Was Nazi contempt for Slavs ad hoc or was it purely racial? The NSDAP obviously developed after the Russian Revolution, so the communist East was always a natural enemy for them. Did this have an influence on the development of their anti-Slavic racial views or was it independent?

>>17855287 (OP)
I'd say it was 95% ad-hoc since their racial criteria in action was basically
>ehh...you look kinda German enough I guess
They were declaring people subhuman/untermensch with every inch of land they occupied.

Very racial and remarkably consistent

>they liked Croats and Slovenes, clearly this means they were just opportunists
No, those groups were considered to be members of the Dinaric race who descended from Ostrogoths. Eastern Slavs were considered to be made of East Baltic and non-Aryan Mongoloid races. The Nazis didn’t believe the Slavs they liked were racial Slavs.

>>17855287 (OP)
Communism was really irrelevant to NS racial beliefs. Poles were lumped with Russians and Jews despite not being communist; while Czechoslovaks, Romanians, and South Slavs were vaguely lumped together as being 'inferior but not quite untermensch.' As >>17855309 said they liked Croats because they believed them to be Slavicized Germans. They also had a positive view of Hungarians.
So their racial views were very autistic and largely set in stone

Prussia had regarded Poles and polish culture as lesser for hundreds of years and attempted to germanize them by banning their culture and language.
Imperial Germany created Poland in 1917 in order to dump their polish minority further east and get rid of them completely from Germany.

NSDAP didn't invent this, they took it a step further, arguing that Poles were essentially colonial subjects, and eventually that they were going to be selected for germanization or extermination.
The whole lebensraum thing also wasn't some sudden invention, it was simply Drang Nacht Osten on a whole new level, but imperial Germany had roughly the same idea with Mitteleuropa; to carve up the Russian empire into smaller German satellite states. NS Germany went for the same goal but their was a step further; these wouldn't be German sphere states but simply German colonial states.

Without sounding too much like anti-german bias, what Prussia and Imperial Germany did was not too far from how Britain treated Ireland or how Poland treated their own eastern minorities. It was mostly NS Germany who took things on a whole new level with planned industrial killing to "resolve" the century old 'issues'.

>Communism was really irrelevant to NS racial beliefs
Man this board is embarrassingly fucking embarrassing. Just make it /rel/ already.

>>17855375
It wasn't relevant. They were anti-communist but it's not as though they distinguished who was Aryan on the basis of communism. A German communist was still an Aryan

>>17855309
>considered to be members of the Dinaric race who descended from Ostrogoths
No, there is not a single NSDAP or even NSDAP-adjacent source that suggests anything like this. It was purely LARP by the Ustashe.
The NSDAP never had official race definitions. Phenotype pamphlets and whatever were just popular suggestions but never taken seriously by administrators.

>>17855392
Both Hitler and Himmler seemed to think Croats were Aryan, although 'Dinaric race' is one of Rosenberg's categories that I don't think anyone else took seriously

>>17855393
Almost all Europeans were Aryan in the common understanding. It just meant Indo-European at the time.

>>17855399
Ehm no.
They were pretty clear about Germans and germanic people being aryans.
Czechs, Poles are Russians were not, tho some of them had 'potential'.

>>17855399
'Aryan' was slightly more inclusive of a category than 'Germanic' but certainly not as inclusive as you're making it out to be.
The Germanic peoples were believed to be a 'pure Aryan' linguistic family amidst a broader Aryan race that included many Italians, Hungarians, Frenchmen, Finns, Croats, etc.
People see this and assume it means the NS were pan-Europeanists when of course they weren't. They were just willing to make exceptions

>>17855385
The NatSocs justified much of their geopolitical stances of the time by claiming the bolsheviks hordes in the east were going to steamroll Europe any day now. It's like saying islam wasn't relevant to the crusades.

