Talk:Generalplan Ost

Map needs to be specified

The legend of the map says "Europe, with pre-World War II borders [...] Dark grey – Germany (Deutsches Reich)". Either the legend must be specified, or the map must be changed since the annexation of austria happend in March 1938 which was before World War 2 started. I think the meaning of the map suggests to add austria to the german reich and remove their shared borders. 92.225.7.67 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "pre-World War II", in this case, means before the beginning of the German annexations that led to World War II. That is to say, it's a map of the pre-war status quo. We could change the legend to say "pre-1938" instead, but I don't think it's necessary. -- User1961914 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are not the Russians mentioned?

The German version states that the OP provided elimination of 50-60% of the Russians. Yet this version does not even mentions plans towards the Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.196.144 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Genocide?

The "elimination of Polish activists and intelligentsia" is is not usually seen as a genocide as defined by the CPPCG. The CPPCG was a diplomatic compromise that thanks to the Soviet Union did not include the killing of groups for political or class reasons -- 'only' "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" so to be a genocide the numbers killed would have to qualify as large enough to pass the "in part" requirement of a national group. It is possible that some verifiable reliable sources do indeed claim it was a genocide, but this is not a generally agreed point of view and the people making such a claim should be cited and mentioned in the narrative in the form of "In fu-bar by XYZ, he claimed that ABC was a genocide". --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, how many would be large enough ? --Lysy^talk 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One cited source would be a start! If you have lots then cite the two or three what you consider to be the most reliable. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pająk, Henryk (2004). "Niemieckie ludobójstwo na polskim narodzie" (German genocide of Polish nation) (in Polish). Retro. ISBN 8387510610.
• Richard C. Lukas (1986). The Forgotten Holocaust, The Poles Under German Occupation 1939-1944. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813115663. review review
• Bohdan Wytwycky (1980). The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell. Washington D.C.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) review
• http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm

I meant the number of victims. I believe this may be similar to the question whether Holodomor was a genocide, where a vital "core" group for a nation was targeted (intelligentsia in case of Poland and peasants in case of Ukrainians), yet Russia still denies it was a genocide. --Lysy^talk 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit clash) I did not mean the number of victims, although the whole article could do with far more citations. I mean the claim that it was a genocide. Thanks to the findings of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) mentioned in Genocide: in part one could, base an argument used in that court case, and argue that the mass murder of intelligentsia was a genocide (see paragraph 12 of Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)), but if that claim is to be made it should be based on a reliable source making the claim. Not just on the conclusion being drawn from by OR. For all I know it may be current currency in Polish academic literature, but it is not in English language literature, so as I said above the claim is a surprising one and should be quoted.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The quick google check does not confirm that "Genocide of Polish" or "Genocide of Poles" are not used in English language. It also perfectly matches the definition of CPPCG Genocide so why is it surprising to you ? --Lysy^talk 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The "in part" definition contains In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration., so 6 million Polish citizens, including most of Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals match the definition all right. It seems to me now that your opposition to the term borders on WP:OR. Are you aware of any sources contesting or disputing that the mass murder of Poles during WW2 was a genocide ? Until we see one, can we revert to the previous wording ? --Lysy^talk 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will revert since I see you have lost interest in discussing this further and are busy elsewhere. --Lysy^talk 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not that I have lost interest it is that I have other things to do as well as discuss this with you. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too, me too ... only seeing your other edits I felt you went away. But as you can see I fought the temptation to revert :-) --Lysy^talk 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How do these two authors define genocide? Is it using the CPPCG definition (which is now the legal definition under international law) or by some other definition? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard: Planned destruction of an ethnic, national and/or religious group in whole or in part because of the ethnicity, nationality and/or religion of the group's members. --HanzoHattori 13:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Class reasons"? There was no attempt to exterminate the intelligentsia in occupied France (or in Germany for that matter). Actually, you had hundreds or thousands of dedicated Nazis with titles of doctor or professor in SS alone (for example, Josef Mengele), not to mention the engineers etc. --HanzoHattori 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is to do with the "in part". If class was defined as group that could suffer genocide, then the mass killing of the Polish intelligencia presumably the middle and upper classes in Poland, then the proportion killed in part would have been much larger than the as a part of the whole Polish nation. As it stands it is unlikely that "in part" stipulation would be met, unless one introduces the arguments put forward in paragraph 12 of Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment. Now one can construct an argument around that new interpretation, but it needs a source that does so. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-insert "genocide" until I have had more time to consider this. My gut feeling is that PBS is right and that "genocide" is not the appropriate word to use here. "genocide" does not mean "mass murder". It means an attempt to wipe out an entire group as in "a people".

