have been chronically disturbed by jarring minorities hopelessly mixed up with one another. What we are now trying to do is to separate these quarreling elements in just, constructive fashion. We have voluntarily withdrawn our German minorities from places like the Baltic States, and we shall do the same in Northern Italy. We are even marking out a place for the Jews where they may live quietly unto themselves. Between us and the Poles we seek to fashion a proper racial boundary. Of course, we are going about it slowly–you can’t move multitudes of people with their livestock and personal belongings like pawns on a chessboard. But that is the objective we ultimately hope to attain.”

Himmler talked further about his resettlement policies, carefully avoiding the tragic aspects that they involve. He then returned briefly to the subject of his S.S. At that point, a smart young aide entered and saluted.
https://www.unz.com/book/lothrop_stodda ... _20_50:1-1

My understanding is that they did start trying to do some of this in 1940-1941 but it mostly ended up getting abandoned for practical reasons. The "place for the Jews" referred to here was the Lublin reservation (or Nisko plan).

There are some Nuremberg documents, NO-1880 and NO-1881, where Himmler discusses "alien races" in the East. It's somewhat harsher and less diplomatic than what he told Stoddard. He talks about Germanization and only educating the Slavs to a very limited level. Like I said, it sounds harsh, but it's also a far cry from murdering everyone. In fact, there is a line in there that specifically undermines that interpretation.
Cruel and tragic as every individual case may be, this method is still the mildest and best one if, out of inner conviction, one rejects as un-German and impossible the Bolshevist method of physical extermination of a people.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=63400

There's probably more relevant stuff from Himmler. The T175 microfilm is digitized on the NARA site if anyone wants to dive in.
https://catalog.archives.gov/search-wit ... naId%3Aasc
f
fireofice
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2024 6:31 am

Re: Hitler's Plans for the East

Post by fireofice »

For views on plans for the east and Slavs from the Nazi perspective addressed at the old forum, read these:

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... =2&t=14168
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 77#p106664
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... ml?t=12690
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... ml?t=12639

Read these as well:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... locaust-1/
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... n-ost/536/

The Nazis did see Slavs as inferior to Germans and Western Europeans in general. There's no need to downplay that or deny it. This telegram page documents that pretty well:

https://t.me/RaceFirstOfficial

And lets be real, in some sense, they kind of are. Of course, "inferior" and "superior" are subjective opinions. Back then, they were much more technologically behind Western Europe. Even today, although they have progressed technologically since then, they still lag behind Western Europe. The Nazis attributed this to biological causes. Here are some facts about Slavic peoples (I disagree with calling them "subhuman" so just ignore that, that may or may not be a joke anyway):



So clearly, the Nazis were not crazy or delusional on this point. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who believes in HBD that not all white people are the same or have the same civilizational potential. And they weren't the only ones who thought that nor was it a completely uncommon view at the time. Edward Ross, a racialist and eugenicist, wrote a book called in 1914 called The Old World in the New where he describes negative traits he attributes to Slavs:

https://www.unz.com/book/e_a_ross__the- ... -the-slavs

Ross was a progressive at the time as well. Marx and Engels also held similar views on Slavs.

Now as for the treatment, there were some ideas about Lebensraum which have a bit of a history in Germany before the Nazis and they also got such views from America with ideas on "Manifest Destiny" for white people. Here's a video which goes into detail on that topic (although I don't agree with everything):



Now just because Nazis had ideas about Lebensraum, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what caused the war. That's a whole separate issue.

One book I recommend is Germany Turns Eastward by Michael Burleigh which goes over a lot of Nazi Slavic policy and views.

This video also has some useful info, although I don't entirely agree with it as he claims that Hitler had no involvement with any plans for the east, something I don't find fits with the documentary record (for example, Himmler's Treatment of Alien Races in the East which rejected killing but endorsed several other anti-Slav policies which Hitler commented were "very good and correct"):



Now as for actual plans. The Nazis did have a eugenic approach to society, so it should not be surprising that there were various plans for increasing the populations of what they saw has biologically superior Germans and do what they could to reduce the population of what they saw as biologically inferior Slavic peoples. This is eugenics 101. And on top of that, they were also concerned about maintaining their position in a world that was very hostile to them. The desire for living space was reasonable given this context of national survival being on the line. Also as noted by Nick Terry:
If Hitler had been born later, he would not have obsessed over the land/population issue as he would be growing up in a post-1945 world where agricultural productivity had shot through the roof.
viewtopic.php?p=829#p829

So yes, there was a "Generalplan Ost", which involved deportation, not killing (there were also other policies meant to lower the Slavic birthrate planned). We have one such plan from Konrad Meyer and reference to it in a letter by Ehrhard Wetzel (quoted in the video by Zoomer Historian above).

https://www.1000dokumente.de/Dokumente/Generalplan_Ost

However, there were multiple plans, not just one. So a single "Generalplan Ost" is misleading. How set in stone all these plans were is not clear. These threads go over them:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=90383
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=96574

In there, the mainstream historian Helmut Heiber is quoted that such plans were "pipedreams divorced from reality". Rosenberg is typically known as having the softer views on Slavic policy and Himmler the more harsher views. Hitler seemed to side with Himmler on these issues. One wrinkle is that it's unknown how much Hitler was siding with Himmler more because he wanted him on his side for his SS. This isn't to dismiss all of what Hitler said, just something to take into consideration.

Finally, here is something Himmler said in his infamous Oct 4 Posen speech on Slavs:
We Germans, the only ones in the world with a decent attitude towards animals, will also adopt a decent attitude with regards to these human animals
So even with Himmler's harsh attitudes toward Slavs, he still said they should be treated decently just like they treat animals decently (Nazis being pro animal welfare is well known).
Post Reply