>>17855414
Sure, but that's relevant to the propaganda, not to the beliefs themselves. If all the Russians were to cast down the hammer and sickle and pick up the Orthodox cross again it's not as though Hitler would suddenly change his opinion about them. Race is viewed as unchangeable in National Socialism

>>17855408
>>17855411
Neither of you have sources for this. The term "Aryan" was not a key part of NS ideology, it was used sporadically in early materials only and exaggerated in Western media. If you read any 19th century literature on matters like this, you will see "Aryan" used in this sense and while its definition was never strict, it never clearly excluded anyone but Semites, it exists mainly for the Aryan vs Semite dichotomy.
NS laws only used the phrase "German and related(artverwandt, lit. species-related) blood" which was likewise never strictly defined and only explicitly excluded Jews. Slavs as a category were never targeted by German laws and there are numerous examples of Slavs being considered German citizens by NS law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Borodajkewycz

>>17855424
"German and related blood" and "Aryan" meant the same thing to the NS. You're right that "Aryan" wasn't usually used in formal documents, it was kind of an edgy and esoteric word

>>17855430
Yeah, and neither term was clearly understood to include or exclude any particular European ethnicity. It was used only to exclude Jews and radical foreigners like Africans.

>>17855411
They pulled the biggest cope fuel when they began giving the Aryan card to the Hiwis that were recruited into the Wehrmacht because the German manpower had been exhausted.

>>17855414
>their geopolitical stances
Ok so you basically admit that it wasn't racial communism, it was just that the lesser races also happened to be communists which was a terrible cocktail for NS ideology. You literally have no argument retard.

>>17855385
Pretty sure they thought communism was basically a natural expression of the mind process of subhuman races. Basically the "Bioleninism" thing /pol/tards talk about.

>>17855432
Because they were willing to make exceptions in the case that some Poles or Ukrainians were really Aryan. Keep in mind Germans had been settling in these regions for hundreds of years so a non insignificant number of these people were really of German heritage.
However the average Pole or Ukrainian certainly would not be considered "German or related blood." Even the average Spaniard or Czech or Greek wouldn't fit this category. It's obviously a category meant for racial Germans

>>17855434
This is a completely fictional scenario you're presenting here. You'd be hard pressed to even find any uses of the term "Aryan" in the context of the war in Russia, and as explained above it was never understood to exclude indigenous peoples of Eastern Europe to begin with.

>>17855424
>one autistic anon going to tell me all historians are wrong.

Kill yourself.
It's easy to fact check your bullshit by simply asking AI (not that I needed to cause i knew you were just making shit up). Slavs were treated like lesser people under NS authority.

>>17855445
Kind of sort of yes, but they mostly used the word "Bolshevism" for this. "Bolshevism" was basically a codeword for foreign influence, whether Russian or Jewish

>>17855453
>b...b...but i asked chabgbt?!!

>>17855460
And you're literally just making shit up.

>>17855448
There was no idea of "non-Aryan Poles or Ukrainians". What you are vaguely invoking here is the idea of Nordic or Germanic admixture in these populations, and the NSDAP simply used those terms directly. They did not use "Aryan" for that.
>However the average Pole or Ukrainian certainly would not be considered "German or related blood."
There is no reason to think they wouldn't be. Marriages between Jews and Poles, Czechs etc were forbidden under German authority when the Nuremberg laws were extended to Bohemia and Moravia and the Wartheland. Mixed Polish-Germans, Ukrainian-Germans, and even more exotic compositions held citizenship and even NSDAP membership.
>>17855453
You're referring to vague Western mythology, not "historians". It's a very polemically charged topic anyway and so I would recommend reading German historians on this matter.
>simply asking AI
.
>Slavs were treated like lesser people under NS authority.
Foreigners were treated with suspicion and viewed as less important than Germans. Russian treatment of Ukrainians is not based on some dubious racial views either, it is just national conflict.

>>17855465
Marriages between Germans and Poles were not allowed, at least not after the war began.
Marriages between Germans and Czechs were discouraged, I'm not sure if they were banned. Czechs weren't viewed as bad as Poles though.
The fact they also banned marriages between Jews and these groups doesn't prove anything

>>17855463
>just trust the AI goy...

>>17855482
>Marriages between Germans and Poles were not allowed, at least not after the war began.
That's due to specific wartime decrees and only targets Poles.
Relationships between Germans and Czechs were never regulated.
>The fact they also banned marriages between Jews and these groups doesn't prove anything
It proves that they were considered to be of related(artverwandt) blood under the preexisting laws.