I'm in a hurry this morning and don't have time to follow the whole discussion and the links.

--Richard 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. "An attempt to wipe out an entire group" is exactly what the German Generalplan Ost was about. --Lysy^talk 15:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was largely an unrealised plan. Look: the Endlösung der Judenfrage was a plan too, once. If the war finished in early 1942 and only some of the Jews of the USSR and some of Poland and other places were quite randomly massacred (and this started long before Wannsee conference), would it be not genocidal? Maybe, you guys want to categorise this based on something so i guess it would be up to you to decide. Anyway, according to the Generalplan Ost, if nothing changed, by 2007 would be no Poles left. At least, in former Poland. --HanzoHattori 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See such discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history#Nazi_Genocide_against_the_Jews_and_Slavs Belligero 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I've had a chance to do some (admittedly light) reading and to form a more informed opinion. I want to point out that the issue seems to be whether or not to use "Genocide" or "Mass murder of the Polish elite" as the section header of tbe section that describes the targeting of Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals.

My position is that "Generalplan Ost" is definitely a plan for the genocide of the Polish people. It consisted of two parts, a short-range plan and a long-range plan. As HanzoHattori, if the long range plan had been implemented, the Polish people would have ceased to exist.

HOWEVER...the debate between "Genocide" vs. "Mass murder of the Polish elite" is a different question from whether Generalplan Ost was a plan for genocide. It is clear that operations such as Operation Tannenberg (Unternehmen Tannenberg) and various Intelligenzaktionen were parts of the overall genocidal plan and may or may not be called "genocide" in themselves.

Looking at Genocide: in part, the question is not just how many people were killed. How many Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals were killed? 100,000? Out of the total Polish population, this is not a large percentage.

However, consider...

In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[12] paragraphs 8,9,10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.

The judges go on to say in paragraph 12 that "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

So, the question is whether the leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals were prominent (yes), emblematic of the overall group (yes) and/or essential to its survival (not so clearly yes but mostly yes).

But, this whole argument amounts to asking whether the killing of the Polish elite constitutes a "genocide" in itself or whether it was a "mass murder" that was part of the overall genocidal plan that was called Generalplan Ost. We could get wrapped in arguing whether the targeting of the Polish elite was a "genocide" or not but I think that this is not a very worthwhile argument.

My recommendation would be to use the word "genocide" to characterize the overall plan that was called Generalplan Ost and to use "mass murder" to characterize the targeting of the leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals.

A Google search for "Genocide" and "Poland" seems to indicate that "genocide of the Poles" is a widely used phrase.

--Richard 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert and Richard, for taking time to look into this. I agree with what you propose. --Lysy^talk 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A Google of "genocide of the Poles" only returns "1,380 English pages" of those a lot fail to meat the reliable source criteria, and some are also refuting the idea eg http://www.codoh.com/review/revcwnsmd.html "On page 466 Lifton drags in the old nonsense about the attempted genocide of the Poles." (I no idea on the quality of that particular page I am using it just to show that 1,380 is not an indicator of a generally agreed theory). Indeed I do not think that about 10,800 English pages for "genocide of the Germans" is any indication that a genocide of the Germans took place either. about 139,000 English pages for genocide Dresden -wikipedia does not indicate that the bombing of Dresden is widely regarded in reliable sources to be part of a genocide.

