Talk:Untermensch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sieger/Slavs

Sieger, you've been attempting to promote the novel theory that Nazi policy didn't view Poles as inferior for 9 months now. Please find credible sources for this claim, rather than simply removing the information month after month. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Asian Racial origins of the Slavs

Similar to Alfred Rosenberg's claims of peoples of Southern Europe descended from Africans, Semites and Moors, the peoples of Eastern Europe were alleged to have Mongolian blood. Anyone who studied this segment of world history knew the Mongols invaded (western) Russia in the late 13th century (1200s) and they remained there in Siberian Russia until the early 1500s. The 'untermenschen' claim included in many statements of the Nazis, like Alfred Rosenberg's use of the pejorative term "Tatars" or Turkic-Altaic races of Northwest Asia to describe Slavs, also mentioned Russians and other Slavs are inbred from Asian "Mongolian" blood. Most Russians in the western edges of the country have small amounts of non-Caucasoid blood, but the majority of native Asians whom intermarried the Russians/Slavs live in the enormously large country's Central and East parts, or Siberia. The commonly anti-Semitic and racial (if not based on religious differences) views on Russians and Slavs are under "Jew control" is odious and false, then to add any Jewish roots in the general Slavic population is part of the Nazis' "untermenschen" agenda. I wonder there's a farther addition to nationalist rhetoric on the Slavs are "blood relatives" of the Chinese, Japanese, Oriental/East Asians, etc. when anthropology disprove most Nazi ideologue on the Slavs' Asian-Mongolian origins. Anthropology was able to determine an actual link with Polynesians and Native Americans share genetic and physiological connections with North or East Asians or "Mongolians", although the split of these "races" took place over 10,000 years ago. But there's no such scientific claim on the prototype Caucasian Slavs are part of the "Oriental Asian/Sino-Mongolian" race was completed, unless a much larger European element diluted remnants of the Mongolian era (or their genes) after the 1500s, before the Russians' expansion to the east (Siberia and North Asia). It's the same logic applied to whether or not a high frequency of Arabic, Moorish or African genes exist in the Spanish and Italian peoples, still a theory or those genes nearly vanished over time. +207.200.116.198 13:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed

A long rant by a an anon user that conflicts with the mainstream historic view what the term meant and how it was used in Nazi ideology. The user is free to use sources and links to give information in the article on the author he wrote about(Stoddard). The anon himself admitted that this is not the mainstream historic view in his long writing("most historians don't know this"). The author hasn't given any sources for his views. The text was full of personal allegations(for example "as we know") and conflicted with scholary research conducted on the use of the term. --Molobo 13:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see references to the "scholarly research" on the term "Untermensch", that is on its precise origins and its specific usage in Nazi ideology. That's why I wrote that most historians "are not aware" (as opposed to "they have a different opinion") of the origins of the term, it seems that they never raised that question. And so as far as I know, research with such a narrow focus does not exist. If you know better, please share your insight! My "long rant" dealt with the question of what the term "Untermensch" actually meant and I tried to explain where the Nazis seemed to have derived it from. As I can see it, this pretty much falls into the scope of a typical Wikipedia article. As my principal SOURCE I referred to Alfred Rosenberg who is one of the main Nazi ideologists and specifically race theorists (probably third in this regard only to Hitler and Himmler) and was sentenced to death as one of the 24 main Nazi war criminals indicted at Nuremberg. So I assume he's a far cry from being an "unknown theorist". As the passage from his "Der Mythus der 20. Jahrhunderts" makes clear, Rosenberg seems to have attributed the coinage of the term "Untermensch" (as a translation of the English term "under man") as far as it related to Eastern Europeans (especially Communists) to Stoddard. We have to take this statement seriously. That doesn't mean that Rosenberg was right, the Nazis might have used the term "Untermensch" even before Stoddard's book was published in Germany (which was in 1925), but if that's the case, I'd like to see first-hand evidence (or "source") in this regard. For instance, in the 800 pages of Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (1924), "Untermensch" is not used once, although that book is in general full of racial slurs and antisemtic attacks. --beek100

See wikipedia no original research. Your contribution is original research and you insert all kinds of your own theories. Read Wiki rules. Nazi's used the term quite often btw. You should move the information about the book to article about it. --Molobo 19:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Concerning breaking Wikipedia rules, I quote from the Wikipedia “List of Policies”: “Improve pages wherever you can [...]. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.” Instead of trying to improve my contributions (for example by eliminating those passages you consider being “original research”), you just erased everything and went back to an earlier version that was much less specific. You thereby deleted aspects which I would claim are very well rooted in “mainstream historic view,” above all the relationship of the term Untermensch with Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch. I would also never claim to be the first having observed the nexus between Lothrop Stoddard and the Nazis in general and the term Untermensch in particular, so there is no original research involved here, just quoting from the primary sources in order to flesh out the argument. For a secondary source making the connection between Stoddard and Untermensch (via Rosenberg) see for example the article by: Domenico Losurdo, “Toward a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism”, Historical Materialism 12.2 (April 2004), 25-55. I quote: “Rosenberg expressed his admiration for the American author Lothrop Stoddard, credited with coining the term Untermensch, which already in 1925 stood out as the subtitle of the German translation of his book, The Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under Man, published in New York three years earlier.” (p. 50) So, I cannot see how my contribution contains (again in the Wiki “List of Policies” words) “unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a ‘novel narrative or historical interpretation’.” Nazis definitely used the term Untermensch, I never said otherwise. However, as opposed to other terms considered to be essential to Nazi race ideology (such as Lebensraum, nordisch-germanisch or Arier) the word is not used in what is rightly considered to be most detailed political statement Hitler ever made. And, quite frankly, I don't see any proof for your claim that the Nazis used Untermensch "quite often." Again, a reference to secondary sources containing "original research" on this specific aspect would be appreciated, I haven't seen anything like that yet. However, I also do not claim matter-of-factly that the term was actually somewhat obscure in the Nazi era. Rather, I said that everyone "should be careful" when claiming that the usage of Untermensch was "commonplace". I stand by that statement. You should also note that the Nazi publications employing the term "Untermensch" which are referred to or quoted on this site and - as far as I can see - in "mainstream historic" publications exclusively concern two groups of persons meant with "Untermensch" and that's people from the Soviet Union and/or Jews. --beek100 And, quite frankly, I don't see any proof for your claim that the Nazis used Untermensch "quite often."

A couple of milion of times actually. Anyway the information you provided should be put under the Stoddard article or under the article abotu his book. This page presents the concept of subhuman in Nazi ideology. in "mainstream historic" publications exclusively concern two groups of persons meant with "Untermensch" and that's people from the Soviet Union and/or Jews. http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm#NOTES The category of sub-human (Untermensch) included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gypsies and Jews. "To avoid mistakes which might subsequently occur in the selection of subjects suitable for 'Germanization,' the RuSHA [The Race and Settlement Head Office] in 1942 distributed a pamphlet, The Sub-Human, to those responsible for that selection. 3,860,995 copies were printed in German alone and it was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech and seven other languages. It stated: The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it." --Molobo 22:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are referring to just ONE PUBLICATION, no matter how often it was printed. I checked several German OPACs and the only references I found to published material from the Nazi era containing "Untermensch" in the title were several editions of that 50 pages long SS brochure (in contrast, literally dozens of different books on "Lebensraum" were published in Nazi Germany). The German Wikipedia article on "Untermensch", by the way, claims that the Wehrmacht objected against this SS publication, claiming that it would needlessly alienate those Russians who might be eager to join an anti-Bolshevist crusade. That protest supposedly even lead to the SS leaflet getting suppressed in the end. No specific reference to a source for this claim is given, so that piece of information should be treated with caution, but it's an interesting aside one should follow-up on. The article in the version I posted says "Untermensch" "is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe supposedly inferior people, ESPECIALLY" Jews and/or Soviet communists (emphasis added). I think that's the most accurate definition available. The Polish book that is quoted on the web site you provided a link to is actually supporting my point. Apart from the book being somewhat outdated, the authors simply claim that the term also "included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gypsies and Jews" but as their source to support that claim they refer only to the SS brochure that (as far as I am aware of) exclusively deals with Soviets and Jews. This is, of course, not to say that Gypsies or Poles were not considered to be inferior by the Nazis or that they did not suffer tremendously unter German-orchestrated racial policies. Rather, it shows that "Untermensch" had a much more specific meaning for Hitler and his henchmen. And that specific meaning was provided by Nazism's (and Stoddard's) anti-communist ideology. --beek100

Please no original research. It is well known what Nazi's meant by subhuman and I provided evidence for that. Please take your theories elswehere. --Molobo 23:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article on "Untermensch", by the way, claims that the Wehrmacht objected against this SS publication, claiming that it would needlessly alienate those Russians who might be eager to join an anti-Bolshevist crusade Using wikipedia as source for wiki articles isn't allowed. I am certain German wiki claims many things. As to Wehrmacht I experience attempts to whitewash it on regular basis. --Molobo 23:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave pertinent information to the origins and specific meanings of the term "Untermensch" and that's definitely something that belongs into an encylopedia article. The aspects I elaborated are supported by published material (referenced above), so my contributions to the article (as opposed to this discussion) do not contain original research. I haven't used a Wiki article as reference for another Wiki article, I have rather referred to a Wikipedia article in the course of a DISCUSSION on another Wikipedia article (which is something quite different). Moreover, I made clear that I am reluctant to accept the claim about the Wehrmacht opposing the publication of "Der Untermensch" (that's why I didn't write about this in the article), but I cannot accept the idea that "following-up" on this question, that is looking for reliable sources supporting that claim, has anything to do with "whitewashing." Your implying that German Wikipedia might be a hotbed of Neo-Nazi revisionism is completely unwarranted and supported neither by the German Wikipedia article on "Untermensch" nor by the article on "Der Untermensch" (the latter dealing with the SS brochure). Claiming that something is "well known" without providing adequate evidence to support one's assertions is against the Wikipedia spirit. Specifically, if you really "know" better about who coined the term "Untermensch" than Domenico Losurdo does, please share your information and we can discuss it. Thanks. --beek100

implying that German Wikipedia might be a hotbed of Neo-Nazi revisionism I never stated that. Please don't put words into my mouth. --Molobo 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that you "stated" that, I suggested that you implied it. And I'm confident that many readers here will agree with my interpretation of what your "I am certain German wiki claims many things" meant. If I'm wrong, however, I am sorry. --beek100

The article should be about main use of the word. As such you should move the information about the book in the article on the book or make article Untermensch(Stodder) where the description of his concept would be given. And of course please purge it from your private views. This article however should be about the Nazi use of the word. Claiming that something is "well known" without providing adequate evidence I already presented evidence. --Molobo 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"The article should be about main use of the word." That's exactly what I've been stressing the whole time. The main use (actually the only one I am aware of as far as primary sources are concerned) the Nazis had for "Untermensch" concerned Jews and/or Soviet citizens. This statement is backed, among other scholars, by Robert Jan van Pelt, who has written one of the most important recent books about Auschwitz: "From this it was only a small step to a rhetoric pitting the European Mensch against the SOVIET UNTERMENSCH, WHICH HAD COME TO MEAN A RUSSIAN IN THE CLUTCHES OF JUDEO-BOLSHEVISM. The simple polarization of human being versus subhuman was graphically depicted in 'Der Untermensch,' an SS publication released simultaneously in fifteen European languages to arouse enthusiasm across the continent for the German crusade in the East. An organ for Himmler's view of history, 'Der Untermensch' emphasized the centuries-old conflict between the European Mensch and the predecessors of the Soviet Untermensch, the Hun and Mongol horsemen, whom the National Socialists conflated and confused. In this section, a two-page spread depicted the Hun/Mongol nemesis of the past and the Soviet enemy of the present." [Robert Jan van Pelt, "From Architect's Promise to Inmate's Perdition," Modernism/Modernity 1.1 (1994), p. 80-120, here p.97, emphasis mine] Also, explaining the exact origins of a term in many cases constitutes one of the principal ingredients of an excellent Wikipedia article. I admit that in the current version of "Untermensch," there is too much stress on Stoddard. The way to correct this, however, is not by "purging" the Stoddard part but by expanding the Nazi part with useful additional information, preferably based on secondary sources published in the last twenty years or so. And as long as nobody can provide a credible alternative to Rosenberg's and Losurdo's explanation of where, when and by whom the term "Untermensch" was coined, Stoddard should definitely stay in this article. However, the suggestion for adding another article on Stoddard's book is well worth thinking it over. --beek100

The main use (actually the only one I am aware of as far as primary sources are concerned) I stand corrected in this regard since I found a web site displaying a poster taken from Nazi eugenics propaganda that uses the term "Untermensch" and doesn't deal with Jews or Soviet people. --beek100

Molobo, most of your recent changes make the article clearer so I have no general problems with them. However, are you sure that the Nazis really considered f.e. liberals as "subhuman" as the article now claims? They were certainly their political enemies but subhumans? As far as your renewed request "to move Stoddard to Stoddard" is concerned, I disagree. Rosenberg is a primary and Losurdo a secondary source for the nazis adopting that term and probably even the concept from Stoddard. That makes him an important figure in this regard and an article on "Untermensch" should definitely say so. -- Beek100 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

GYPSIES those who are argueing that Slavs are/are not `Aryan', have you considered Gypsies?? They were a racial dilemma to the Nazis as they could clain Aryan heritage. They only became a target in 1935 and onwards. Please comment!