For another example:
>In March 1939, Karl Frank defined a "German national" as:
>Whoever professes himself to be a member of the German nation is a member of the German nation, provided that this profession is confirmed by certain facts, such as language, upbringing, culture, etc. Persons of alien blood, particularly Jews, are never Germans. . . . Because professing to be a member of the German nation is of vital significance, even someone who is partly or completely of another race—Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, Hungarian, or Polish, for example—can be considered a German. Any more precise elaboration of the term "German national" is not possible given current relationships.
This is not a binding ruling and more of a suggestion. But it does resemble the Imperial Citizenship law of 15. September 1935, of which paragraph 2 states:
>An Imperial citizen is a national(lit. Staatsangehöriger, one who belongs to the state) of German or related blood who proves through his behaviour that he is willing and able to loyally serve the German People and Empire.
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgergesetz

>>17855453
>by simply asking AI
Is this bait?

>>17855465
>Foreigners were treated with suspicion and viewed as less important than Germans. Russian treatment of Ukrainians is not based on some dubious racial views either, it is just national conflict.

LOL you're literally making shit up you dumb retard.
Then you ostracize those who fact check you.

1. Germans were allowed to intermix in relationships with the population of occupied western/Nordic states. They weren't with occupied eastern people.

2. Poles had to always bow down, step aside, take off their hats to any approaching German

3. They weren't allowed to mix with Germans in public transportations or shops. They often had absurd curfews. Basically they were treated like colonial apartheid.

4. Nearly 2 million Poles were used as slave labour, something which did not happen to Dutch, French or Danes.

5. The occupied east had tens of millions of people starving to death which never happened with occupied west/north

6. Polish and Russian elites and intellectuals were killed in 'Intelligenzaktion', in order to make the rest of the population serfs to German elites and culture and administration. This never happened in occupied west/north

7. 99% of allied POW survived German captivity. 60% of Poles/Russians died.


>vague Western mythology
Your entire tactic is to deny everything that has been confirmed by countless of historians from every corner of the world for the past century, plus from the actual Poles and Russians themselves (of their families), many whom browse 4chan.

I could literally do the same thing and say that the bombing of dresden or the rape of German women never happened, because you have no proof. Witnesses? They lied. Photographs? Fabricated. Historical accounts? Just part of the ww2 mythology bro.
Sources? I suggest you read this random Indian book but I forgot the name but he basically proves that no German woman was raped in 1945 so yeah... trust me bro. Also don't fact check with AI because I can't be wrong ok?

>>17855545
>They weren't with occupied eastern people.
It is not entirely clear that they weren't. Only relationships with guest workers were explicitly banned, and heavy restrictions applied to Poles in the annexed territories(Wartheland, Südostpreußen, Bialystok), but not Ukrainians or Czechs, for example.
>Poles had to always bow down, step aside, take off their hats to any approaching German
There were many laws singling out Poles, specifically Polish nationals in the territories of the former Polish state. No restrictions applied to Polish minorities in pre-war German borders such as in Silesia and East Prussia, and it especially did not apply to other Slavs.
>They weren't allowed to mix with Germans in public transportations or shops. They often had absurd curfews. Basically they were treated like colonial apartheid.
Again, you are referring to the guest workers which were under special regulations.
>The occupied east had tens of millions of people starving to death which never happened with occupied west/north
Incidentally this happened before German occupation as well. They are non-German foreigners in any case, I am not saying Germany was some kind of globalist state that had no concept of ethnicity, merely that its actual definitions and laws were much more lenient than popularly believed by non-Germans.
>60% of Poles/Russians died.
Yes, they were viewed with hostility.

>confirmed by countless of historians
It has not been, that is the issue.
>from every corner of the world
This is especially undesirable because German political culture is poorly understood by non-Germans.

>>17855557
Let me ask you something.
What is your position on the common myth that German women were supposedly raped in 1945 (tho there is no factual proof of this and not backed by any historian). I'd like to know.