To be a genocide not only must there be a plan/conspiracy but it must be implemented ("any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy). As I said above we can all draw our own conclusions from the Radislav Krstic Case on whether it was a genocide or not. But this judgement may or may not be of use in this case because it shifted genocide from a general crime against a the total group to a specific crime carried out by the perpetrator against the group available to the perpetrator of the genocidal act. This means that just because one person was guilty of genocide not everyone involved might be. For example the commander of the person who is found guilty of genocide might have the means to attempt genocide on a larger proportion of a group and in that group the proportion might not reach the "in part" requirement! Further it allows prosecutors to work around the restrictions placed on the meaning of genocide by the diplomatic compromise that was reached when the wording of the CPPCG was agreed. It is interesting to speculate like this, but it does not advance the development of Wikipedia. As the Radislav Krstic Case did not end until 2004 any analysis of "Generalplan Ost" as a genocide using the arguments put forward in the Radislav Krstic Case would have to post-date the case. As the references given so far pre-date that ruling then the analysis would probably be different.

Lysy you wrote above "Are you aware of any sources contesting or disputing that the mass murder of Poles during WW2 was a genocide?". I do not know of any reliable sources that claim that the Nazi plans to kill Freemasons and other groups (See Walter Schellenberg Invasion 1940: The Nazi Invasion Plan For Britain) in Britain during and after Operation Sealion was not a genocide, because for there to be a reliable source refuting something there usually has to be a reliable source claiming that something is true and I do not know of a reliable souce that claims that the plans were a genocide. It is not up to me to produce such sources (other than to create a neutral point of view) it is up to the person wishing to insert a claim into Wikipedia to find a reliable source. (See the recent discussion over the section Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon for an example where this was discussed)

I think that as it is not generally agreed that a genocide was carried out against the Polish nation, that it should not be used as a section heading (we do not footnote or qualify section headings) and if it is to be mentioned in the text then the most reliable authors that can be found should be quoted explaining why in their view it was a genocide. See for example the entry in Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for an example of what I mean. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be not as common in English, because obviously most of the publications about it are in Polish, which does not make it any less valid. Anyway, I understand, that you object that a "plan to exterminate a nation" is not a genocide unless it's fully implemented. I believe we can call Generalplan Ost a "plan to carry out a genocide", correct ? --Lysy^talk 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is common currency in a foreign language does not make it common currency in English, so an assertion can still be surprising or novel narrative in the English language Wikipedia even if it is not in another Wikipedia. Also there is a problem of NPOV. A Poles opinion on whether the French were implicated in the Rwandan Genocide, is likely to have less of a problem with NPOV than articles published by French people (a lot of the French article on this are attempts to score points by politicians (and politically active journalists) on the the left and right for domestic political consumption). That is not to say that both Frenchmen, Poles, and an members of all other nations, can not write NPOV books and articles about events that happen with their nations, just that far more articles are likely to have a non NPOV.

In the Introduction why not introduce it as (targeted) mass murder -- no sane person is going to deny that -- and then in the appropriate section mention that "XYZ " has asserted that this plan was a nothing less than a planned genocide (or what ever the source claims)? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Genocide definitions 1945: Count 3 of the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials:

They (the defendants) conducted deliberate and systematic genocide - viz., the extermination of racial and national groups - against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to General Plan East

Is there any good reason for using the German name for this plan "Generalplan Ost" when the naming convention says "use English words" and it would alow the introduction to be:

General Plan East (German:Generalplan Ost) ...

At the moment:

Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan...

there is no indication that it is a German name it just looks like an English spelling mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was the original name of the plan, similarly to "Fall Weiß", we do not translate proper names, do we ? It seem better to leave the original name to me. --Lysy^talk 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do translate proper names see for example Operation Sealion, particularly when the mame is used in reliable sources (which this one is). WP:NC "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So it boils down to which form ("transliteration", huh ?) is more widely recognized. --Lysy^talk 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with moving the article to General Plan East if that's used in the scholarly literature. Personally, I would prefer General Plan for the East as a better translation but I will go with whatever is used in the literature.

I've often wondered about these kinds of issues. When you get a chance, take a look at Deutsche Volksliste and tell me whether you think that article is appropriately titled.