Soviet peoples as "untermenschen"

I've only heard the term in post-war Berlin, referring to Soviet troops who kicked in the few remaining doors, among their other excesses, broke the dishes and then had their stew served in a chamber pot, and had never seen or heard of flush toilets before. Of course, many British, and US GIs from Depression US, hadn't either before the Army...many students of those times find any citation whatever to IMT 'evidence' utterly valueless, shall we say...anyway, 'Untermensch' Ukrainians formed an entire Waffen SS Division, and thousands of anti-Bolshevik Eastern Europeans did indeed fight in various German units...but isn't the second photo caption a biggest ooops? The Vinnytsia massacre in Ukraine was like Katyn Forest--done by the Soviets (NKVD), who blamed the deaths on the Germans. As you well know, or should 72.81.84.211 (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The section on subhuman

Seems to be complete Original Research and Synthesis based on couple of literary remarks using the words. There is no indication that USA engaged in policy based on German Nazi ideology and classified whole groups of people as lower then animals. It's rather that the German treatment entered cultural mainstream as symbol of wrong treatment of people. That cultural influence can be remarked but the idea that USA engaged in similar policies is wrong to claim.--Molobo (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, please refrain from using straw man arguments such as "the idea that USA engaged in similar policies is wrong to claim", that particular type of arguing tends to get wearisome. And since when do we have to restrict ourselves to items of national policy in this article? The title would then have to be changed to "Sub-humans as part of National policy". As to your allegations of OR and Synthesis, it is generally considered good form to provide at least a shred of supporting evidence when making such claims. Otherwise it can be perceived as merely "hit and run" allegations left on a talk page in the hope that someone else will take them seriously.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this section even relevant to the topic of the article? The article's scope is limited to the German concept and its results, and Americans obviously did not label Japanese 'Untermensch' during WW2 or adopt this Nazi ideology. It could be worked into the article as part of a description of how the word is now used, but this text doesn't do that. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree nick and will reduce the text to proper size and meaning.--Molobo (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Per talk with Nick shortened it to cultural aftermath.--Molobo (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored from anon edit

Some anon reverted Nick and me without explanation.--Molobo (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Poop?

From the first paragraph:

Quoting Stoddard: "The Under-Man -- the man who measures under the standards of poop and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.

What word is "poop" supposed to be? I can't get through all the edits and counteredits by vigorously debating editors to find the origination of this vandalism. --NellieBly (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

European sub-races

Shouldn't more emphasis be placed on European sub-races identified by racial scientists of the time, such as Baltid, Dinarid, etc.? The article seems to equate "East-Baltid" and "Slavic". --194.72.81.141 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Slavs and Der Untermensch

The pamphlet Der Untermensch claims that jews and soviets are subhumans. The pamphlet provides contrasts, doing one page of "untermensch," then one page of "ubermensch." Included in the "ubermensch" parts are Croats and Slovenes, both Slavic groups. If Slavs were considered untermensch, wouldn't they have been put on the untermensch portion? Furthermore, the pamphlet ends saying "Just as these Russian women cry from their suffering, so too would the good women of Europe suffer and cry! The subhuman's are uniting to conquer the world. Woe to us all, if we do not unite to protect ourselves!" Once again, this places the untermensch as an entity controlling Russia and bringing suffering (soviets and jews), not the Russians themselves. Alfred Rosenberg considered Slavs to be Aryan, but simply "lesser Aryans," not untermensch subhumans. Plus, of course, the Ukrainian, Russian, Croation, and Belorussian SS divisions... I do not believe there is a single first hand source from the Nazis that declares Slavs explicitly untermensch, nor that the marriage between Slavs and Germans was banned (marriage between untermensch and Germans was banned, but there were no laws I am aware of that included Slavs in the do not marry list). So why are Slavs included on a list of a specific classification (untermensch) when in reality that term was reserved for Soviets, Jews, and Gypsies, and Slavs were simply seen as lesser Aryans (likely similar to the Italians, who Hitler declared were inferior genetically, yet they too were never considered untermensch)? 74.214.107.253 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong translation

The German word Mensch literally means person.

That statement is wrong as 'der Mensch' translates to 'the human', not to 'the person'.
So 'der Untermensch' literally translates to 'the under-human'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.77.80 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The book "Der Pharrt" by Fontante = vandalism bullshit

More than four years ago, on 2006-12-23T06:46:27, an anonymous user with the IP 12.21.214.71 changed the actual name of the book, "Der Stechlin", for "Der Pharrt", probably because it's a homophone of fart. Very funny, yes, but this mistake has remained undetected for years and has also been copied to Wikipedia mirrors. In case you spot this information anywhere, it is complete and utter nonsense. Pharrt is not a word of the German language, and Fontane never wrote any book by this name. -- Shinryuu (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsches and Untermensch

AFAIK, Nietzsches developed the term "Übermensch". However I am not aware of the usage of the term "Untermensch" by him. At least, his "Also sprach Zarathustra" contains no mention of "Untermensch". Please, provide a source that supports the statement "Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Friedrich Nietzsches philosophy.", otherwise I'll remove the mention of Nietzsches.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

He actually used this word, but its meaning had nothing to do with the way the Nazis used it. The claim is now properly backed by a citation of the respective book including a link to the original text (in German, of course, but I'm sure there's an English edition somewhere on the web, and for anything else there's Google Translate).

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1882). "Kapitel 143: Größter Nutzen des Polytheismus". Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (in German). Vol. 3rd book. Chemnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner. Die Erfindung von Göttern, Heroen und Übermenschen aller Art, sowie von Neben- und Untermenschen, von Zwergen, Feen, Zentauren, Satyrn, Dämonen und Teufeln war die unschätzbare Vorübung zur Rechtfertigung der Selbstsucht und Selbstherrlichkeit des einzelnen [...]. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

-- Shinryuu (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi policy in Slovenia

Slovenia and Slovenes should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Slovenes were also a target for extermination by Nazi policy; firstly as they were considered Untermensch, and secondly, because the parts of Slovenia that were occupied by Nazis were felt by them to be part of Germany and they annexed it into the 3rd Reich (similar as they did with small parts of France). Some info is on the page for Maribor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.111.58 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians

In the first paragraph: "and Slavic people like the Hungarians, Poles, Romanians, Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians"
Hungarians are not Slavic, but I'm not changing it yet because maybe the person who wrote this has some revolutionary evidence for their claim ;).
I'll let registered wikipedians handle this.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A myth part II

Jayjg, I could read "only" about crimes against Slavic people on the link you had posted. There was nothing about racist regarding Slavs as "untermenschen". So once again you need to prove the title. As I said, crimes on Slavic people is one thing, but regarding them as "untermenschen" is the other one. Nazis were commiting war crimes on many peoples they regarded as Aryans (not only Slavs), but racialist "Endlösung" was planned only against non-Aryans as Jews or Gypsies. They were committing crimes on *some* Slavs (reasons were different than racist), but they didn't regard them as "untermenschen", so Slavs as an ethnic group shouldn't be posted here.

Andries, Soviet POWs were much more seen as "Asiatic" than as "Slavic". Of course there existed some hatred against Russians who mainly were seen as "bolshevist beasts", but as I said Russians are a group of Slavs, you can't generalize.

Mikkalai, Der Untermensch? You mean that anti-Semitic and anti-bolshevist booklet? -> http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/image_into.asp?id=4751&lang=EN&type_id=7&addr=/IMAGE_TYPE/4751.JPG

Sieger 20:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Slavic territories lying to the east of Germany were particularly enticing as the Nazis considered their primarily Slavic inhabitants to be subhuman (Untermensch). The Nazis rationalized that the Germans, being a super human (Übermenschlich) race, had a biological right to displace, eliminate and enslave inferiors." [1]

The International Military Tribunal found in its judgment - "The evidence shows that at any rate in the East, the mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely for the purpose of stamping out opposition or resistance to the German occupying forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonization by Germans. Hitler had written in 'Mein Kampf'on these lines, and the plan was clearly stated by Himmler in July 1942, when he wrote: 'It is not our task to Germanize the East in the old sense, that is to teach the people there the German language and the German law, but to see to it that only people of purely Germanic blood live in the East.'" In August 1942 the policy for the eastern territories as laid down by Bormann was summarized by a subordinate of Rosenberg as follows: "The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and Germanic health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable."[2]

It is late June 1941, the invasion of Russia has gone well. The Slav untermensch have been forced to retreat to avoid destruction in battles all along the frontier.[3]

How many more do you need? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what? These are only some quotes from internet pages. I've already known them, they may be true, but they also may be not, who knows, it's quite similar to the truth about the number of the victims of Holocaust. I know they (these quotes about "Slavs") are authorized by many historicians though. It's because Nazis first wanted to conquer the East, maybe then they could (eventually) turn against the West, like the USA. But such quotes can only be reconstructed from memos and abstracts. If these are true, so by "Slavs" they meant those Eastern ones, like Russians. You can't write "Slavic peoples", because it's too big generalization. If "Hollywood myths (Hart's war, etc.)" claim that - maybe some bolshevist Russians from far East were regarded as you say, but if you're so correct you should also add the Americans, which Hitler saw as "an army of mongrels", and the French, viewed as "Mediterranean mongrels similar to Jews and blacks" or "Jacobin subhumans", to "untermenschen" category here.

I would be pleased if you could give me some links to the existing serious documents, like the Nuremberg laws (which were for example prohibiting marriages and any sexual relations with non-Aryans: Jews, Gypsies and blacks, so subhumans by implication, - in spite of that many Slavs had lived in Germany that time, there didn't exist any racial law against them).

Sieger 14:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those are quotes from highly compelling sources, including historians, the International Military Tribunal, and seniour Nazi officers. So far you've provided nothing. Your turn to ante up. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are so many quotes of Himmler, and so many versions of them, believe me...

Anyway Himmler just COULDN'T say it to any historicians himself, like I said it can only be reconstructed from memos and abstracts of everyone but certainly not Himmler.

I've asked for something.

Sieger 14:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think now the article is in order. Sieger 14:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is now. Provide a source for your claims, and stop putting in your own POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One of my proofs, despite the previous ones, is the absence of any anti-Slavic racial law, which would be officially regarding them as "die untermenschen"/non-Aryans. Sieger

You need to provide a link from a credible source; instead you are providing original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you don't stop doing this I might to have to move to an RfC on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ja, tell me what should I prove. I'll tell you what you should: that f.e. Slavic Croatians were regarded as "die untermenschen". And as I said, give me some information about racial laws against the Slavs or any other documents (links to them) about it. Or, tell me what was wrong with the previous version of the article, if you can. Sieger

I've provided links proving Slavs were considered to be Untermenschen. Provide credible links which state that they were not considered to be Untermenschen. That's very simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've provided nothing. You've just given some quotes, which were insulting Eastern Slavs. But quotes of Nazis were insulting not only Slavs. You see, while talking about Jews - they were REALLY regarded as Untermenschen by German State. There were laws prohibiting Jews so many things, but also these laws were against Gypsies and blacks. There also existed a Nazi dogma about subhuman Asiatics (the Altaic peoples) in German propaganda as you could see on the poster posted in the article. But where are any documents about/against Slavs? Can you show me them, please? My proofs are logical and obvious, read my previous posts if you need. Sieger 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've provided links stating that Slavs were untermenshcen. You've provided "legal and obvious proofs". Please read Wikipedia:No original research again and again until you understand it; I will only respond to new points, particularly links proving your point. I will not respond to repetition of your old points. Jayjg^(talk) 18:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So at least tell me why are you against this version of the article? Sieger

Because there are no sources for your claims, therefore your insertions violate Wikipedia policy. Please do not revert again, or you might find yourself banned for breaking the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. I think Sieger has best intentions but he is trying to improve the article in the wrong way. The article should start by saying that Untermensch was not based only racism (I will translate soon from German). Oh, and I noticed a remarkable structural difference when comparing the German and English Wikipedia on racist and Nazi subjects, not just on this subject. The German Wikipedia often asserts that the concepts that the Nazis used were originally international (often including English and Americans) and later adapted by the Nazis. In contrast, the English Wikipedia often omits this history and hence implicitly suggests that the Nazis have invented the concepts that Nazis used. Andries 19:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least in case of "Untermensch" it seems obvious that this word has German origin (OK, it *is* German). But generally, you've made an interesting observation. I wonder if we should be discussing why there's this difference in approaches between en: and de: ? I guess better not. Lysy 19:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop adding Poles to that list! This is what the most noble Polish encyclopedia (by PWN) says on Poles' racial status in German-occupied Poland (http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/58502_1.html): "Ziemie zajęte przez Niemcy zostały częściowo włączone do III Rzeszy, z pozostałej części utworzono Generalne Gubernatorstwo (GG). Władze niem. wprowadziły podział ludności na Żydów i tzw. aryjczyków (m.in. Polaków), odmiennie traktując obie grupy (Żydów pozbawiły elementarnych praw ludzkich);" what means: "Terrains which were taken by the Germans were being gradually incorporated to the Reich, from the other parts General Government (GG) was created. German authorities introduced a segregation of people on Jews and so-called Aryans (mainly Poles), and both groups were treaten differently (Jews were deprived of basic human rights);". It's true that Polish people suffered during the occupation, however they were regarded as Aryans by the Germans. This is the article not about the crimes on any peoples, but about peoples' theoretical racial status introduced by the Nazis. So Poles, as the theoretically Aryans, shouldn't be posted here. - an objective Wiki-user

You are confusing Aryan/non-Aryan with notion of Untermensch here. These are different issues. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems ignorant to me. How could der Untermensch (inferior) be Aryan (superior) at the same time? It's impossible, a total nonsense, because the first term is also opposed to the other one. Untermenschlich was the opposite to Arisch and vice versa, non-Aryan peoples were those who were regarded as die Untermenschen (who were seen by the Nazis as not even worthy of living), like Jews or Gypsies - and this term was reserved for them. It's rather you who are confusing a terminology, to be more exact you're confusing "die Arier/Arisch" with "das Arische Herrenvolk (also considered Übermenschlich)", which was reserved for Germans only. And by that I mean for example that Germans were regarded as "the Aryan Herrenvolk" (superior to all), Poles were regarded Aryan (superior to Jewish Untermenschen, inferior to German Herrenvolk), and Jews were regarded subhuman (inferior to all). As you can see these are three different terms. Ah, there is also one more thing: an Aryan Pole could easilly become a German, so he could enter "das Herrenvolk" simultaneously - as a child due to Lebensborn or as an adult by signing Volksliste - but "die Untermenschen", those who were doomed to gradually isolation and extermination like Jews and Gypsies, just couldn't no matter how did they want to. I also recommend you to interest yourself in the person of Alfred Rosenberg. A proof is he, a main Nazi racial theorist, and he knew better how peoples of Europe were regarded and for which of them this term was reserved. I hope it is clear now. - an objective Wiki-user

How could the inferior be superior at the same time? Very simply. Ever heard of a hierarchy? Nordics were at the top, everyone else was inferior. Just because Slavs were still in the "Aryan" group doesn't mean they weren't inferior. It only means they were a step higher than the non-Aryans.