>>17855574
Presumably happened but it's a highly emotionally charged topic and some individual reports and numerical estimates may be exaggerated. I lean towards the more conservative side of this.

>>17855557
>Wartheland, Südostpreußen, Bialystok
I think he's talking about General Government.

>>17855581
The General Government wasn't directly under German law. It's a different situation and in any case nationals of the former Polish state that ceased existing 1939 were viewed as a foreign hostile population. They are not Staatsangehörige in the sense mentioned in the Imperial Citizenship law >>17855501, so they are not really part of the conversation.

>>17855577
>Presumably happened
Why do you presume something so obviously fake to be true? It's common knowkdge that german women lied about the rapes because they either simply had regrets the day after (as women are known for, especially german women) and that the overwhelming majority of them were paid prostitutes. It's factually proven that Red Army soldiers were given strict orders not to touch any women and they complied because they had many duties to attend to that was being supervised and they also had a honorable reputation.
I dont know why you presume something that is such an obvious myth, to have happened, when there is literally no confirmd source. Explain yourself.

>>17855593
It's quite widely attested including by Russian soldiers admitting to it themselves, and reported by Poles, Hungarians, Serbs etc as well. It'd be a very weird conspiracy.

Reminder that Germans wanted to kill French and British people after the war as well. Which kind of makes sense, since both those nations are mostly Celtic genetically, and Nazis were Germanic supremacists.

The meme that Slavs were genocided like the Jews is a silly myth. Germans considered them inferior, but as a whole they weren't treated as badly as Jews.
And yes, they were considered Aryan, which wasn't really that important.

>>17855583
I mean, they were Slavs under German occupation and they were treated like shit. I don't think this thread is only about the legal side of things in the German Reich.

>>17855545
>Germans were allowed to intermix in relationships with the population of occupied western/Nordic states. They weren't with occupied eastern people.
You have to understand that Germans viewed themselves as being in a global struggle with Jews, intermixing with low-iq peasants that have no organizational ability, culture or capacity to compete with Jews would not have been in the best interests of Germans and would endanger the very traits that allowed Germans to overthrow Jewish rule in the first place.
>Poles had to always bow down, step aside, take off their hats to any approaching German
This is silly nonsense propaganda deliberately constructed to trigger your peasant resentment, there would be no practical reasons for Germans to institute such a policy.
>They weren't allowed to mix with Germans in public transportations or shops.
So then you should have plenty of evidence of this policy in the forms of clear anti-Polish apartheid signage, which you do not.
>Nearly 2 million Poles were used as slave labour, something which did not happen to Dutch, French or Danes
Plenty of Western European guest workers were hired by German factories, through their wages were generally higher than those of Poles because they were more educated and skilled.
>The occupied east had tens of millions of people starving to death which never happened with occupied west/north
I understand that this is part of your identity and mythology, but there is no actual evidence for millions of people starved, especially not by deliberate German policy.
>Polish and Russian elites and intellectuals were killed in 'Intelligenzaktion'
This is a conspiracy theory not supported by any evidence, and I've never heard Russians included, you are just inventing your own atrocities now
>60% of Poles/Russians died.
No Polish POWs died because Poles were signatories to the Geneva convention.

>>17855609
Sure, but Slavs were not all treated equally and I am mainly concerned with dispelling misconceptions about NS ideology and policy here. I do not deny that Poles were oppressed, generally speaking.

>>17855597
Nope and this is part of the common myth because there are in fact no confirmed personal account by Russian soldiers that this ever happened. Those you are referring to were auxiliary Ukrainians who were never actually in Germany at the time, but its a common misconception that has been disproven since it has never been confirmed by historians.
Furthermore this Russian political culture is poorly understood by non-russians.

It's a shame you're so uninformed that no German women were ever raped but obviously post-war propaganda has always been subversive.

>>17855624
Are you ok, anon?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ywe5pFT928
The sources really aren't obscure or scarce for this.

>>17855611
>Germans viewed themselves as being in a global struggle with Jews, intermixing with low-iq peasants that have no organizational ability, culture or capacity to compete with Jews would not have been in the best interests of Germans and would endanger the very traits that allowed Germans to overthrow Jewish rule in the first place.