--Richard 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2,230,000 people were killed in Belarus within the three years of German occupation

Any independent sources? Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Link

[1] is not a blog or personal web page, so WP:EL 4 #11 is irrelevant. It is a nonprofit organization. Even if it were a blog or personal page, as it employs (a) recognized, published expert(s)[2], one of whom used to work for the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, it is pretty clear it (and not just the material hosted there) fits the stronger RS guideline, not just the relevant weaker EL one, which is Links to be considered 3.2.4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Lastly, a glance at the page makes it clear that it is a very useful positive addition to the meager list of external links and references for this page. The real use of WP:EL is to prune overlong lists, and get rid of obvious garbage, which this is not. (" As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. ") Common sense is a better guideline than any wikirule. It is clearly not the kind of thing that the guidelines aim to eliminate. Cordially, John Z (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I must concede that I did not know this wwf/staffbio-page before. Vice president Mr Alexander Rossino seems to be a sufficient reference in order to include material from the site in Wikipedia. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that page wasn't too easy to find. Happy editting!John Z (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful link

http://gplanost.x-berg.de/sgplanost.html --Molobo (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed Leningrad whole section

Also, the plan was only about Poland, right? I guess the article should be globalized - Ukraine, Russia, Belarus? never mind now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What's "Tischgespräche"?

It's never explained. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It translates into and means roughly "table talk" in English - informal confidential conversations. It was published in various editions after the war. e.g. Hitler's Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, 1941-42 by Henry Picker. John Z (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Duh (to myself) - and of course we have an article on it. Hitler's Table Talk.John Z (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, was I right as of including Ukrainians? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

De-mythologised the article

"250 million German settlers"... where they would find them? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They would have been born sooner or later, and please stop deleting everything you see especially when it has a source, you have no right in deleting sourced information just because you do not like what it saysAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, let's see... "Their place could be taken, over a period of 30 years - allowing for natural increase and immigration from other Germanic countries - at most by 10 million, though probably not more than 8 million, settlers." http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm And yes, I have "right in deleting" unsourced information. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

250 million German settlers"... where they would find them? In Speer's 'Inside the Third Reich' is mentioned, how Hitler, while speaking about this issue, also enthused about the many blond Ukrainians he saw. Germanization of willing people and child robbery on a large scale in Poland - I've once read, how Himmler spoke about it - were parts of the mad plan. --Henrig (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Implementation section

I have restored the section. Please discuss blanking of such scale before implementing them Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed in the OTHER ARTICLES (in the same words, even). And frankly, much of it has nothing to do with the plan. There was nothing about how to besiege Leningrad in the plan - it was about occupational policies. Burning villages in Belarus was meant to wipe out the partisans/punish villagers, not "clear the Slavs". This kind of siege warfare (starve the enemy) is ancient. SS race doctors did not invent punitive expeditions and village burning (which was also put into practice even in France or Italy). In any case, it was simply not written in the plan, so it can't be called "implementation". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant "internal links" of course. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Zamosc area was implementation of GeneralPlan Ost. It was FIRST CHOSEN for colonisation, expulsion of POles, and ONLY LATER partisans appeared in that area. Szopen (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Partial using of articles to get summaries needed for related articles is an old Wikipedia tradition. It increases readability and does not violate GFDL. Your comment on Nazi crimes in the East being unrelated to plan Ost is not a universally accepted notion. E.g. the Byelorussian historian working in Khatyn memorial seems to have different opinion. It seems to be logical that much more savage Nazi behavior in the East then in the West is somehow connected with the plans for Genocides. Do you have any sources supported that it was not connected? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant the part about the village burning in Belarus. It was directly connected with the Soviet partisan activity - just a brutal counter-insurgency campaign. Whole Khatyn thing (choosing this village from hundreds burned and concentrating on this one) was just a Soviet propaganda's diversion aimed at diverting public attention (mostly abroad) from the scandal of the Katyn killings. Do you think they were burning mountain villages in Italy (like here) because of Generalplan Ost? Zamosc stuff can be mentioned easily, just like I inserted stuff about the killings of the Polish elites (even if these started actually before the first draft of the plan was made, and so I'm not sure about the direct relation - or maybe the original killings were meant just to eliminate the potential resistance leaders, I don't know). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaming everything what happened in the East on this paper and a couple of German pseudo-scientists is silly. Hitler was talking about his plans since the 1920s (Lebensraum, "Armenian quote" about let's kill Poles, life-and-death struggle destruction of Bolshevism and what not). The SS did not need any elaborate plans this to kill people left and right in dealing with the resistance (and yes, including "Aryans" in the West). As of the final destruction of Warsaw, Hitler also ordered to burn down Paris when the uprising erupted there. And so on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That the siege of Leningrad was mentioned in the plan is noted in Aly & Heim. Don't have time to edit now.John Z (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