You don't sound like someone who has any idea what they're talking about anyway. Saying that an "aryan Pole would easily become a German" is straight offensive to all the victims of oppression and enslavement. This is such bo**ocs I can't even comprehend it. Educate yourself: only certain groups of Poles (and of other Slavs) were allowed to "become Germans" (not really) because they were considered "ethinicly Germanic" in the first place by Nazi pseudoscience. We're talking Silesians, for example, or Gorales. It would give you certain advantages to sign as such but you still were never near equal to an actual German. The rest of Poles, however, those who were considered ethnic Poles could not "fix" their ethnicity in anyway, by signing any piece of paper.

I'm going to call grandma ask her why she didn't "make herself German" because some dude on the internet says she could :)))) -youdon'tdeservetoknowmyname — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If Slavs were considered Untermenschen by the Nazis

Why is the neo-nazi movement so strong in Russia? Do they not know Adolf Hitler killed a few million of them and treated the Russian prisoners he captured a lot worse than the American and British ones for racial reasons? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it's wishful thinking and Russian crazyness on their behalf. Hitler hated Russians with a passion, outlined even in Mein Kampf. WN websites like Stormfront tend to overlook this inconvenient truth simply to cater to "slavic" people and bolster their ranks.85.8.110.162 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I perceive much of the anti-Slav sentiment in Germany during WWII can be put down to several factors. A) Many Slavic nations were defiant and in opposition to Germany in WWI, and subsequenly in WWII. B) Bolshevism was strong in eastern Europe C) as was the number of Jews -> both of which Hitler felt degraded the purity of these Slavic countries D) cultural factors -ie many Slavs were Orthodox, which many westerners have a bias against. At the end of the day, this ideological rhetoric was just a means to justify their expansionism into eastern Europe. However, it was also recognised that many Slavs had Aryan qualities, ie real 'ethnic Slavs' and not the Slavic-speaking Tartars and Jews of the Russian empire, are white as snow. Today, eastern European countries - Serbia, Russia, Croatia, Czech and Slovakia have large followings of neo-Nazis, due to a long history of dislike against Jews and Muslims. In comparison, western Europe is more multicultural, because it has been more eceonmically affluent, it has attracted more immigrants from Morroco, Turkey, Albania, etc. I think this topic has already been discussed ad nauseum in above discussions. Hxseek (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Most problematic immigrants are from Turkey, Yugoslavia and certain parts of Asia, that's right. North Africans are relatively harmless in comparison. Russians tend to keep to themselves. Many Nazis in Germany are bemused by slavic nazis by the way.85.8.110.162 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(This is pure speculation, but since this section is off-topic anyway, I feel it's allowed ;).)

The neo-nazi "movement" is present (I'd never call it "strong" or "large" because it is not) among Slavic folks because some people are just... stupid. There's a lot of internalised hatred against everything slavic/eastern that is involved in that for those individuals who are aware of Nazi's attitude towards Slavs. But many are not even aware, I think. Especially since, as you see above, this anti-Slavic agenda is still being questioned or straight rejected by many.

As for Russia, Russian supremacism is a thing, as Russian rulers have a long history of subjugating other nations and countries, so it would be strange if nationalism didn't exist in present day Russia. I think the wider neo-nazi "movement" could be adapted to the circumstances despite the anti-Slavic element because it has a unifying quality: an origin, large organisations, own symbols and ways to recognise people who think the same way. It is global. Also, a strengthening factor would be the neo-nazi hate for LGBTQ people, Jews, and people of colour - those are shared by all sorts of fanatic extreme right-wingers in Europe and North America, and they were an essential part of the original Nazi doctrine. Enslaving and murdering ALL people you consider inferior - the ambition with which the Nazis pursued this goal looks very impressive in the eyes of all sorts of supremacists, leading to neo-Nazism, even if they believe in a different 'hierarchy' than the original Nazis. -109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The term was used well before 1922

German nationalist and racist author Gustav Freytag declared Poles "untermenschen" in XIX century: "In order to comprehensively denigrate the Poles and deny them any right to belong to civilized humanity the text employes the equation that as the Poles are incapable of becoming or forming a bourgeoisie they are non-human beings("Unmenschen") and by extension subhumans ("Untermenschen")" Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identity and Cultural Differences Keith Bullivant,Geoffrey Giles, Walter Pape, page page 142 Jurgen Lieskounig "Branntweintrinkende Wilde" Beyond Civilization and Outside History: The Depiction of the Poles in Gustav Freytag's "Soll und Haben"

You cannot translate "Unmensch" with "non-human being". "Unmensch" is an insult used for bad people. Just think of "Sei kein Unmensch!" or "unmenschlich" -> in English: inhuman I also think that at least in the context of Nietzsche "subhuman" is a horrible translation and "under man" should be preferred. Master race and Herrenvolk are also different things. I would prefer the original German terms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.189.251 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pure Slavic could not be Germanised

Malljaja, people of pure Slavic ancestry could be Germanised if provided suitable for the Reich - especially if one had Nordic traits.--English Patriot Man (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Split would be preferred

Untermensch term is primarily connected to Nazi ideology and this article should cover it primarily as well. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the etymology section can go, I think. I took some out, but I don't feel competent to tackle the rest.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Large clean up

I made a large clean up-it seems that EPM edits were repeated by anon IP's trying to falsely present Nazis as tolerant of Slavs, something he tried to do in several articles. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Apropos deletion of quotes / sections

@Moloboaccount
You deleted a lot of information that I added to the article. I don't know about any banned English Patriot Man that you mentioned; as you can see I'm adding information from Germany. No suspicion please.
Simply for the sake of truth I added quotations and verifiable information that helps paint a true, a correct picture and correct common errors. Of course it's easy to simply delete information if it does not fit into one's idea. I think it's a pity and does not help truth to do so.
Let the Wikipedia-reader decide whether citizenship / ethnicity matters. I'm sure it's a false impression to say that Nazis considered Slavs subhuman (before reading more and more sources I shared the common idea considering this; not any longer) -- and I do not delete information -- I add verifiable information. Don't you think that's a better way to approach truth? Sincerely, 79.230.143.69 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Second try for a discussion

@MyMoloboaccount
Do you doubt that Slavs were recruited for the Waffen-SS?
Do you doubt that the Wikipedia reader can decide for himself how to judge a statement from the very same pamphlet that actually is already quoted in this very article? You simply remove it.
You seem to be very sure that those secondary sources that you added were correct -– then for the sake of truth -– provide original sources, primary sources! Why not substantiate what you deem true, but instead remove information you don't want readers to know?
You insult me and accuse me of falsely presenting a wrong picture! By doing what? Adding verifiable primary sources!
I also added information to the Junge Freiheit article -- are you going to remove it?
You simply claim that Dr. Stefan Scheil can't be trusted and remove a quotation from a primary source, that he provided. No substatiation for your claim. Let's try to handle this decently. I think you err, but I do not simply erase what you added.
Sincerely, 79.230.185.191 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount
I would really appreciate a discussion instead of such an inconsiderate deletion spree. 79.230.145.141 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll interject. There was often a marked difference between what the Nazis said and what they did. They might describe ethnic groups as subhuman but when faced by the realities of war and military occupation find such groups useful. Rsloch (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The hidden agenda behind this article

This article is nothing but bull and whenever someone shows evidence to this they are either banned or reverted back, may I ask quite politely why???--Gordon Sashty (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Slavs untermenschen (subhumans) MYTH

It is a myth that the Nazis considered Slavs as untermensch (subhumans) non-Aryans, there is no evidence to suggest this but the actual opposite that Slavs WERE regarded as Aryan. See below:

The Ahnenpaß stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian".

Source: http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Single-News-Display-mit-Komm.154+M51bf1bf199c.0.html

"He (Himmler) then singled out those nations which he regarded as belonging to the German family of nations and they were: the Germans, the Dutch, the Flemish, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scandinavians and the Baltic people. 'To combine all of these nations into one big family is the most important task at the present time' (Himmler said). 'This unification has to take place on the principle of equality and at that same time has to secure the identity of each nation and its economical independence, of course, adjusting the latter to the interests of the whole German living space. . . After the unification of all the German nations into one family, this family. . . has to take over the mission to include, in the family, all the Roman nations whose living space is favored by nature with a milder climate...I am convinced that after the unification, the Roman nations will be able to persevere as the Germans...This enlarged family of the White race will then have the mission to include the Slavic nations into the family also because they too are of the White race . . . it is only with such a unification of the White race that the Western culture could be saved from the Yellow race . . . At the present time, the Waffen-SS is leading in this respect because its organization is based on the principle of equality. The Waffen-SS comprises not only German, Roman and Slavic, but even Islamic units and at the same time has proven that every unit has maintained its national identity while fighting in close togetherness . . . I know quite well my Germans. The German always likes to think himself better but I would like to avert this. It is important that every Waffen-SS officer obeys the order of another officer of another nationality, as the officer of the other nationality obeys the order of the German officer."

Source: Latvian Legion. by Arturs Silgailis, p.348-349

According to the Nazi "Ancestral Proof" all the "the non-Jewish members of all European Volk are Aryans".

Source: The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution by Eric Ehrenreich, p.10

From a purely racial standpoint all European peoples belonged to the Aryan family and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", and even according to German ethnology it was impossible to speak of a "Slavic race". The justification against the Slavs lay rather in the point of a "depopulation policy" of the East as Slavs and all non-Germans represented a major völkisch threat, as well as the Nazis struggle against Bolshevism.

Source: "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative by Diemut Majer, p.63

"Ziemie zajęte przez Niemcy zostały częściowo włączone do III Rzeszy, z pozostałej części utworzono Generalne Gubernatorstwo (GG). Władze niem. wprowadziły podział ludności na Żydów i tzw. aryjczyków (m.in. Polaków), odmiennie traktując obie grupy (Żydów pozbawiły elementarnych praw ludzkich);" what means: "Terrains which were taken by the Germans were being gradually incorporated to the Reich, from the other parts General Government (GG) was created. German authorities introduced a segregation of people on Jews and so-called Aryans (mainly Poles), and both groups were treaten differently (Jews were deprived of basic human rights);".

Source: http://polska_pkurzydym.republika.pl/druga_wojna_swiatowa.htm

Why do people keep trying to push this "Slavs untermenschen" by the Nazis myth? Especially on the pages regarding Poles, Ukrainians and Russians... there is no evidence to suggest this.

Anti-Slavic propaganda was used but then so again was anti-British propaganda used there is overwhelming evidence Slavs were still seen as Aryans by the Nazis. This page as it is now is completely biased and does not show the truth nor does it mention how Nazi 'racial theorists' such as Rosenberg considered Slavs Aryan and even complained about the treatment they were getting.