Yeah, the only problem was that Jews in Russia supported Mensheviks, Cadets and Zionists rather than Bolsheviks, and Jews in Germany supported social democrats and conservatives rather than commies (German communist party leadership was like 95% German, and early stage Bolshevik leadership in Russia was maybe 10-15% Jewish, with all major leaders except for Trotsky, Zinoviev and Sverdlov being non-Jews). Nazis fought against imaginary enemies.

>>17855611
>So then you should have plenty of evidence of this policy in the forms of clear anti-Polish apartheid signage, which you do not.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur_f%C3%BCr_Deutsche
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polen-Erlasse

>especially not by deliberate German policy.
Hunger Plan, Soviet POWs.

>This is a conspiracy theory not supported by any evidence
>Soldau
>he camp served different purposes throughout its existence. The Polish intelligentsia, priests and political prisoners were secretly executed there,[3] in addition to 1,558 patients from all the psychiatric hospitals in the district.

>>17855630
So if I post a YouTube video of a German admitting to holocaust or the treatment of Poles/Russians as lesser people, I will automatically stand correct over your +30 post of bullshit so far?
Wow that was easy.

>>17855646
If you could find a German personally admitting to having done that it would be quite impressive. Regardless, if you paid attention, you would know that I never disputed repressive German occupational policies.

>>17855557
>>60% of Poles/Russians died.
>Yes, they were viewed with hostility.
Polish POWs were well treated until the end of the war, but ununiformed partisans were treated as unlawful combatants.

As far as the USSR was concerned, the Soviet Jews considered every Red Army soldier taken alive to be a traitor, they would not negotiate prisoner exchanges and would put liberated Soviet POWs on trial for treason. The Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention and captured Germans faced almost certain death. Consequently Soviet POWs were given the option to enlist in the Wehrmacht or become laboroers, and if they refused they were given limited rations, it was neither legally required nor morally defensible to expend resources on them.

>>17855651
You're wrong about pretty much every single thing.

>>17855650
So that's all it takes? One fucking youtube video is what makes or breaks your entire ww2 narrative? Are /pol/chuds really this dense?
Just let the Google company dictate your entire informed opinion, but god forbid you ask AI, that's literally subversive tactics that will be fundamentally incorrect.

Alright, let me find a video where a German admits to the holocaust/misstreatment of Poles, then we can finally put this while debate to rest with you being exposed as a pathological liar who makes shit up as you go.

>>17855664
"Holocaust" and "mistreatment of Poles" were never a subject here, you seem to have gotten bogged down in a fight against a strawman. We have been debating German citizenship law and terminology.

>>17855656
Just one thing because I can't be bothered to debunk all this nonsense.
>The Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention and captured Germans faced almost certain death.
Which is completely irrelevant because article 82 of the Geneva Convention from July 1929 states this:

>In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.

>>17855670
It was you fucking stormfaggot. Your pathological lying started here >>17855424 Where you began to endlessly double down on that slavs were not categorized as lesser people and that the people in occupied Poland weren't treated exceptionally maliciously as colonial subjects and/or extermination, which was part of overall systematically killing in German death camps (if they weren't shot immediately by einzats)

>>17855686
>slavs were not categorized as lesser people
Very little if any official NSDAP material refers to "Slavs" as a group. Many Germans held prejudices against Slavs but there was no such "categorisation".
>and that the people in occupied Poland weren't treated exceptionally maliciously
I never claimed that.
>overall systematically killing in German death camps (if they weren't shot immediately by einzats)
This targeted Jews and Gypsies, not occupied gentiles. Most Polish deaths(and Slavic in general) were caused by reprisals against partisan activity, which may be excessive but is something else entirely from that.

>>17855693
Lol still going for the same bullshit.
Completely ignoring slave labour, mass execution of Polish elite, apartheid-esque laws, starvation, racial policies.

Again, it's funny how you immediately jumped to defend the consensus among historians regarding the rape of German women being true, because questioning that is incomprehensible despite the fact that it's established by the very same historians who have established that Germany treated Poles maliciously with mass killing and colonial treatment.