View of Henn Põlluaas

Binksternet deleted my edit, where I cited the book by Estonian researcher Henn Põlluaas. The book has got good reviews by other Estonian historians (e.g. Jaak Valge) and so is not "fringe". I cited to the following text (p.74):

The Soviet propaganda and countless number of Russian authors have alleged for tens of years that according to the German Generalplan „Ost“ Estonians were to be resettled to east of lake Peipsi for Estonia to be colonised by German and Dutch colonists. /---/ However, there are no written sources existing to prove those allegations and whole Generalplan „Ost“ has mysteriously disappeared as also alleged by Soviets. Despite it, they insist loudly that Generalplan „Ost“ existed and they describe miscellaneuos horror that Estonians had to suffer according to this.

Although there are some more suggestions about resettlement /---/ no one has, in fact, ever seen this plan. /---/ According to the calculation of Hjalmar Mäe, about 90 million people were necessary to colonize whole the conquered eastern area, but as much people to colonize weren’t available in the whole Germany.

/---/ As no one has seen the notorious Generalplan „Ost“, it must be regarded another Soviet falsifying of history, consisting of various rumours (à la Himmler’s masseuse alleged, somebody’s secretary told etc) and untruthful Russian propaganda.

DJ Sturm (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Estonian reviewers like it? That does not make it mainstream. There should be English-, German- and Russian-language reviews of the book. Saying that Generalplan Ost never existed is a huge claim, and it needs huge evidence to back it up. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The English sources provided by me (Hans-Walter Schmuhl, Robert Gellately and John Connelly, first one was published by the academic publisher, Springer, other two are from peer-reviewed academic journals) discuss the plan in details. Their conclusion are made based on non-Soviet and non-Russian sources, so the Põlluaas' conclusion seems to be highly questionable. "Henn Põlluaas" gives virtually no hits in the google.scholar databese [3] implying zero notability. Obviously, it is a purely fringe theory on the brink of the Holocaust denial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

New German Maps

General Plan Ost

--Mullerkingdom (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The german article is much more detailed

Can somebody translate from the German version of this article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullerkingdom (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

this topic

I just compared the english and the german version of this article. There are many differences in the expressiveness of the article. I especially want to emphasize that the planning of the annual figures are significantly different.--93.218.134.75 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's all a big hoax anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.192.140.238 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is a Soviet and Polish myth. Note on the article page there is not a single reference to original source material. That is because there is none. This article is an outrage. 81.131.212.25 (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is to use secondary sources rather than original source material whenever possible. That is why the references in this article are to secondary sources rather than original source material. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its purpose is to report what scholars say about a given topic - not to come up with new ideas based on the original source material. So this article reports what scholars (i.e. historians) have written about Generalplan Ost. If you think it's all a "myth", then you should argue with them, not with Wikipedia. In the mean time, we do have an article about the views of the people who believe the Nazis were not so bad after all. -- User1961914 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Added info

On percentage of Estonians that were to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Generalsiedlungsplan

Should this be a redirect here or is this a topic of separate notability? Ping User:MyMoloboaccount. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A German language source

^ Jump up to: a b c d Dietrich Eichholtz, »Generalplan Ost« zur Versklavung osteuropäischer Völker. PDF file, direct download.

I want to verify the statements made in the article but I cant because this is in the german language. Isnt it against the rules to post a foreign language in the English encyclopedia? Should this be removed?

C super2 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

6 different Generalplan Ost

It appears that there were 6 different Generalplan Ost, with different propositions, why is this not mentioned ?

