7
   

WHAT Did the Germans Have Against the Slavs, in WWII?

 
 
VALTUI
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 02:29 pm
@gungasnake,
There was a race cult in Germany at the time that believed in a definate connection between the ancient Aryans of Northern Europe in the area now known as Karelia, east of Finnland and the Islands of the Japanise archepelago.

There is evidence for a well known Bronze Age civilzation in the Sakhalin Peninsula. Because of the religious beliefs, rituals, language and adornments of these early Aryans in the Sakahalin, it was believed by many that these were indeed an ancient colony from Northern Europe. It is not far, if you draw a straight line from Karelia to Sakahlin. It is believed by many, that ancient Shintoism was inspired by old Aryan belief systems of "Eternal Re-Creation". The Germans werer not crazy; they were scientific.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Jun, 2011 02:53 pm
@VALTUI,
Indeed, there are a lot of myths and conspiracy theories about the Thule Society ...

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 03:54 am
The use of the word Aryan as though it actually referred to an existant 'tribe" which can definitely be identified as evidence of delusion. The term originally only referred to the root language for Indo-European languages, and has fallen out of favor precisely because of its association with the more extreme German racist groups. As soon as someone starts prating about "the Aryans did this" and "the Aryans did that" you know right away that your dealing with some retarded and sersiously delusional allegation.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 04:26 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
The use of the word Aryan as though it actually referred to an existant 'tribe" which can definitely be identified as evidence of delusion. The term originally only referred to the root language for Indo-European languages, and has fallen out of favor precisely because of its association with the more extreme German racist groups. As soon as someone starts prating about "the Aryans did this" and "the Aryans did that" you know right away that your dealing with some retarded and sersiously delusional allegation.
Well, if "the more extreme German racist groups" had not used that word,
then woud the allegation be LESS seriously delusional ??





David
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 05:24 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The root word comes from Sanskrit and means "noble." As conquering tribes tended to see themselves as noble and their hapless victims as barbarian, i consider the creation of the neologism to have been reasonable. The 19th century was the glory era for linguistics, and the era in which linguistic investigation coupled with cultural investigation began to unlock the secrets of the relationships of peoples to one another. Archaeology only began to become a serious discipline in the late 19th century, but it has since been enlisted in the cause of the first "multi-disciplinary" study, that of the origins of peoples in pre-history. To give credit where it is due, archaeology has far more often than not tended to confirm the conclusions which linguists in the 19th century had reached. For example, linguistically, the Koreans and the Japanese are speakers of Altaic languages, which means that their nearest linguisitc cousins are the Turks, not the Chinese. (Even Chinese is an omnibus term, as it covers a multitude of cultures and languages.) Archaeology bears out a significant migration from the Altai mountains to the Korean peninsula in the appropriate time frame.

So, the term Aryan was originally a rather innnocent linguistic term which only vaguely supposed an aboriginal Aryan tribe from which the lnaguages described by that term derived. Modern linguistic research has cast doubt on whether the "Aryans" who invaded northern Indian in the mists of time were in fact a "root" culture and language. The modern term for the language group which includes the peoples of northern Indian who invaded thousands of years ago is Indo-Iranian. The term Indo-European is still in use, because there is a good deal of linguistic evidence for a common origin. However, there is no good reason to assume that the tribes who invaded northern India so long ago were the direct descendants of the "root" people from whom these languages derive.

So, from a linguistic point of view, no it would not be delusional, it would just be out of date. Contemporary linguistic theory no longer asserts that there was any reason to believe that the invaders of northern India were "ur-people" from which all of these languages derived. It wouldn't be delusional, just mistaken.

However, even among the woolier of the 19th century linguists, no one had ever attempted to assert that there were an indentifiable people who were the orriginal "Aryans." Modern archaeology has not found any such people. That's not to say that they won't be found, but the modern linguistic evidence is that the "Aryans" were not that people. The delusion creeps in when people start asserting that the Aryans did this, or the Aryans did that, or the Aryans were from here, or the Aryans were from there, and so forth.

There's an excellent Carnegie library in Columbus, Ohio, and about 20 years ago, i went through their history section looking for survey histories of European nations. This had two objects. One was to renew the outline history of Europe which i keep in my head. The other was to study the texts themselves, as 19th and early 20th century survey histories tell one a good deal about what people wanted to believe about themselves. In one of the survey histories of Sweden published in the late 1930s, the author asserted that Sweden was "obviously" the home of the original Aryans. (How they made it to the valley of the Indus River in a couple of years he did not choose to elucidate.)