What is the hidden agenda why when evidence is provided and shown with cited reliable sources that Slavs were regarded as Aryan the nutjobs on here deny it and simple remove it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordon Sashty (talk • contribs) 09:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand the discussion here, those who claim that Slavs were Untermenschen do not deny they were also Aryan. This is apparently not a contradiction, since "Untermensch" may be understood as "under-man" (a worse class man) not necessarily as "a subhuman lower than animal" fit only for extermination. 212.87.13.77 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Pyramid of Races" according to the Nazis during the World War II

The "racial ladder" or the "pyramid of races" according the Nazi Germany looked like this - from the bottom, to the top:

Bottom (untermensch) :

• Jews - total extermination (result: 6 million deaths in the Holocaust)
• Gypsies - partial extermination (result: 500,000 deaths in the Holocaust)
• Poles - slave work, expulsion and partial extermination (result: 2 million deaths in the Holocaust)
• Serbs - partial extermination (result: 300,000 deaths in the Holocaust)
• Rusyns, Russians and other Slavic peoples (excluding some Croats, partially Ukrainians, and some Czechoslovaks) - slave work, repressions
• Blacks - discrimination, repressions
• Mulattos and all other persons of color (excluding some of the Arabs and Indians) - discrimination, repressions

Middle:

• Asians and Asiatic peoples (excluding the Japanese)
• Indians
• Armenians and people of the Caucasus
• Czechs, Slovaks (they were Slavic peoples, but were considered somewhat better than other Western-Slavs and South-Slavs)
• Ukrainians (despite being a Slavic "inferior race" and Eastern-Slavs, some of their forces collaborated with the Nazis)
• Southern-Europeans (including eg. Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, but excluding Italians)

Upper-middle:

• Arabs (the Free Arabian Legion) - there were some exceptions for the Arabs (Semitic), just like for the Slavic Croats or Southern-European Italians
• The French
• Croats (despite being Slavic from the Southern Europe, they collaborated with the occupants)
• Italians (facism, Mussolini, allies of the Reich)
• The Japanese (the "honorary Aryans")

Top (ubermensch):

• The British (especially the English - for their Germanic heritage)
• Other Germanic peoples (i.e. Scandinavians, Flemings, the Dutch, etc.)
• Austrians (and other German-speaking European inhabitants of ethnic-German origin)
• Germans (the master "race").

This "ladder of races according to the Nazis" is supported by numerous sources. Nevertheless, I gathered the data in one straightforward piece of information.

Yatzhek (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This has just been copied and pasted from the Racial policy of Nazi Germany, see [4]. Yatzhek please provide authentic sources for your claims, cheers.--Windows66 (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I copied my topic from the source you linked, in order to provide a useful piece of information for further debate. Yatzhek (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the sources to back up all your claims in the information you presented.--Windows66 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This whole article, and all its sections, are rampant trolling

There isn't much sincerity here. This article really shouldn't have anything to do with Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.39.136 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The myth

It's a myth with those Slavs. Nazis didn't consider Slavs as "Untermenschen". If they had done so, they wouldn't have cooperated with f.e. Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, loads of Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians. Poles from GG were racially regarded ALSO as Aryans (that's why the article has nothing to "Untermensch"), but they didn't have any serious privileges in reality in German-occupied Poland. Nations regarded as Untermenschen included Jews, Gypsies, Africans and the nations of USSR (mainly of Altaic origin). Sieger 19:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon..? Poles treated as Aryans? do you have any sources that would back such a claim up? Also, it was not only about "lack of privileges", you know..? Ever heard of the "apartheid" introduced in Poland during the German occupation? Separate busses, separate railway cars, separate benches in parks, separate cinemas and cafes... Every single street was marked with at least one "Nur fuer Deutsche" mark. Do you suggest that they did it just for fun? Halibutt 19:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't said that Poles had any serious privileges, so don't put it that way, but racially they were regarded as Aryans. There were only two categories: Aryans and Jews (Gypsies have been seen as a mix between these two groups). They might be treated not very well, but they can't be regarded as Untermenschen because it has nothing to do with true. Sieger

No, you said that the Poles didn't have privileges - and from what you wrote I assumed that that was the main issue behind the WWII persecution of Poles. Anyway, from what I read in numerous books on the topic (mostly concentration camps related), these categories were Aryans and non-Aryans, and the Aryans were only Germanic peoples. Even French were considered only partially Aryan, not to mention the Italians. The problem here is that the Nazis mixed the concept of Aryan race with Master race or Herrenvolk. And no Slavs were ever considered to be a part of the Herrenvolk. Halibutt 22:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sieger, do you have any evidence for you claims? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Hitler used these terms variable (I mean "the Nordics" and "the Aryans"). Nazism was based on Pan-Germanism and you're right with that Germanic peoples were considered "Aryans first class", but other Whites as Slavs or Romanic peoples (like the French) were racially regarded as "Aryans of worse class". Due to that there were some divisions of Waffen-SS based on these peoples. If you want some evidence about Poles' racial status, read something about General Government (German-Occupied Poland). Poles were regarded as Aryans there, but this fact didn't change their sad situation. Sieger

Believe me, I've read lots of books on that (I'm a Polish Jew and living in Warsaw, after all). As to your comment above - it doesn't answer the most important question here: where did you take the claim that the Slavs were to be germanised from? And how come the untermenschen were to be made into Ubermenschen? I know Nazi teories were full of paradox and nonsense, but this crosses the lines of probability IMO. Halibutt 21:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

And where did you take the claim that so called Generalplan Ost really existed? I haven't seen any documents of it, and do you?

Anyway I know many Poles were treated not very well (not to say it all) during the occupation, but this fact has nothing to do with their real racial status. They were treated like that because of the political reasons not the racial ones, it was something like revenge, because Poland was the first country that didn't accept Hitler's conditions. The Nuremberg laws claimed that no-Aryans are only: Jews, Gypsies and blacks (later, after the invasion on Soviet Union, the Altaic peoples were added to that category). Indo-Germanic (Indo-European, the Slavic branch) - speaking Slavs originally were regarded as Aryans. And as Aryans they can't be "untermenschen". So don't edit the article due to your own dislikes, because Slavs are not only Poles or Russians. Almost all other Slavs (Slovaks, Croatians, Bulgarians, Slovenians, even Czechs, Ukrainians etc.) were in close cooperation with Hitler and I haven't heard about any racial laws against them. Sieger

Take note that these were (at least up to a point) separate countries and Hitler had no sovereignity over them. And why should they introduce laws against their own citizens?

Anyway, this article is not about the Arian race, it's about the concept of Untermensch. Please provide any evidence that would back up your claim. Halibutt 20:17, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Czech Republic and Ukraine were under German control, and Croatia or Slovakia were satellite states (so also under German control in some way). So if Hitler would have thought Slavs are "untermenschen" - he hadn't co-operate with so many Slavic countries. There weren't originally any anti-Slavic racial laws. What about Poland, Hitler wanted to punish the Polish people for their rejection of his pre-war conditions of a treaty. You probably read heroic stories about fightings during the occupation, where many Polish writers claim that Poles were treated as "untermenschen" to show especial martyrdom of this nation. But I tell you to read some objective documentary books about General Government, and I hope you can read there that Poles were regarded as Aryans, but without any serious privileges, in different way than some Western countries under German occupation. In GG Germans divided people into two groups: the Aryans (Poles and other Europeans) and the Jews (and the Gypsies were also regarded as non-Aryans in spite of they speak an Aryan language). Waffen-SS was something like a "racial army" reserved for Germanic Aryans only. After many defeats Germans changed the racial criterion of recrutation and Romanic and Slavic Aryans were let to join. I've never heard of any divisions created from Jews or Gypsies, but I heard about these created from Slavs (there were also some units created from Caucasian peoples and Caucasian Muslims). The only "non-Aryan" W-SS unit was the one created from Caucasian Turkics. By the way, do you really think Hitler could have regarded Poles as non-Aryans/untermenschen, if Germany and Poland are neighbours and there's big similarity of their blood? I guess not. Sieger

sorry, Sieger what you write is for 90% untrue. Hitler only allowed Slavic divisions when the war was already lost. Yes, Poles had more rights than Jews but they were still very much second class citizens in their own country. Please provide references for what you assert. Andries 22:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put my reply in points:

1. Where are the sources for that claim?
2. Do you know that this article is about the idea of Untermensch, not the idea of Arian people
3. If the Poles, Russians and others were Ubermenschen and not Untermenschen, then why the hell were they being exterminated?
4. Similarily, why the hell did the Germans introduce racial segregation (Nur fur Deutsche, for instance)? Why were the Slavs in Germany forced to make way to the Germans on the streets and were obliged to leave the sidewalk if a German person was comming?
5. Also, if people of French, Belgian, Polish or Yugoslavian citizenship were all regarded Ubermenschen, then why the hell there were almost no Slave workers from France while the number of Poles enslaved was in hundreds of thousands if not millions?
6. Also, you claim that the Slavs were to be Germanised rather than expelled or exterminated. If so, then why wasn't it started? Why did the Germans close all schools instead of forcing people to learn German? Why were Poles expelled from their homes in order to make place for the German settlers?

Sorry, my friend, but your theory simply doesn't hold water. Please provide some backup for such claims. If you can't, I could reccomend some books on the topic. If you're biased against Polish authors for some reason, then you could start with, for instance with The illusion by Jürgen Thorwald, it's quite a decent account on how were the Russian soldiers (allies of Hitler!) treated in Germany. And the author is German. If you want some heavier artillery, no problem. Halibutt 01:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Andries, that is what I have said. The only thing I'm trying to explain all of you is fact that Poles were REGARDED as Aryans. I haven't said they were treated well, because Germans thought that non-Germanic Aryans are "Aryans of worse category". They had the title, but without any privileges, and that is all. I'm trying to tell you Poles were treated as "second class citiziens" due to NATIONALIST causes not RACIST ones. This is a big difference.

Halibutt, I am also gonna answer you with points.

1. Check out in any bigger Polish encyclopedia (that Poles were REGARDED as Aryans).
2. I know. But this idea is portrayed here not very well. Non-Germanic Europeans weren't TREATED good, but were REGARDED as Aryans. The idea, which you're talking about, said clearly that all non-Jewish, native White Europeans are Aryans (so this idea excluded also the Gypsies which aren't native White people in Europe).
3. You don't understand me - Übermensch was equal to Herrenvolk/Herrenrasse, "the Germanic nation/race of German Nordics". I haven't said Romanic nor Slavic people were regarded as Übermenschen, because as I think that title was reserved for German/Germanic peoples only, but they were regarded as "non-Germanic Aryans". Romanic Europeans like the French, Italians, the Portugese, Spaniards and other Southern Europeans like Greeks were considered to be "not that pure" Aryans, because Nazi racialists thought there was a probability they mixed with non-European Moors, Arabs, slaves etc. Slavs and Eastern Europeans were also considered to be a degenerate Aryan peoples due to non-European invasions of Asians like Mongols or Turks. They thought only "those Germanic Aryans from the North" remained pure. So you can write Slavs and other non-Germanic Europeans weren't treated good by Germans, but writing that they weren't regareded as Aryans is not true. Aryans can't be untermenschen, just like fire can't be water. Logic is very important. Of course when the war was in a hard point Nazis made some at least strange theories about "Germanic Walloons, Croato-Bosniaks, Goralenvolk" etc. but I'm thinking about these early theories. Like has been said by me, cruel occupation in Poland was something like revenge for Poland's rejection of Hitler's pre-war propositions of a treaty between Poland and Germany. Poland rejected this idea and Hitler, who terribly wanted Danzig and a highway to Ostpreußen for Germans, had to start a war, which he wanted to avoid. What about the Russians, some Nazis thought (wrong) that Russians would become fifth column, and that they were responsible for bolshevism, which was dangerous to Europe and Germany. Normal thinking during the war, which has always led to terrible war crimes, but where do you see any racial prejudice? By the way, I hope you know who general Vlasov was.
4. It wasn't racial segregation it was just segregation in the occupied country. Country that didn't have a native government. Look at the previous point. About those Slavs in Germany I haven't heard, can you tell me something more about them, please? Which Slavs in Germany do you mean? The Sorbs? As I remember they were regarded as "Germans with Slavic surnames" (just like many Western Slavs from Silesia, Pomerania, Masuria etc.).
5. Read what I wrote about "Menschen" earlier. I've heard about compulsory workers from France, which like SOME Poles were paid (not very well, but always). The main difference between occupied Poland and occupied France is that all Poland was under German occupation and rule (well, some parts of territory were added to Reich), and France, despite German-occupied territory and areas added to Reich, had a collaboration government, situated in Vichy. Especially when the war became ciritical the Nazi regime in occupied countries also became "critical". Belgium had many collaborators just like Yugoslavia (mainly Croatia and Slovenia, but also Serbia), and the difference between these two is that Yugoslavia (mainly Serbia) had stronger resistance movement.
6. Germanisation was planned for the White children, not the adult individuals. Ever heard of Lebensborn? More than 200.000 Polish children during the war were "kidnapped" to Germany in destination of Germanisation.

Anyway I will take books recommended by you. I'm not biased against Polish authors, I've said they uphold the myth of "Slavic subhumans" in some reason. Many authors aren't objecitve while writing about that cause. Thanks for your recommendation of "The Illusion", I'll try to get that book. Well, without reading it I can only say it's normal that during the bloody war just like World War II, people of one nation usually hate all the people of other one with no reason, which they thought to be an enemy nation. Many Germans lost members of their families in Stalingrad or Eastern Front (not only, some Germans also advocated anti-French feelings), and that is the reason of their hatred. For example, the Japanese soldiers of the U.S. Army and people of a Japanese origin in the USA were blamed for Pearl Harbor even if they were Japanese-Americans. In the time of World War I, the Russian Germans were also blamed, even if they felt to be Russian, because Tzar and others couldn't trust people with the nation which is the same as the nation of the war enemy. Also some American racialists which admired German people before the war, after start of the American participation in World War I those same Germans were regarded as "Alpine people inferior to North American, Anglo-Saxon Nordics", because of politics.

