Talk:Untermensch

Destruction of Warsaw Ghetto

Here is what Longerich says about the dsetruction of the Warsaw Ghetto:

The extensive destruction of Warsaw...seems to have been Himmler's work. ... He boasted that he had given the order to "raze Warsaw to the ground."Longerich, Peter (2012). Heinrich Himmler: A Life. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. p. 705. ISBN 978-0-19-959232-6.

— Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• The reverter edit summary says " The closest original document I could find the English translated order from Nuremberg Trail. That is NOT an official German order." I see no reason not to believe Nuremberg documents. Diannaa, please add your finding to the article. - Altenmann >talk 22:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. I added a ref with the photocopy of the original document.- Altenmann >talk 22:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Found here:

Aus Sicherheitsgründen ordne ich an, daß das Ghetto Warschau nach der Herausverlagerung des Konzentrationslagers abzureißen ist, wobei alle irgendwie verwertbaren Teile der Häuser und Materialien aller Art vorher zu verwerten sind.

Die Niederlegung des Ghettos und die Unterbringung des Konzentrationslagers ist notwendig, da wir Warschau sonst wohl niemals zur Ruhe bringen werden und das Verbrecherwesen bei Verbleiben des Ghettos nicht ausgerottet werden kann.

Für die Niederlegung des Ghettos ist mir ein Gesamtplan vorzulegen. Auf jeden Fall muß erreicht werden, daß der für 500 000 Untermenschen bisher vorhandene Wohnraum, der für Deutsche niemals geeignet ist, von der Bildfläche verschwindet und die Millionenstadt Warschau, die immer ein gefährlicher Herd der Zersetzung und des Aufstandes ist, verkleinert wird.

Edit War

I would like Shadowwarrior8 to verify my claims, which he says are in the book. Not referring to anything else, the BOOK.

Second:

By what right were the 2 documents I posted deleted when I even posted the pictures from the book? On what basis does that count as unreliable? Szolnok95 (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Szolnok95

Those two pictures are nothing but your self-published works. Images uploaded to commons are not sources in wikipedia. And who even is Richard Rein and what had he got to do with the Nazi Party ideologues?

Contents are to be sourced, verifiable and backed up by secondary, academic sources.

Burden is on the editor who wants to insert sourced content, not anybody else. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

With respect,

Next time before you delete something just like that.....read on it.....and I see you haven't read Untermensch, nor Richard Rein's book.

Furthermore, But even if you were to ask "What did Rein have to do with Nazi ideology?"

Then I POSTED a chapter from the NSDAP organization book which supports the same thing that Rein wrote.

I'm sorry, but this is quite outrageous. I have to justify myself all the time, but the people who delete and retract things don't even know what they are doing. I'm not questioning your wikipedia expertise, I'm questioning your history.

I might add, it's ironic that things from the Untermensch book that aren't even in it are being returned, BUT they are being returned. While images and page number references from other books are posted as unreliable. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Understand that you cant insert your POV original research based on your understanding of primary sources. Contents have to be inserted alongside reliable, secondary sources.

Nevertheless, the alleged excerpt (which you claim is from an "NSDAP organization book") you inserted was unsourced.

On the one hand you insert unsourced claims attributed to an unknown individual; and then remove academic sources containing the explicit statements of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Rosenburg, etc. outlining the racial ideology of NSDAP in their books, speeches, diaries, etc.? That behaviour is ridiculous. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

"remove academic sources containing the explicit statements of Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Rosenburg, etc. outlining the racial ideology of NSDAP in their books,"

What is "academic", and "reliable" source?

The average historian knows that Hitler's table-talk is questionable. Because the basis is that someone heard something, someone wrote it down, and then someone translated it. An unreliable source.

Just because something is an academic and reliable source, doesn't mean you should be able to claim things about the contents of a book that aren't in that book. In simple language, this is called lying.

Furthermore: the Untermensch book NEVER mentions that the Eastern Europeans are inferior people, or anywhere mention them negatively. You, on the other hand, leave these disguises up on the page.

Isn't that ridiculous?

Or isn't it ridiculous that XY writes in his book that, according to him, Hitler and Goebbels spoke of the inferior Europeans as rabbits, and offers no evidence for this?

I hope you know that at court such falsehoods are taken for nothing!

And you continue to stand up for them, even though I have asked you countless times to EXPLAIN why what I have deleted should NOT be deleted. I have written the reason for each deletion. I am waiting for it in the middle of writing this comment.

And it is not an argument that an acceptable source says it is there, when the book itself has NO such thing. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What is "academic", and "reliable" source? - Did you even bother to read the Wiki policies they linked? Here, let me try again: WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:SECONDARY.

Just because something is an academic and reliable source, doesn't mean you should be able to claim things - In Wikipedia, we can WP:5P. That's how this website works. If you don't like it, you are not compelled to edit WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

So, if 1 book says there is anti-slavic things in the Untermensch book, but it isn't true, you will decide this is true?