An allegation that people from northwestern Europe could have reached the islands north of Japan several thousand years ago is not implausible. To suggest that they made it there from Karelia is stretching things a bit, though, as one would have to assume that they first sailed the Baltic and north along the coast of what is now Norway. Many scholars from northern Europe have long speculated that there was a circumpolar "culture," or at least circumpolar commerce in the primitive sense of commerce. It's not an unreasonable speculation, but, so far, it is only speculation. Also, the more sophisticated and better informed climatology of recent decades (since the mid-20th century) strong suggests that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in summer for most of the period from 10,000 to 3,000 years ago, and at the height of that climatological period may have been ice-free year round.

It is, however, a bit much to suggest that people just shot out into the deep blue ocean to see what they would find. It is not unknown, but it is certainly not common. The people of Madagascar are descended from Australasians, who, apparently, sailed across the Indian Ocean (probably on the wings of the monsoon) about three thousand years ago. They have been significantly mixed with people from the mainland of Africa, but the language and the cultural antecedants are from what we would call Indonesia. (Indonesia itself was colonized by people from south "China" ["China," per se, did not exist until the late third century BCE.], the Australasians who crossed to Formosa (Taiwan) and then to the Philippine islands, and finally to almost all of the islands of the China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean.

So, in effect, the Australasians constitute one a single example of people who were willing to set off into the unknown. There are serious problems in doing so. If you don't know to a certainty that you will find land within a certain period of time, you have the problems of food and water. You can get food from the sea, but you can't get "fresh" water. It is possible that having left south "China," the Austalasians had become sufficiently adroit to take the risk of sailing out several days to see what was out there. Finding floating vegetation, or seeing birds which were in their experience shore birds could tell them that land was not far off. By such a process, all of Macronesia and Micronesia ("Polynesia") could have been colonized. The one great venture was setting off across the Indian Ocean to make a landfall on Madagascar. It would not be an unreasonable assumption that some fishermen or explorers were blown west by the monsoon, found Madagascar, sailed back home after the monsoon, and convinced people to set out as colonizers when the next monsoon came around.

So, as far as i know (and i don't claim encyclopedic knowledge), the Australasians were the only people who have routinely set off into the unknown, assuming all of the attendant risks. Far more common has been that people will "coast," not sailing out of sight of land. That way, you have access to fresh water, and you can hunt and gather food along the way. If, as climatologists believe, the Arctic Ocean was, at least seasonally ice-free thousands of years ago, then it would not be implausible that people from northwest Europe made it as far east as Kamchatka, and then south to Sakhalin Island. (Just so you'll understand, i'm still in effect responding to Valtui's post.) However, this would still have some serious problems for the thesis. Someone coming from Karelia would still either have to sail the Baltic to what we call Norway, and then north around Scandanavia to the White Sea; or they'd have to hike north to the shores of the White Sea and build their boats. Furthermore, the Japanese consider the people who inhabit the northern Island of Hokkaido--the Ainu--to be primitive barbarians, from whom they are definitely not descended. Finally, the linguistic evidence is against the entire proposition. The Japanese speak an Altaic language, akin to Korean and Turkish--they do not speak an Indo-European language.

There is much we can learn about the pre-historic period from language, culture and archaeology. None of those disciplines, as far as i am aware, support the silly notion that anyone has ever identified the original "Aryans," (other than the tribes who invaded northern India). Futher complicating the issue is the increasingly popular idea that there never was such an invasion of India, and that the Indo-Aryans in fact left India sometime between 4000 and 3500 years ago and invaded central Asia, giving rise to the Indo-European languages. That really throws a stick in the spokes of the Aryan wagon. There is even alleged to be genetic evidence for this thesis.

In the end, the only historical evidence we have of the appearance of so-called Aryans is the report about 3000 years ago by the Assyrians of the arrival of the Medes and the Farsi, the people whom western history would dub the Persians. All the rest is speculation. The speculation about language and culture is fairly well founded and has been refined over time. Genetics may some day provide better answers. Claims about "the Aryans did this" or the "Aryans did that" remain delusional, and are almost always to be associated with racist cults of "racial superiority" and "racial purity." What makes it hilarious is the appearance of Indo-Aryans in India today.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Indo-aryans.JPG

Do these boys look like the master race to you?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


WHAT Did the Germans Have Against the Slavs, in WWII?

Nothing. The Slavs merely happened to own land that the Nazis wanted. The invasion of Poland, Russia, and other Slavic nations was simply an attempt to seize land.

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote:
The foreign policy of the folkish state must safeguard the existence on this planet of the race embodied in the state, by creating a healthy, viable natural relation between the nation's population and growth on the one hand and the quantity and quality of its soil on the other hand.