I'm not justifying any crimes, I'm trying to revise and destroy the myth of "Slavic subhumans", which didn't exist. It could be nationalism or chauvinism, but not racism. Sieger 10:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sieger, you got me confused here. Are you writing about Untermensch/Uebermensch here or about Aryans/non-Aryans ? Lysy 11:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm writing that in Nazi ideology only Germanic/German people were seen as a superior Aryan stock -"Herrenrasse/Herrenvolk" (Arische Übermenschen). Other White and native Indo-Europeans of a non-Jewish descent such as Romanic, Slavic and other peoples were seen just as a bit "inferior" Aryans, because everything in Nazi ideology has a hierarchy (Romanic peoples were less inferior, Slavs were more inferior culturally but less inferior racially, in contrast to Romanic peoples). Germans thought they were "this" Aryan Master nation, and non-Germanic Europeans were "these inferior" Aryan nations. Clearly, for Nazis untermenschen were only non - Indo-European or non-Caucasian peoples, so peoples which were regarded by them as a non-Aryan: Jews, Gypsies, blacks and eventually Altaic peoples from Asia (they made a big population in Red Army, which Nazis regarded as "the army of beasts"). Slavs can't be "untermenschen" because the term "untermensch" is opposite to an Aryan (Arier) which means a member of a noble race, as they were really regarded. Sieger

1. Aryans - yes. Ubermenschen - no. At least that's what the biggest Polish encyclopedia says and what my lectures say. The Slavs simply could not be Ubermenschen for the simple reason that they were neither Germanic nor Nordic.
2. They weren't treated as Ubermenschen, they were treated as Untermenschen. And whether Aryans or not is quite irrelevant for this article. These are two completely different topics (although somehow related)
3. Indeed, they were treated as Untermenschen. And this is what this article said before your changes.
4. It wasn't "racial segregation" in the most strict sense of the word, that's why I used the term apartheid in parenthesis. Nevertheless, such segregation was applied only to Jews, Gypsies and Slavs (or perhaps in France or Belgium the locals were also treated similarily?).
5. I never heard of Slave workers who were paid for their work. There is a huge difference between volunteer workers and slave workers. But this is a completely different question.
6. Yup, the very existence of Lebensborn proves that some Slavs were regarded as Arians. Which doesn't mean that they were Ubermenschen. They could become Ubermenschen if raised in German culture - which wasn't the case of most Slavs.

--Halibutt 14:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that the German Wikipedia attributes the concept of de:Untermensch, unlike the English Wikipedia also to feelings of cultural superiority and patriotism, not only to racism. Andries 14:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Could you expand this article likewise? Halibutt 14:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is all quite strange, anyway. For some reason we're trying to explain a German language term in English language encyclopedia. Still, it can have different meaning in English than in German, right ? Is it considered an English word at all ? Lysy 17:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt,

1. Exactly. I have to correct you with one thing: Those Slavs could be born as Nordics (it's about a phenotype) , and could become Germanic (by adopting main things like language or culture etc.).
2. No! This article is about racial ideas not the crimes! How Europeans were treated by Hitler has nothing to do with this article, because it is about the idea not the practice - in an article about war crimes you can write about crimes against Slavs, but here we must clearly claim that Slavs were regarded as Aryans by Nazism's racial policy.
3. Look earlier.
4. Slavs, Slavs, Slavs. You always use the word "Slavs". Which Slavs? Poles? Are Poles the only Slavs on the Earth? Why do you generalize? They are also Czechs, Slovenians, Croatians etc. which are also Slavs. Like I said, both France and Belgium had puppet governments. Poland did not. If there is no even a bit national government, there is also always or almost always limits for the native people. I'm not justifying it, but it's normal. If you add to that the fact of war, Nazism's opinion on the defeated and chauvinist revenge for 1st September you will know why occupation in Poland was so cruel. This had nothing to racism. I'm not trying to tell you Poles are Aryans because it is obvious, I'm trying to tell you Poles were Aryans for Nazis.
5. It's because we have used different terms - I've used "compulsory workers", which many Poles were. And I've heard, well to be more exact I know about it, that some Poles were forced to work in Germany, and they were paid a little, due to that while having a pass they can buy not very expensive things like chocolate or smokes. Volunteer workers in Germany? There weren't a lot of them...
6. Not exactly - pure Slavs were regarded as Aryans. If raised in German culture they could become members of "Herrenvolk". That was the only difference between "inferior Aryans" as Slavs, Romance people and others and "non-Aryan subhumans" as Jews, Gypsies, blacks, Altaic peoples and others - "inferior Aryans" could become "superior Aryans", but "non-Aryans" could not, because their destination was total extermination (Jews, Gypsies) and treating as animal (Altaic peoples of USSR). There are no blacks in both categories, because Hitler didn't go so far.

I hope it's clear now. Sieger 18:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is clear; provide evidence for your claims. Quote something authoritative other than your opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't have to. You should do that, because I haven't seen any laws regarding Slavs (so Czechs, Bulgarians, Croatians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Ukrainians, Bosniaks, Slovaks, Slovenians, Sorbs and other SLAVS) as "die untermenschen" and by the way authorized by the Nazis. It is good that someone has posted a Nazi propaganda poster "Der Untermensch" in this article, because it helps me to show the truth that Altaic peoples of Soviet Union, as Kazakhs, Uzbeks, the Chuvash and others were regarded as "inferior subhuman races" or "bolshevist beasts". What should I prove? That Poles or the French were regarded as Aryans by the Nazis? It is obvious for everyone that they were, as every non-Jewish White Europeans, but only Germanic Aryans with Germans on the top were "those superior ones". What else should I prove? That most Slavs were allies of Hitler, and they were let to join Waffen-SS? It is also obvious. And that is why you should not edit this article due to your own version of history. Ignorant myths should be revised, not supported. Sieger 10:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How peoples regarded by the Nazis as Aryans (including Poles etc.) were treated during the occupation is one thing, and thing that really has nothing to do with THIS article. This article is about NAZI RACIAL THEORIES, about the peoples that WERE REGARDED by the Nazis as "die untermenschen (the subhumans)". Most Slavs were not, so they shouldn't be posted in this article as an ethnic community. "Arier" can't be "untermensch", I think it's at least logical. Accept this or leave it. Sieger

And yet again you are confusing Untermensch with Aryan. Why so? And as to the poster - the face in the foreground doesn't seem very "Altaic" to me. Halibutt 11:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ha! I am confusing? Listen, if someone was regarded as an Aryan, he just COULDN'T be also "der untermensch", because these terms were opposing!!! That's why Slavs shouldn't be posted here. What about the face - doesn't look Altaic, huh? I think it does, because it is. Who cares, anyway don't tell me that face looks Slavic or Russian to you, because I won't believe... Sieger

Yes, you really need to provide sources for your claims. Here's a link you can read:[5]. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polish people were obviously seen as non-Aryan. The ONLY SLAVS that were seen as non-Aryan were actually Poles, Serbs and Russians. All other Slavs like Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Bulgarians, Ukrainians etc were treated way better because they collaborated with Germans to a lesser of higher extent. There were absolutely no official collaboration of Poles and Russians with the nazi Germans. This is the main reason of these particular slavic nations being viewed as inferior. What is more, Polish people were treated way worse than Gypsies (Romani), which could place them right above the Jews and right below the Gypsies in the racial "hierarchy" of the III Reich. Adolf Hitler once said: "I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language." And so, Polish people had their whole country totally devasted by the German nazis. Poland was a big pile of rubble. Vast majority of the Polish cultural and historical monuments and landmarks were destroyed. Of course the Jewish houses were also bobmed, and the jewish properties were robbed by the German soldiers. However, the man named Israel Singer said that it's not the Germany, but it's Poland that should compansate the Jews all of their losses: "If Poland does not satisfy Jewish claims it will be publicly attacked and humiliated in the international forum". We see it on every step. Poles are portrayed as aggressive vulgar thugs, bums, racists, gangsters etc, while Polish women are viewed as prostitutes. The plan is implemented. The modern "western world" hates the fact, that Poles during the World War II were the main non-jewish victims of the nazis, while simultanously being the ONLY nation that made such a huge anti-nazi uprising, while only having some weapons and helmets stolen from Germans. Poland was the ONLY country where any help for the Jews was punished by death, and simultanously the ONLY nation which made a special organization for helping the Jews (Żegota). The Polish bravery and patriotism was very strong. The western world hates it so much, that this "western" jealousy and envy made these facts being banned in the history books all over the world. You can easily verify if I'm right or wrong. 37.128.14.116 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian

In 1943 Ukrainian wos recognized by the Aryans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Полтавець (talk • contribs) 11:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No Ukrainians were never considered as Aryans.--Feminismuskritiker (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

James Watson

The James Watson stuff in the article is totally inappropriate. Before reverting my edit, please think about why that's the case people. Ethanbas (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would it be? It shows there is still racism in the scientific community. More objectively, that some scientists (renowned ones) still believe in the untermensch. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the term's usage, and currently talks entirely about how the nazis used it. Writing about James Watson doesn't belong here, because he has never mentioned/talked about the term/concept of untermensch. What he said can be mentioned in Wikipedia articles about racism or "racial realism" or racialism or racism in academia/science, not here. Ethanbas (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

But it's not racism, it's legitimately believing in an Untermensch. It doesn't matter if he used the term or not, the idea is the same. You deleted 17 sources and aren't backing it up. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, "removed a biased/inaccurate statement" is wrong, and you stated you were WP:Owning. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Just having a large number of sources doesn't make your case stronger. Also, I never stated I own any text on Wikipedia, not sure why you'd think that. Ethanbas (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"I'll be watching the page". ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Black peoples

Hello,

I'm sorry but black peoples were not considered as Untermensch, in fact you're guys are doing a big error.

This order was only applied for the black in the Rhineland, Other African Germans were unaffected.

The mixed peoples were considered as Untermensch! but not the pure Blacks ! In fact it's wrote that the blacks under Jew control which were send in Rhineland to batardize the race were mean to be Untermensch, but not all the black peoples !

There was never any systematic attempt to eliminate the black population in Germany.

So, please edit this wikipedia page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Black people were considered Untermenschen. From the "Der Untermensch" pamphlet issued in 1942 "Mulattoes and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsies and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhumans that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew."--79.70.157.65 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant information

This article is supposed to be about the term "Untermensch". Why is there a lot of information about the Holocaust, Generalplan Ost and Action T4? Such information is not relevant to the term "Untermensch". It's not vandalism to remove unnecessary information whether it's sourced or not. Such information belongs in other articles on Wikipedia, not this one.--79.70.157.65 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This is in fact Vandalism, because you added unsourced data. Communists and Marxists were not "subhumans"! Subhuman was a biological term! Only Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Serbs, and Russians were "subhumans". Also mentally and physically disabled, which is also a biological factor. Blacks and all non-Whites were also subhumans, but there were exceptions made for them, they were in the Hitler's army! Hitler made exceptions for Indians, Arabs, or Japanese - all non-White, but they were percieved as closer to "Aryans". You lie and post BS on Wikipedia! 81.190.45.56 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The removal of the information under the accusation that it was vandalism was rejected when asked [6] by User:Yatzhek. That wouldn't have been your claim by any chance, no? It's quite obvious that it's you and now you're posting with an IP address instead of your actual account. Duck test

The term "subhuman" was not exclusively a biological term and even some ethnic Germans were described as such, depending on their political beliefs. Communists and Marxists were regularly called "subhumans" by the Nazis. The Nazis allowed other folk to join the Waffen-SS because there was an incredible lack of German manpower, that did not exclude such peoples from being described as subhuman. That conclusion is simply a non-sequitur. The fact you wrote "You lie and post BS on Wikipedia!" shows your mentality, when one resorts to name calling it's safe to assume they have lost the argument.--Alfhard21257 (talk) 07:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Subhuman" is a biological term. Marxists and commmunists at the time were Jewish-bolsheviks, and knowing that, Hitler saw all Jews and Slavs as "subhumans". Subhumanity had nothing to do with political views of a person. Now, Show me a reliable source that if an ethnic German became a communist, he was perceived as "subhuman". Can you do it? Yatzhek (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"Finn-Asian barbarians"

One passage from Der Untermensch reads:

"Mulattoes and Finn-Asian barbarians, Gipsies and black skin savages all make up this modern underworld of subhumans that is always headed by the appearance of the eternal Jew."

I do not see any mention of Finns on this or similar pages, and I am having difficulty finding any information of Nazi racial policy relative to Finns (who are not Scandinavians proper) anywhere. Does anyone have any potential information to add regarding this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franxz (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Untermensch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817050016/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/ssnur1.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/ssnur1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

From Slavs it's mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs and Russians that were called subhuman

The original article stated that as it goes for Slavs, "mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs and later also Russians" were called subhuman by German Nazis.

Please quote me the wikipedia sources that clearly mention Belarusians and Ukrainians in the "subhuman" category created by the nazis. Second thing is, why do you add Belarusians and Ukrainians to the MAIN victims of this slur? The sentence says "mainly" which is put there to get rid of huge listing. Of course they were also seen as "untermensch" but they were not the main aims. The main aims were ethnic Poles (the term was addressed MAINLY to Poles, as Jews and Gypsies were referred to as "nicht-menschen" meaning "non-humans" and "life unworthy of life"), Serbs, and after expiry of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, also Russians, who in this case were "political subhumans". Belarusians and Ukrainians, despite still being "racially inferior" were not the main part of that. Actually, specifically Ukrainian nationalists cooperated with German nazis. And yes, there were exceptions for some Blacks who were Muslim, as there were Blacks who served in the nazi-driven Islamic army, the Freies Arabien Legion. Check it, and accept the facts. 188.146.161.111 (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The material in the article is supported by citations from two different sources, and could easily be supported by a dozen more, if it was necessary (which it isn't). If you wish to change that material, you need to provide source, reliable sources, that explicitly say that Nazi racial theories considered Belorussians and Ukrainians to be any different from other Slavic populations such as Poles, Serbs and Russians. The Nazi quest for "lebensraum" was not aimed at Poland alone, or even the Russian part of the Soviet Union. They wanted the whole of the territory populated by Slavic peoples for themselves, and considered all of the Slavs to be implicitly inferior to Germans. Yes, they would allow Ukrainians to work with them in rounding up Jews (even lower on the sub-human scale than Slavs), and they were happy enough to form Waffen-SS units from their conquered countries, but those were practical actions, not expressions of the worth of any of the Slavs in the minds of the Nazis. The most they would do is look for "Germanic" types among Slavic children in order to kidnap them and bring them to Germany, hoping to use them to breed proper Germans, but that did not mean they considered the populations they took the children from to be anything but inferior to Germans, sub-human, i.e. Untermenschen.