But yeah nah you're not biased.

And your defining evidence that literally will make or break everything we understand about ww2, is centered around if there is a random YouTube video of a person saying it happened.
You must have autism. There is just no other explanation for it. Kill yourself.

>>17855606
Any actual evidence of this other than some literally who supposedly read a report that no one can find?

>>17855725
>slave labour, mass execution of Polish elite, apartheid-esque laws, starvation
This happened but I only said "most".
>defend the consensus among historians regarding the rape of German women
I refer to no historians on that, the direct sources are easily accessible. There is no real need to filter information about something that happened in the area I live less than a century ago through historians. Rapes obviously occurred, and Germans raped Russians as well, quite probably more.
>And your defining evidence that literally will make or break everything we understand about ww2, is centered around if there is a random YouTube video of a person saying it happened.
This is a strange fictional statement. I've rarely even referred to WW2 except briefly the legal situation of Poles in annexed territories as supporting evidence for how to interpret a particular phrase. I also never postulated anything "happening" or not that would require some sort of witness report.

>>17855744
>This is a strange fictional statement.
Nope I asked you how you can know german women were raped and you refere to a YouTube video.

Also why do you talk like a faggot when you lie about everything? Do you think it gives your lies more credibility? Is it part of your autism?

Again, prove that any german women were raped on 1945.

>>17855777
>Nope I asked you how you can know german women were raped and you refere to a YouTube video.
It is an example of a Russian soldier personally admitting to raping, which establishes that at least a handful of rapes occurred.
There aren't really Youtube videos going into depth about NS legislation, the subject we were actually arguing about, except perhaps in German which you would not understand.
>prove that any german women were raped on 1945.
Russians and Germans both agree that they were. I do not have some sort of forensic evidence, that will have to be enough.

>>17855606
Sounds fake. These kinds of dubious eyewitness testimonies are what cause Holocaust denial
>since both those nations are mostly Celtic genetically
Germans also used to speak Celtic languages if you go back thousands of years

>>17855795
Ok so you base your entire understanding on a single video, which again means that a single video makes or breaks the entire debate for you, which goes along with your pathological lying about occupied Poland because your sources are this volatile that you pretty much make shit up with the most vague backing.

You couldn't prove any german women were raped in mass even if your life depended on it. You literally had no answer to my >>17855624 post. All you had was one video, which means all I need is one video of a German admitting that occupied Poland was harshly treated in accordance to the points I've made, and thst it was connected to German mass killings in death camps.

Anyway, I know you're just going to continue to dance around this fact, which can go in forever because you have autism, and I don't, hence why i conclude this debate because it's a waste if time. You've proven yourself to be a complete untrustworthy moron.

Ethnic jews got purged from eastern europe and poland, but the "historians" claim that is was "slavs" who were targeted. Just another case of the jews hiding behind the ethnicity of their host population.

In reality the polish and everyone else was glad to be liberated from jew communist rule.

>>17855829
>a single video
I can procure more examples if you want, but it's something so recent and culturally relevant that there shouldn't even be a need for sources. It is just common knowledge here.
>lying about occupied Poland
What did I supposedly lie about, exactly?
>You couldn't prove any german women were raped in mass
It is generally impossible to "prove" most rapes by these standards. Perpetrator and victim mutually agreeing on the events is the best you can hope for, and if you do not accept that, there is nothing to be done.
>all I need is one video of a German admitting that occupied Poland was harshly treated
You are greatly confused; I never denied Poland was harshly treated.
To recap, the topic of the thread is:
>Was Nazi contempt for Slavs ad hoc or was it purely racial?
To which my input can be summarised as:
>There was no explicit NS policy targeting Slavs as a group on racial grounds or otherwise, and people of Slavic descent could be considered Germans with full political rights under NS law.
At which point you inexplicably accuse me of Holocaust and war crimes denial, which I never did, while you yourself suddenly bring up and deny Soviet rapes for no discernible reason.
It's unclear what cognitive deficiency you suffer from, but it has led to a very confused conversation.