That is falsifying history. Szolnok95 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hitler's Table Talk book is regarded as authentically attributed to Hitler by almost all historians (although aspects of its translations & contents have been exposed to scrutiny). Nevertheless, nothing specific about the Table Talk was mentioned in my comments. I only stated that properly sourced contents backed up by academic references should not be removed.

Szolnok95: "Untermensch book NEVER mentions that the Eastern Europeans are inferior people, or anywhere mention them negatively."

I am sorry what?

This is how the violently racist "Der Untermensch" introduces Eastern Europeans in its second page:

"On the endless stretches of the Russian steppes lays Eastern Europe. The cultural split between this giant expanse and Middle Europe is abrupt and sudden. On both sides of this border, we find the same land -- but not the same man! ...
It is an eternal indictment of the Underman that this fertile, full, black earth- which could be a paradise, a European California-is in reality a neglected and desolated. It is a cultural disgrace without precedent. It is a tearful fate of the black earth. ...
Eastern Europe did not get beyond a certain level of primitiveness. It saw only chaos because it lacked the man, the valuable carrier of culture, the genius, the systemized imposition of peace, and the meaningful ordering of the endless diches and fertility which the il contains."

And that excerpt is from the translation of the far-right neo-fascist BNP member Arthur Kemp who explicitly stated that he was making a Nazi apologia.

The translation of Hermann Fueuer is accessible at the website "holocaust research project".

Contrary to your allegations, I actually had read the "Der Untermensch" brochure before. I was emotionally shocked at the de-humanising, racist depictions of Eastern Europeans in that pamphlet. The SS brochure portrayed the Eastern Europeans with venomous disgust and hatred; and my analysis is that it is clear cut evidence of the Nazi policy to mass-exterminate Eastern Europeans.

"Der Untermensch" brochure was designed by the SS (under the orders of Himmler) to violently incite their sympathisers in Nazi-occupied Western Europe towards supporting the Nazi genocide against the indigineous peoples of Eastern Europe; and it will always be remembered as one of the most notorious settler colonial propaganda pieces in history. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

""On the endless stretches of the Russian steppes lays Eastern Europe. The cultural split between this giant expanse and Middle Europe is abrupt and sudden. On both sides of this border, we find the same land -- but not the same man! ...

It is an eternal indictment of the Underman that this fertile, full, black earth- which could be a paradise, a European California-is in reality a neglected and desolated. It is a cultural disgrace without precedent. It is a tearful fate of the black earth. ...

Eastern Europe did not get beyond a certain level of primitiveness. It saw only chaos because it lacked the man, the valuable carrier of culture, the genius, the systemized imposition of peace, and the meaningful ordering of the endless diches and fertility which the il contains.""

I can found this in the Arthur Kemp book as well. Where is the anti Slavic statement? Where? Are u denying the facts, how Eastern Europe suffered from poverty and underdevelopment?

And I guess you missed this line deliberately.

"Russia became the

stamping ground, the place where the Underman's teachings -

nihilism and Bolshevism - were born"

You can read the same in the German one:

https://i.imgur.com/MDhp8CE.png

The book says, the underman is/are the slavs? No. It's says the underman "behavior" is started by Attila and Genghis Khan.

What was that: rape, murdering, plundering etc. That is the underman behavior.

Are the slavs are them?

No.

Both the german and "neo fasisct" english books says:

The underman behavior destroyed the beauty of Russian churches, and such people want European women to cry and weep like Russian women.

If Slav=underman, why do you point out that the underman destroyed the Russians?

Contradiction!

Part 2:

Well well well. I deleted that holocaustresearchproject.org site, because that site is lying.

Just 1 for start:

"Life is terrible for the young in the so-called Soviet paradise, but even worse is life for the elderly! → "

Under the picture: "Elderly subhuman"

What can you read in the ORIGINAL german one?

"Furschibar ist das Lebem im Sovjet-Paradise, grauenvoll das Alter"

What does it mean?

"Life in the Soviet paradise is horrible in old age."

1 instant lie I've found....in 10 sec...

Did you read the original german Book? ^^ If yes, please show me those things in it what the holocaust site is coming up with.

Thank you! Szolnok95 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And I'd like to add, finally, that I've agreed to keep the things that have been up and supported so far up, and the things I've posted, so that objectivity can decide. Szolnok95 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are you like this? The book and any mention of the Nazi and German word connotation of the word untermenschen are literally racism against Slavic people. Why are such a thick headed and dishonest like this? 180.253.21.166 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Really? Where is this? Because what you say is nothing more than an assumption.

While the book specifically takes Untermensch and Russian separately.

"Why are you like this?"

And don't bother with my person, in a historical debate. Szolnok95 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)