Again, if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you must provide sources for your claims. Your simple assertion of these "facts" is not sufficient, and will not prevail against information supported by proper citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Ken you are wrong. The sources DO NOT say anything about Ukrainians and Belarusians as the main targets of the term "untermensch". Stop twisting the facts, stop requiring a prove, because it is you who must give a reliable source of your claims. The version based on sources does not include Ukrainians and Belarusians. It is you who is required to prove that they were seen as equally inferior as Poles. 217.172.242.229 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please present sources that support your point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's you, who should present sources, that Ukrainians, who collaborated with the German nazis and murdered many Poles, Jews and Gypsies, were one of the main victims of the term "subhuman". Where is it in the sources? Can you quote? I'm waiting. 217.172.240.191 (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The material in the article is already sourced.

I have already explained above that the Nazis were quite happy to exploit Ukrainian antisemitism, and the feeling of many Ukrainians that they were "liberated" by the Nazis from the Soviets, to aid them in rounding up and murdering Jews. That is not proof that they considered Ukrainians not to be Untermenschen, it's simply a sign that the Ukrainians were useful and could be gainfully exploited.

Once again, please present citations from reliable sources which support your contentions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Reich Commissar for Ukraine said in 1945:

We are the Master Race and must govern hard but just ... I will draw the very last out of this country. I did not come to spread bliss ... The population must work, work, and work again [...] We are a master race, which must remember that the lowliest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the population [of Ukraine].

"The lowliest German worker is a thousand times more valuable then the population of Ukraine"

Now, please, unless you have a citation from a reliable source to support your contention, please give up this fantasy that the Nazis considered Ukrainians and Byelorussians as any different from any other of the Slavic peoples. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Your quotations just prove what I said in the first post - Ukrainians and Belarusians were in fact considered racially inferior, but you can never find any quotation where the concept of "subhumanity" is mentioned in context of those nations. They were not the main part of the concept. You lie, as Germans had remarkably different views about different Slavic nations, like for instance they saw Croats and Bulgarians to be more valuable than other Slavs. Such nations as Czechs, Bosniaks and Ukrainians were lower, but still valuable, because they were willing to collaborate and Germans did not consider those nations as dangerous. Now, Poles and Serbs were at the bottom of the Slavic "subhuman" hierarchy, which made them comparable to Jews and Gypsies. And so, please quote - where the concept of "untermensch" is mentioned in terms of Ukrainians, because this is what the article is about. Your quotation does not prove anything in this topic. 188.146.228.90 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you simply refuse to see what's clearly put in front of you. Untermensch is a concept, I provided a quote which clearly showed that the Nazis considered the Ukrainians to fulfill that concept. It's irrelevant whether they used 100 words to say it or one specific word.

This discussion can only be resolved when you provide a citation from a reliable source which says, explicitly, that the Nazis did not consider Ukrainians and Byelorussians to be Untermenschen. I;m sorry, but if you can't provide that, you've got nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So Mr. Ken, now you're escaping from admiting, that you lied when you said that the Nazis saw all Slavs equally as subhumans without differentiation? (quotation fantasy that the Nazis considered Ukrainians and Byelorussians as any different from any other of the Slavic peoples.) - Why won't you tell a few words about it, and about Hitler's views on such nations as Croats, Bulgarians, Czechs, Ukrainians or Bosniaks? Now, Ukrainians and Belarusians were seen as racially interior by the Nazis, it's a fact and i said it before. But I've also said that they were not the main part of the concept of "untermensch", and Wikipedia says "mainly". Why don't you make a huge list of all Slavic nations at the beginning of the article then, huh? I will not let you get away with those meaningless sources that do not prove anything. 188.146.46.215 (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. There is no need to point out all of the victims of this term right at the beginning of the article, that's just pointless. However, I've mentioned your source about Ukrainians inside the article. It doesn't prove that the term "untermensch" was used against Ukrainians, however we all know they were deemed inferior too. Therefore my edit contains it all. Thanks, and good day. Yatzhek (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. I removed your edit because there is no consensus for it, and there is a need to label what "Unternesch" mean in the lede --- that's the purpose of a lede section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Beyond My Ken, first answer my questions from my above message. Stop escaping it. Answer these questions to have further discussion. You are the one who is escaping from discussion. Prove that you want to discuss the issue, and answer my indicated questions. 188.146.2.184 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to ask rhetorical questions in an attempt to score points. The bottom line is this: the information currently in the article is sourced. You want different information to be in the article. Once you provide citations from reliable sources supporting the information you prefer, we can talk about which sources are best to use. Until then, the information will remain in the article as is.

This is my last contribution to the spinning wheel this discussion has become, until you come up with sources. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Original research for further information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor English Patriot Man
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My two cents is that while it is true that the Nazis considered most Slavs to be racially inferior, there were some exceptions. The difference between Nazi thoughts and policies is very clear. There is evidence that the Nazis differentiated between the various Slavic ethnic groups; some were considered to be of suitable racial stock. Below are some sources that confirm what I have said: Before 1939, a vague notion thus seems to have existed in leading Nazis' minds that Slavs constituted an inferior group, but just how inferior was an issue to be decided later. In the meantime it was possible to think of them not only as potential allies, but also as Europeans. A brochure was issued for the 1938 Nuremberg rally proclaiming Slavs part of the "Indogermanic peoples." These differing logics of racial ideology had decisive implications for Nazi practice in Eastern Europe during the war. Because the Nazis did not understand the Poles or the Russians, let alone the Slavs as a race, there could be no policy of complete eradication. Any proponent of complete destruction of Poles or Russians would have first stumbled upon the difficulty of determining who a Pole or Russian was in the racial sense; there was no equivalent of the Nuremberg laws for this purpose. In practice, every level of the Nazi hierarchy, whether the top leadership and its most inveterate Slavophobes, racial "scientists," or the army and SS, constantly made distinctions within various Slavic groups. There was not a region in Poland where some "Nordic" elements were not imagined; in the western and northern areas it was thought to be more than half. Entire groups of speakers of Slavic languages within Poland, like the Gorales, or the Lemkos, were thought of as essentially Germanic. — John Connelly, Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice. Most scholars who have investigated Nazi policies toward Slavs have concluded, however, that they were driven more by economic necessities than by racial ideology, as though these factors were mutually contradictory. Sometimes these conclusions seem to derive from a lack of understanding of Nazi racial ideology, especially in relation to Slavs. Nazi racial theorists and policy makers did not—contrary to a popular misconception—believe that Germans were pure representatives of the Nordic or Aryan race. Nor did they think that all Slavs were non-Nordic. They claimed that both Germans and Slavs were mixed racial types. Though they considered most Slavs racially inferior to most Germans, some Nazi racial theorists claimed, surprisingly, that some Slavs were racially superior to some Germans! — Anton Weiss Wendt, Eradicating Differences: The Treatment of Minorities in Nazi-Dominated Europe, page 62. Also, not all Nazis were extremely like anti-Slavic like Himmler. Goebbels referred to the Bulgarians as "friends". Hitler believed that the Ukrainian Nordics were descended from older German tribes. Hitler personally agreed that around half of the Czech population was racially acceptable for Germanization. Himmler, even though he was arguably the most notorious anti-Slav, made exceptions for racially suitable Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, etc.--88.109.73.81 (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