As a healthy relation we may regard only that condition which assures the sustenance of a people on its own soil. Every other condition, even if it endures for hundreds, nay, thousands of years, is nevertheless unhealthy and will sooner or later lead to the injury if not annihilation of the people in question.

Only an adequately large space on this earth assures a nation of freedom of existence.

Source

OmSigDavid wrote:
Does anyone know of their reasoning, on this point?

There was no reasoning, only rationalizations for conquering the Slavic peoples' land. The rationalization was to portray the Slavs as trash, dwelling on deeply-rooted bigotry among the German population. Why the bigotry was so deeply rooted I have no idea. I only know it's a fact. Even Max Weber (1864-1920), a German sociologist who was otherwise a beacon of enlightenment, wrote extremely ugly things about Slavs that had no rational basis whatsoever.

OmSigDavid wrote:
What was their specific complaint ??

There was no specific complaint. If you're looking for a rational basis for what Nazi Germany did in Eastern Europe, you won't find any.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:29 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
If you're looking for a rational basis for what Nazi Germany did in Eastern Europe, you won't find any.


May i expand on this?

If you're looking for a rational basis for anything the Nazis did anywhere, you won't find one.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 06:34 am
@Setanta,
Yes, Setanta, you may expand on it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 08:09 am

Is it possible to distinguish between Germans and Slavs by visual examination ?

Do thay look different ?
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 08:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Nope. Slavs and Germans differ much less from each other than they each differ among themselves.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 09:41 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Nope. Slavs and Germans differ much less from each other than they each differ among themselves.
Then a (theoretical) Slavic counter-argument against the nazis 'd be:
"we r exactly the same as u; indistinguishable; the Slavic Race IS the German Race." Yes ?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2011 04:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
In an alternative universe where rational arguments could reach the Nazis, yes. But not in this universe.
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2011 05:31 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

In an alternative universe where rational arguments could reach the Nazis, yes. But not in this universe.


Who said David lives in this universe?

0 Replies
 
Pamela Rosa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 04:16 am
German stereotypes of Poles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1657906/posts
0 Replies
 
Pamela Rosa
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 04:29 am
Strong differentiation between Germans and Poles
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/06/strong-differentiation-between-germans.html
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 05:27 am
Your source is suspect, and may well be a racist like you. He claims that the chromosomal evidence exactly conforms to the borders between Germany and Poland. Those borders were only set in 1945. Does the distribution of this Y chromosome not conform to the pre-1945 borders? Frankly, it looks like a load of bullshit to me.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 08:22 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Your source is suspect, and may well be a racist like you.


Maybe, to both.
But what is described there re borders etc is outdated: Poles can come and work here like any other EU-citizen.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 07:33 pm
Decades ago, some author I read claimed that Hitler in his writings felt that in a few hundred years the Slavic people will rise up and enslave the Germanic people. In effect, the author, I believe, was claiming that Hitler was doing preventive measures to make sure that never would happen. In fact, it seems like much of Hitler's concerns were paranoid when it came to racial thinking. The Jews were supposedly going to water-down the Germanic people, and the Slavs would enslave the Germanic people (virtually perhaps in an economic way).

I thought a definition of paranoid includes the feeling of "delusions of grandeur" (meaning one is important enough to be a target of others). So, being the Master Race sounds like a delusion of grandeur.

But, considering so many on this forum are NOT racists, it is interesting how many threads skirt the topic and seem to gravitate towards Naziism or Hitler? I almost wonder if we humans are fascinated with the concept of being superior, and some, in our hearts, like the militaristic pomp and heel clicking of the Nazis? Personally, whenever I see some PBS type archival film, showing Hitler doing the little leather boot kick (he bends his knee and gives his leg a little prancing kick), I wonder how that would appear for a uniformed man to do that today? Were people back in the 1930's more naive as to what reflected real leadership? The willingness to do the "Heil" almost seems peurile today. Was this reflective of nationalism coming late to Germany (compared to other European powers)?

Also, the question of this thread may be late, since today Germany needs/wants Russian natural gas, and might be getting closer to the Russians than other nations in the EU may be comfortable with? A marriage made in Heaven?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 09:06 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Well, this silly blogger ignores the question of who is Polish and who is German. The Girl's mother was born in East Prussia. The town in which she was born is now a part of the Soviet Union--the borders of Poland have been shifted that far west. So, is it the borders of Poland before the first partition, or the second partition, or the third partition, or before 1939? It was an idiotic claim.
0 Replies
 
susanluo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Jul, 2011 07:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Like with others, it was because of their perceived "racial inferiority".
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2019 at 02:08:06