To 88.109.73.81 - you said "Goebbels referred to the Bulgarians as "friends" - Yes! Because he considered Bulgarians as "more Turkic than Slavic" and Nazi Germans saw Turkic peoples to be much superior over Slavic peoples. To Beyond My Ken - Your "sources" still dont prove nothing! The main Slavic victims of the "Subhuman" policy were ethnic Poles and ethnic Serbs, later "politically" also Russians. You will never find an academic publication which clearly states that Ukrainians were "untermensch", which means, you cant put the statement about Ukrainians in the first column on the article! You are making damage to the article. 188.146.228.52 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hitler regarded the Bulgarians to be Turkic rather than Slavic, not Goebbels. Goebbels also had an affair with a Czech woman and along with Rosenberg favoured potential alliances with the Ukrainians and other Slavs. Not all Nazis were anti-Slavic. Actually much of the policies towards the Slavs was mainly driven by political reasons rather than any sort of real racial reasoning. Diemut Majer in her book Non-Germans under the Third Reich on page 63 wrote: "also "inferior" were Ukrainians, east-European Jews, Soviet Russians, Bulgarians, Lithuanians, and members of other Eastern European peoples." The sources available are accurate and describe the Nazis' opinions of Slavs, including the Belarusians and Ukrainians. Before 1939 the Nazis had no real plans for the Slavs and many Germans of Slavic descent were Reich citizens and were not racially targeted, unlike Jews, Gypsies and blacks. By the way, can you actually provide a source that states there was some sort of exception for blacks who were Muslims? Many non-Germanic subhumans such as Ukrainians were eventually allowed to serve in the Waffen-SS which is why Himmler after a conversation with Andrey Vlasov had the brochure "The Subhuman" withdrawn and any propaganda against subhumans stopped.--79.70.138.209 (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@ IP:79.70.138.209 - You are right! Not all nazis were against all Slavs, but all of the nazis were anti-Polish. That's why Poles, Serbs (murdered by Ustase) and perchance, also Russians can be mentioned in the first columns of the "untermensch" article, why? Because some other Slavic nations were not seen inferior by some nazis, and "untermensch" meant sub-human, the most inferior of all, so Ukrainians, Bulgarians, or Czechs can not be mentioned as the main aims of that term. Sure they were inferior, but not "untermensch". You proved that. And you said "Germans of Slavic descent were Reich citizens and were not racially targeted, unlike Jews, Gypsies and blacks" - false. Germans of Polish descent were more racially targeted than blacks, as Germans saw Poles as the major racial and cultural "threat" among European peoples. This was the continuation of German views on Poles during the Partitions of Poland. Actually, the nazi views on Poles as slaves were motivated by those historical times. Some nazis believed that Poles were "mixed with Jews and Tatars" while Serbs were "mixed with Gypsies". 188.146.0.106 (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor English Patriot Man
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You claim "Germans of Polish descent were more racially targeted than blacks, as Germans saw Poles as the major racial and cultural "threat" among European peoples. This was the continuation of German views on Poles during the Partitions of Poland. Actually, the nazi views on Poles as slaves were motivated by those historical times." I would be interested if you could provide some sources to confirm these allegations. On the contrary, Jedrzejewicz's book "Diplomat in Berlin" By the 1930s, Poles that lived around the Ruhr area had been fully assimilated into the local German community. Generally speaking, ethnic Poles that spoke Polish were mostly situated in and around Silesia. I have never read of any German of Polish ethnicity to have lost their citizenship; no one seems to have lost their Reich citizenship for being ethnically Polish. The German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 protected Poles in the Third Reich. The Nazis even played pro-Polish films during 1933-39 for Germans to watch. There needs to be a distinction made between Germans that had Polish ethnicity or the Polish minority living in the Third Reich and new immigrants that came from the East, including Poland. Those people that either considered themselves Germans and had Polish ancestry (e.g an obvious Polish surname) or the Polish minority were not persecuted by the Nazis and were allowed to be Reich citizens. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 did not affect the Poles because they were considered to be of "related blood". The laws affected Jews, Gypsies, blacks and other non-Europeans. There were literally millions of Germans with Polish origin, a famous one was General Manstein who was born a Lewinski and don't forget SS-general Bach-Zelewski. You also make the outrageous claim that "all" Nazis were anti-Polish - this again is not true. For example, even Hitler before 1939 had no real problems with the Poles, he attended the funeral of Józef Piłsudski, his opinions of the Poles changed from 1939 on wards when they refused to meet his demands. Anyway, after the invasion of Poland in Poland in 1939 Colonel-general Blaskowitz, commander of the Army in Poland, writes to Von Brauchitsch condemning the 'criminal atrocities, maltreatment, and plundering carried out by the SS, police and administration'. and condemning their 'animal and pathological instincts.' fearing that it will all lead to 'immeasurable brutalization and moral debasement'. Brauchitsch ignores the said report, and instead puts out a response saying that criticism endangering the unity and fighting power of the troops had to be prohibited. Indeed, he also endorsed all the measures taken by the SS, and this can be taken as the 'official' view of the Army on the matter (see Ian Kershaw, Hitler: Nemesis 1936-45 pp.248-249). Another thing to bear in mind is that around the SS in Eastern Europe, including at the notorious Auschwitz extermination camp there were loads of Polish speakers and this did not stop them from being taken into the SS. Even after the invasion of Poland, because of Albert Forster's desire to Germanize his area of annexed territory, which included the Polish Corridor, thousands of ethnic Poles had no problems declaring themselves as "Volksdeutsche" to reap the rewards of being a "German". Even Donald Tusk's grandfather was conscripted by the Germans into the Wehrmacht and classified as a "German". There was also the question about sexual relations between Germans and Poles, if the latter turned out to be "Nordic" enough he or she was spared from execution.--92.12.169.60 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Hitler was Austrian, not Prussian. His views on the Poles cannot be compared to someone like Bismarck. This information may interest you: Consequently, in the 1920s, Germany's attitude vis-à-vis Poland was predominantly hostile. In view of this widespread anti-Polish sentiment it is surprising that Poland barely surfaced in Mein Kampf. There, Hitler did not exploit or even refer to these obvious anti-Polish sentiments. Hitler, in fact, did not comment on Germany's past and present relations with Poland or about its future relations under a National Socialist government. If Mein Kampf tells us anything at all about Poland, it is that Hitler rated the 'racial value' of the Poles as low - though without going into any detail. Apart from this rather brief comment, Hitler mentioned Poland only in the context of his opposition to an alliance with Russia. According to Hitler's conclusion, accurate in the context of the Polish-Russian antagonism of the early 1920s and the Polish-French alliance, 'Russia would first have to subdue Poland' before it could join Germany in a war with 'Western Europe'. Only from Hitler's very curt assessment that Poland was 'completely in French hands' can it be assumed that he had little time for Germany's eastern neighbour. Hitler's 1928 manuscript offers a slightly better insight into his views on Poland and the Poles. Again, he refers to the lower 'racial value' of the Poles - this time, however, in more detail and in stronger language. Again he deemed Poland a major obstacle in a potential Russian military move westward. More clearly in fact than in Mein Kampf Hitler concluded that 'a subjugation of Poland by Russia . . . is quite improbable' while he also discussed, in more detail, Poland's role as an ally of France and thus as a very likely enemy of Germany. In contrast to Mein Kampf, the Secret Book refers explicitly, though with surprising brevity, to the fate of those Silesians, East and West Prussians 'enslaved under Polish rule'. In attacking anti-Italian 'agitators' in Germany, Hitler reminded them that other nations, including Poland, had also committed crimes against the Germans. By and large, however, Poland played only a marginal role in Hitler's major writings. What stands out from Mein Kampf and the Secret Book is Hitler's disapproval of the Polish 'race' and his agreement with the powerful anti-Polish and revisionist sentiment in Germany. Other sources of the 1920s reveal a similar attitude ('Poland was created from German blood') though again Hitler mentioned Poland only infrequently. — Christian Leitz, Nazi Foreign Policy, 1933-1941: The Road to Global War, pp. 63-64 When Hitler railed against Germanizing Poles and Czechs in Mein Kampf, he was criticizing a policy that determined one's membership in the German Volk by linguistic or cultural criteria. Otherwise he stressed the preponderance of race. Hitler never discussed in sufficient detail his views on the composition of the Slavic races and his position on Germanization to determine if the Germanization policies after 1939 marked a departure from previous ideology. This is probably the clearest statement by Hitler before 1939 concerning his racial policies toward Poles. However vague is Hitler's statement, if we compare it with actual Nazi policies toward Poles after 1939, we will observe continuity. As regards isolation, the Nazis did their utmost to prevent miscegenation between Germans and Poles. They deported hundreds of thousands of Poles to make space for ethnic Germans resettled from the Baltic States, Bessarabia, and Bukovina. However, the differences in treatment of the Czechs and the Poles may have been driven neither by economic considerations nor by racial ideology. In a pamphlet published by the Racial Policy Office and meant exclusively for Nazi Party officials, Egon Leuschner discussed the ideological underpinnings of National Socialist Policy toward Foreign Peeoples. Leuschner claimed that his pamphlet represented the Nazi Party's official position, and the preface was written by Walter Gross, the head of the Racial Policy Office. Leuschner denied that Czechs and Poles were being treated differently based on their racial composition. While he acknowledged that a higher percentage of Czechs than Poles could be Germanized, he did not claim that the differences were due to economic considerations. Rather, he asserted that it was because of contingent historical events, especially the way the two countries were subdued by Germany. First, the Nazis deemed the vast majority of Poles racially inferior. Second, according to Nazi racial thought, Poles with Nordic racial features, if they refused to abandon their Polish identity, were actually more dangerous than those of the inferior East Baltic race. Destroying the Nordic leadership of the Poles was thus essential to keeping Poland under control. Nonetheless, as I have shown above, the Nazis did hope to Germanize as many Nordic Poles (and other Slavs) as possible, as long as they would cooperate. Leuschner confirms my interpretation of Nazi policy toward the Slavs by rejecting the view that Nazi policy toward Slavs was on the whole haphazard or inconsistent. The whole point of his pamphlet was the exact opposite: to show how Nazi policy was consistent with its racial ideology. He explained that Germans, Poles, and Czechs contained a mixture of races. While the Nordic race predominated among the Germans, the Poles and Czechs belonged mostly to the Eastern and East Baltic races. However, the Poles and Czechs also had some Nordic blood, especially from German migrants in the past who had adopted the Polish or Czech languages. These Nordic Slavs could be reincorporated in the German Volk, but the long-term goal for the bulk of the Slavic population was deportation from lands conquered by Germany. Leuschner admitted that wartime economic necessities made this goal unattainable for the time being. He further argued that even after the war it would take a long time to carry out the said policies. Despite this intervening delay, however, Polish workers in Germany during the war were identified with an insignia to keep them from mixing with Germans. The historians who have argued that the Nazi regime set aside its racial policy in formulating policies toward Slavs evince a slight misunderstanding of Nazi racial ideology. Nazis did not consider Germans or Slavs pure racial types, but mixtures of several European races. — Anton Weiss Wendt book Eradicating Differences: The Treatment of Minorities in Nazi-Dominated Europe, pp. 62-78 The best example of the shift in meaning that occurred in the conception of völkisch inequality toward that of a political principle is seen in the position of the Eastern European peoples in the National Socialist scheme things. According to National Socialist racial doctrine, all European peoples belonged to the family of Aryans and were thus fundamentally "racially equivalent", that is, recognized as equal before the law. The placement of the Poles under rule of special law was done from fundamentally political motives. The race-political grounds for hatred of the Poles were merely the ideological mask justifying the National Socialist policy of violent force. The political bias for the systemically fomented hatred of and malice against Poles reveals itself in the thesis, invented ex post facto, of their "threat to the community," which then became the dominant argument in both theory and practice. According to this, the Poles had to be excluded from the European community of rights on account of their "Germanophobia" and their political incompetence and "lack of culture." In contrast with this political argument, neither the racial window dressing of Nazi propaganda that commenced in 1939, according to which the Poles were "racial foes" with regard to whom restraints were not to be observed, nor the elaborate attempts of the Race Policy Office to set up a racial classification of the Poles achieved much of an echo. — Diemut Majer, Non-Germans Under the Third Reich, pp. 62-64 The information clearly shows that before 1939 the Nazis didn't really hold any sort of concrete theories against the Poles and other Slavs. Nevertheless, after the invasion of Poland all sorts of theories were thrown out but very few were ever defined e.g the even definition of "Pole" became problematic. The Nazis often asked themselves various questions: What about those Germans with obvious Polish origin? What about Nordic Poles? What about Poles that were anti-communists and were happy to serve in the Wehrmacht? What about Poles that could help in the various camps? Not all Nazis agreed with what happened in Poland, German Generals right from the outstart of the invasion such as Blaskowitz were outraged at the atrocities and openly spoke out against them. The commanders did not envision what Hitler, Himmler and others did for Poland. The Nazis considered the Poles, like the Germans, to be mixture of several races and some were seen to be more valuable than others.--92.12.169.60 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, User:English Patriot Man, and what will you tell me about tens of thousands of ethnically Polish men executed by Germans for having relationships with ethnic German women, what the German nazis called "Rassenschande" meaning "racial defilement"? The "Polish decrees" stated: "any Pole who has sexual relations with a German man or woman, or approaches them in any other improper manner, will be punished by death." Why did the German come up with the "Polish" Decrees, not "Ukrainian" or "Czech"? How will you comment on this? 81.190.47.47 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor English Patriot Man
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have no idea why I am being accused of being a banned user. I am still willing to give my knowledge of this subject. The Nazis enacted similar laws against the Eastern Workers. "Punishment for sexual intercourse with Germans. Czechs, Poles, and other Eastern workers or prisoners of war who had had sexual intercourse with Germans were examined by the racial examiners of RuSHA. Those who were found to be not "racially desirable" were imprisoned in concentration camps or executed. Those found "racially valuable" were Germanized. The defendants Greifelt, Creutz, Meyer-Hetling, Schwarzenberger, Hofmann, Hildebrandt, and Schwalm are charged with special responsibility for, and participation in, these crimes." Quoted from The RuSHA Case - the Indictment. "Foreign nationals, particularly from the East, including Poles, Czechs, and Russians, were subject to these decrees (both civilians and prisoners of war). As early as 7/3/1940 Pancke, then chief of RuSHA, sent a report to the office of Bormann, assistant to Hess, suggesting the issuance of laws to protect German blood. "The order given by the Reich Leader of the SS on the special treatment of Poles is extended to the Czechs too. The Reich Security Main Office continues to complain that a quicker decision must be reached concerning suitability for Germanization. It proposes a short course of instruction for all the heads of the State Police Regional Offices and afterwards the inauguration through these of a system of rough racial selection of the civilian workers suggested for special treatment. On account of principal considerations this consent to the Reich Security Main Office had to be refused. It then remains for us, however, on the other hand to guarantee that the examination process will be speeded up. Once more reference must be made to the regular submission of the expert opinions to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. * * *"" Quoted from The RuSHA Case - The Judgment of the Tribunal.--92.12.169.60 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC) User:81.190.47.47, I have given you more than enough cited information which refutes every single argument you have presented (without any evidence). User:Beyond My Ken has also noted your disingenuous and consistent posting without any evidence. Provide some sources for your claims, specifically that Germans of Polish origin were targeted during 1933-1939 and "all" Nazis were anti-Polish (despite the clear evidence I have presented which clearly counteracts both claims). One last thing, Polish Tatars have been in Poland since the 14th century, the Nazis were not wrong in stating that some Poles were of Tatar origin, one of the most famous Poles of Tatar origin was Henryk Sienkiewicz.--92.12.169.60 (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

To the sockpuppet of User:English Patriot Man - I hope you are familiar with the fact, that ethnic Poles were seen by Germans as the ethnically worst of all Slavs, as the Generalplan Ost assumed extermination (by slave work or mass-murder) of 100% of Jews, 85% of Poles, 75% of Belarusians, 65% of Ukrainians, 60% of Russians, and 50% of Czechs. This means, ethnic Poles were RIGHT AFTER the JEWS! 188.146.32.60 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't encourage a response by EPM by addressing a comment to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Untermensch does not mean "non-Aryan"

Adolt Hitler write in his The Political Testament: "I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own."

Hitler explicitly said that East Asians were not considered "Aryans" but were not seen as Untermensch either, and alliances with nationalist China and then with Japan prove this.

I don't know if there are other exceptions, but the fact is that Untermensch is not synonymous with "non-Aryan". Barbar03 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon

I have to say I share the concern of some about the cartoon. Do we have a source for The attitude underlying the concept of "untermensch" existed before the word was first used in that sense in 1922, and pointing to that cartoon, or at the very least referring to Austrian/ German attitudes toward Serbs in that context? Otherwise, I'm afraid using it here is perilously close to the OR/SYNTH line, and probably over. I understand it's a great visual, but why can't it just be anger over the assassination? EEng 18:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you looking for in the way of back-up? Would, for instance, a discussion of Austrian/German attitudes towards the Serbs be sufficient, or would it have to be something specifically about this poster? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Before we even get to the cartoon it's the statement The attitude underlying the concept of "untermensch" existed before the word was first used in that sense in 1922 that needs support first. I guess I'd like something clearly supporting that, and then to bring in the cartoon we might just barely squeak by if that source includes (perhaps in a list of examples) something vaguely implying pre-1922 Germanic prejudice against Slavs. But when you think about it, the fact that this was a new name for a concoction of old hatreds ought to be a section of the article, and likely whatever sources support such a section will have appropriate pre-1922 images. I know you know I'm not trying to be difficult. EEng 23:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I understand. My reading in German and Austrian attitudes towards the Serbs pre-World War I tells me that they were indeed standing prejudices, but I'll need to find something specific that identifies those as racially/ethnically based and not primarily geo-political. The poster - at least in my estimation - clearly identifies the Serbian figure as a sub-human (i.e. an ape), but the question is whether that's emblematic of standing prejudices, or simply wartime propaganda, as with American depictions of "the Hun". I guess I have some research to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I did a bit of Googling and found this opinion piece and this thesis discussing the anti-Serb slogan "Serbien muss sterbien" and the Nazi concept of "untermensch" as applied to Serbs, but neither are RS. I wonder if an untermensch Nazi propaganda poster would be a better choice for the lead image, and the "Serbien muss sterbien" cartoon perhaps moved to a section of the article about discussion of the concept of untermensch before 1922? – Levivich 00:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, I could get behind that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

My work is done here. UP! UP! AND AWAY! EEng 04:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Dreadful article

Confused and repetitive and inaccurate to a gobsmacking degree. For example, the Nazis didn't consider the Slavs to be Untermenschen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.122.19 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree with you.

I think you suffer from the misconception that the worldviews thought up by homicidal robbers to justify their crimes need to be internally consistent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(a) You are wrong. (b) You have no idea what I 'suffer' from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.122.19 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

IP edit

Dear IP,

please stop continous removal and gain consensus in the talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC))

I am removing the poster because it is offensive,inaccurate (there is no such thing as Ottoman slippers and I dont know who put that false description under the poster) and it predates the word this article is about by a decade, so it cannot be used as an example for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.10.142.8 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You should stop continuous removal and edit warring, again, you have to gain consensus for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC))

How can I get a consensus for removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.165.111 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Other editors will also read this talk page. Present your arguments here. This is what you can do right now, since more editors are not agreeing with you. You will notice if you convinced them in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

My argument is as follows. The poster which is representing this article is offensive, derogatory and unnecessary especially because it has nothing to do with the word "untermench", which was invented a decade after the creation of the poster. Also, the poster was calling for the destruction of Serbia (country which was an enemy of Austria-Hungary) not of the Serbs (the people of whom large parts were citizens of Austria-Hungary and served in its armies) so presenting this poster as an example of the word this article is about really makes no sense. I have to mention as well that the description of the poster is inaccurate, as there is no such thing as "Ottoman slipers", which the link referencing it clearly shows (leads to the article about Albanian footwear). All in all, the poster itself as well as its description is unnecessary, incorrect and in no way beneficial to the article, so it is for the best if it be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.10.142.4 (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

explain NPOV edit please?

SamSpade, Could you please explain what is inaccurate in the sentence " The Nazi ideology contained nothing original and the term was borrowed from older 19th century sources." I read this in a very good biography by Ian Kershaw about Hitler. On second thoughts, it may have been from the beginning of 20 centrury as well but it was certainly not original in any respect. What is inaccurate in the following sentence? "The Nazis were however the first to put this belief into practice in Europe. " The idea had already been put in to practice by the colonial powers in africa and Asia. This was one of the sources of inspiration for Hitler. Thanks in advance Andries 18:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well... to say that the Nazi's ideology contained nothing new is impossibly broad, and easilly contradicted. Their focus on increasing the birth rate, even encouraging extra-martital encounters for SS men springs to mind, but generally, they interwove industrialization with social policy, something entirely new. They also revoloutionized warfare as well. "The Nazis were however the first to put this belief into practice in Europe. " is a ludicris assertation, as if to suggest that racism was something unprecedented, and Martin Luther along w so very, very, very many others had not advocated persecution Jews, or others. Anyhow I think the article could use some additions to make up for my subtractions, shall we begin writing on the article page, or do you need more clarification here on the talk? Sam Spade 19:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SamSpade, you only give examples of practices of the Nazism that were new. What was new in their ideology? I do think that the racism as an ideology was practiced for the first time in Europe by the Nazis. Martin Luther objected to the Jews mainly because for religious reasons unlike the Nazis. Andries!

I don't disagree at all. As far as ideology alone, rather than something put into practice, the concepts of uber and unter mencsch were never put together in to a political form before, and I would call this something original. It would appear that we are disputing subtleties. It is possible to say that nothing is truely original, as everything has roots and gains from outside influence, but clearly the Nazi's put things together into an original package, combiining nationalism with industrialization, extreme focus on race and efficiency, a new kind of leader (Führer) not of noble birth, but given a sort of personality worship and attention to (mein kampf) never seen before. Sam Spade 19:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SamSpade, what do you think of the following adapted sentences? "Like all elements of Nazi ideology the concept of Untermensch was not original and the term was borrowed from older 19th century sources. The Nazis were however the first to put racial persecution into practice in Europe." Andries 20:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like them less, actually. To me it is clear that their ideology was original, and that their racial practices were not. Sam Spade 23:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[7]

Samspade, it is a proven fact that the elements of Nazi ideology were not original. I think you are right that the mixture was orignal. Read e.g. the biograpghy by Ian Kershaw about Hitler. I don't understand why you refer again to Marten Luther. I thought you agreed that he advocated religious persecution of Jews unlike the Nazis who advocated racial persecution. I have to see whether this is essential for the article though.Andries 19:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I find the concept of originality to be a philosophical one, and easilly debated from either side. I have read enough Hitler biographies, but thank you for the suggestion. Martin Luther is an example (amongst literally thousands) of Jews being persecuted prior to the Nazi's. Anti-semitism was pretty standard thruout history, and is only somewhat less so today, altho I'd say it is prob. at near record lows since well before the time of Christ. Persecution of Jews based or religion, race, ethnicity, culture, etc... is not so tellinga feature when the Jews themselves are so esoteric in regards to the where the line is drawn. Their persecuters are often just as vague about if Jews are a race, religion, etc... Sam Spade 10:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article

we should be spending all this energy writing in the article page, rather than the article talk ;) Sam Spade 10:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Translate from German

The article badly needs translation from Deutsch wikipedia. There is a well-known Himmler's pamphlet Der Untermensch, which will clearly stop this silly discussion about Slavs. Mikkalai 18:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untermensch poster

AFAIK, the face on the poster is that of a mentally retarded. Similar faces are present on many posters related to T4 euthanasia. Mikkalai 17:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

no, not mentally retarded but Soviet POWs. I read a memoir by a Russian woman of noble heritage who had fled the Bolsjewik government and lived in Germany during WWII whose mother wanted to feed the Soviet POWs. Everybody agreed with her plans including high ranking Wehrmacht officicers, except the top of the Nazi party. Andries 18:14, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, where do you see Soviet POWs in the poster? I see a moron's face on the background of happy, healthy, shaven armed soldiers in German uniform with distinctly aryan features. Did anyone see the description of the poster? Mikkalai 18:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. I found it. Why do you guys throw things in without proper description? Mikkalai 18:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And what does your story have to do with the topic? Surely, even among Germans under Hitler many were normal people of varying degree of indoctrination, just as among Russians under Stalin. Mikkalai

Soviet POWs were treated very badly because the Nazi top considered them Untermenschen. Andries 19:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction: "Jews were to be exterminated in the Holocaust, along with the Polish and Romani people, and the physically and mentally disabled. ..."

First a general comment: I think that it's always a bad sign when there are lots of citations in the Introduction. It tends to indicate that the Introducation is not doing what it is supposed to, which is to summarise the body of the article. One of the citations is of Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands." Although an excellent book, it nowhere uses the term "untermensch", a possible indication that there's a bit of original research being indulged in. My copy of the book is a .epub-format electronic edition, so the page numbering doesn't follow that of the paper edition cited. It's therefore difficult for me to determine exactly which text in the book the citation is supposed to be to.

Currently the introduction reads:

"Jews were to be exterminated in the Holocaust, along with the Polish and Romani people, and the physically and mentally disabled. According to the Generalplan Ost, the Slavic population of East-Central Europe was to be reduced in part through mass murder in the Holocaust, with a majority expelled to Asia and used as slave labor in the Reich. These concepts were an important part of the Nazi racial policy."

I find the wording ambiguous and probably also inaccurate. Given the mention of Nazi racial policy it reads to me as an explanation of Nazi long-term plans. Mention is made of Generalplan Ost, which, according to the source, was finalised in 1940, long after the Nazis came to power and months after the invasion of Poland, which is generally taken as the start of WWII. As far as I know, there was no general plan to exterminate Poles. Certainly there were plans to remove people regarded as leaders of the Polish people and to expel Poles from areas of Poland annexed to Germany. The long-term intention for Jews had been to isolate them and then expell them from German territory. Along with Poles, they were ejected into the General Government, the occupied area of Poland which hadn't been annexed. There, they were forced into ghettos. Initially the wheeze of driving Jews across the border into the Soviet-occupied part of Poland was employed. I think it's a stretch to count the eventual extermination of Jews as part of Nazi racial policy. As an intention, it was a final expedient which was put into effect after the invasion of the Soviet Union and the entry of the United States to the war. It ran at cross-purposes with another expedient, the exploitation of Jews as slave labour to aid the German war effort and to help finance the SS.

In an attempt to address the ambiguity, I changed the phrase "were to be exterminated" to "were exterminated" here. This was reverted by editor Beyond My Ken here.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity. I believe you reading into the text things which are not there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean? I'd take a guess that I'm not the only person who has difficulty with it. You might like to make the effort to ensure that it's written as clearly as it can be for everyone's benefit?     ←   ZScarpia   02:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's see if anyone else is having any problems with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of writing at length about the reasons why I made the edit you reverted. Since you were the reverter, writing more than 16 words in reply to all my points would be courteous. You could, for starters, besides giving me the explanation asked for, clarify which particular lines from "Bloodlands" have been cited.     ←   ZScarpia   02:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What I've written so far is more than sufficient. If any other editor chimes in and doesn't understand what I believe is the plain meaning of the language used, then we can discuss any necessary changes, but as of this moment, my feeling is that the problem is not in the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, then, let's try a different approach. What exactly is present in the phrase "were to be exterminated" that you think is important, which is not present in "were exterminated"? I take it that you're not going to answer my question about "Bloodlands"? Even confirmation of the chapters I should be looking at would be helpful. You say that you don't think the problem is in the text. I think the way it's written is far from optimal. Hopefully you wouldn't disagree.     ←   ZScarpia   03:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait for other editors to get involved, shall we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding, "to exterminate a people" means that after the extermination, that people does not exist anymore - it is extinct. So, the Nazis intended and tried to exterminate all those groups, but failed. So, "were exterminated" is simply wrong. As for the intention to do it, Hitler made that sufficiently clear in his book, so "were to be exterminated" is correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is bull

There is very little evidence to support much of this. Slavs weren't considered racially "untermensch" as such, given that they weren't even considered a race per se. If you read actuall german racial theory, such as from "Glauben und kampfen", this becomes very obvious. They refer to races such as "east baltic" "meditarranean" "nordic" etc, not a imaginary meta-slavic race. Poles, like most eastern europeans were considered aryan, Warsaw apart from the ghetto was refered to "aryan" warsaw, the poles were forbiden to enter the non-aryan ghetto. Why if these poles are considered Untermensch, would the germans designate warsaw apart from the ghetto as aryan?

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V60I6P64-1.htm

They were very much oppressed and shat upon by the germans but it wasn't on the basis of racial fanatacism. The only real use of the word untermenshe in regard to eastern peoples is from german propaganda demonizing what they called the judeo-bolshevik asiatic hordes seeking to destroy european civilization, including the european "aryan" russian slavs. here's a couple on Q&A's from an interview with General Otto Ernst Remer.

---

Q: Is it true that the Germans referred to the Russians as "subhumans"?

A: Nonsense! The Russians are human beings just like everyone else.

Your question, whether we called the Russians "subhumans," is nonsense. We had a first-class relationship with the Russian people. The only exception, which was a problem we dealt with, was with the Soviet Commissars, who were all Jews. These people stood behind the lines with machine guns, pushing the Russian soldiers into battle. And anyway, we made quick work of them. That was according to order. This was during a war for basic existence, an ideological war, when such a policy is simply taken for granted.

There was sometimes talk about the so-called Asian hordes, and ordinary soldiers sometimes spoke about subhumans, but such language was never officially used.

---

Remer attributing soviet atrocities to the asiatic faction of the soviet union:

Q: Can you say something regarding Soviet atrocities against German civilians?

A: I myself saw cases involving women who had been killed, their legs spread apart and sticks thrust in, and their breasts cut off ... I saw these things myself, in Pomerania.

I spoke about this on the radio, and described it Dr. Goebbels asked me to describe this in detail, and he sent a radio team to interview me for that purpose. That was in the area around Stargard, where I saw this.

Q: What of the Soviet "Asiatic" troops?

A: It was terrible. The soldiers who did those things were at the front ...Asians, Mongols, and so forth.

---

This article seems ignorant to me. A Pole who had signed the Volksliste became a Volksdeutsch (ethnic German). It can be easily provided by me. Jews and gypsies couldn't sign Volksliste, because they were considered Untermenschen. "Untermenschen" were these sentenced for a massive and planned extermination like: the disabled, gypsies, Jews or "asocial element". No (native) Poles were included. So why does someone constantly and constantly keep adding Poles (specifically) to this article? However it is true that Slavs (as well as the French) weren't seen as superior as Germanics (in culture, because when it came to race they were rather considered Aryan) - a wikipedian

---

Not all Poles could sign Volksliste. ONLY those who proved that they had german ancestry and passed racial examination. Also read something about Zamość - all Poles who weren't 'aryan' enough were sent straight to Auschwitz. That includes women and children.

---

The author of this thread said that Poles were not considered subhumans by the Nazi Germans. Are you sure my friend?

No ethnic Pole could sign the Volkslist without providing a proof that he/she has at least one German grandparent. That meant pure Slavic Poles were considered racially equal to Jews, Blacks, and Gypsies.

Quote: In the directive No. 1306 by Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda from 24 October 1939, the term "subhumanity" ("Untermenschlichkeit") is used in reference to Polish ethnicity and culture, as follows:

"It must become clear to everybody in Germany, even to the last milkmaid, that Polishness is equal to subhumanity. Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level. This must be clearly outlined [...] until every citizen of Germany has it encoded in his subconsciousness that every Pole, whether a farm worker or intellectual, should be treated like vermin."

Now how about that? Suppcuzz (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Just an observation, but i think its quite an ensuing hilarity the amount of edit warring some people had in this articles regarding the very notion of untermenschen, and some who wrap their brains to the point of making an argument of the exact opposite of the consensus in the article without any sense of self reflection

If you read this, please do something about this 125.163.12.198 (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)