Also there's absolutely no proof that either of these plans made it to a final draft and was approved by Himmler and even less proof that it was implemented ! (other that a very few testimonies not backed by anything and obtained under very questionable conditions)

This article needs some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.3.145 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your sources for this assertion? Irondome (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You're asking for a source that there's no source for an assertion? 185.4.118.139 (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generalplan Ost. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120527021449/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm to 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) 04:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proof for the claim that the Generalplan Ost aimed for the mass murder of Slavs

Where in any of the documentation about the Generalplan Ost is there any evidence the Nazis were going to engage in genocide against the majority of Slavs?

The article currently states "The plan entailed the enslavement, expulsion, and mass murder of most Slavic peoples in Europe along with planned destruction of their nations, whom the 'Aryan' Nazis viewed as racially inferior."

The sources given are Generalplan Ost« zur Versklavung osteuropäischer Völker which is not found and Der Generalplan Ost." Eine Ausstellung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, (2006), the latter simply states the Nazis were going to carry out mass deportations and Germanize whole areas which is not the same as "mass murder". Is there any evidence from any of the documents that the Nazis were going going to carry out mass murder to Slavs living in Eastern Europe?

The Generalplan-Ost is known from preserved German documents, none of which propose any physical extermination of any population group. --92.29.159.207 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generalplan Ost. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927072018/http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html to http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/eehistory/H200Readings/Topic4-R3.html

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) 16:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "seems unnecessary to list dated and discredited numbers". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As figures like these tend to bob around, it seems best to include them, along with the text noting that they're not credible. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The text that was deleted informs readers that those numbers are disputed not dated and discredited. Wikipedia is not censored, readers are informed if there is a dispute, we have a NPOV and present both sides of the argument. In 2014 Russia Putin's Duma passed a law that makes it an offense to dispute the official account of the war. I could not care less about Putin's laws [4]--Woogie10w (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: The reason I found the text potentially confusing was that it lists "reported 8.2 million Soviet civilian war dead,[36]"; then spends some time explaining while these numbers are discredited / fabrications. However, the next paragraph lists a higher number, 13.7M of civilian dead. This seems incongruent. Any feedback? --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Snyder?

This does not quite make sense to me:

• Timothy D. Snyder maintains that there were 4.2 million victims of the German policies in the Soviet Union, "largely Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians," including 3.1 million Soviet POWs and 1.0 million civilian deaths in the Siege of Leningrad.

POWs + Leningrad already makes 4.1 million (??). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

But this is what Snyder wrote on pp.411, 173 & 184. This does not include Jewish Holocaust dead. A separate issue from General Plan Ost. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Krychów forced labour camp 1940 (Krowie Bagno).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

failed verification Fix

The three sources that have links you can view. Do not mention at all the percentages of people, that were two be exterminated or deported. The chart is a clear example of WP:NOR due to the fact that none of the sources. specify this but do mentioned, that they were to be targeted. This is why I added Timothy Snyder since he is a Yale historian, and actually quotes the percentages. from the general plan OST document I will change the causes in this revert. to fix this original research problem according to witch.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. None of the sources give a percentages of people, that were two be exterminated or deported. Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20111125231946/http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm

https://archive.org/details/balticstatesyear00misi/page/66

https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Utopie_kreativ/167/167.pdf

• Thanks for clarifying this. The first of these sources is not RS, so it doesn't matter if it has the info or not. I've flagged it as such so it can be replaced with a more reliable source. The second is linked to the wrong page; you need to check pages 48–49 not 66. The third source does give percentages, you just have to dig through it. Ideally the citation would be fixed to point to the exact page where you find the information. For instance, on page 802 it says "50 Prozent der Polen (3,4 Millionen) sollten sofort in das Generalgouvernement »abgeschoben« werden undfür deutsche Bauern und Städter Platz machen." buidhe 20:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

50 percent of the Poles (3.4 million) were to be "deported" immediately to the General gouvernement, making room for German farmers and townspeople. it does not say exterminated or deported when you look at the other sources they are using the same sources that you even flagged they don't mention percentages of people, that were two be exterminated or deported.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Examples include, for the top sources Percentages of ethnic groups to be murdered and/or deported to Siberia by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas. HITLER'S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE https://web.archive.org/web/20111125231946/http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm The Baltic States, years of dependence, 1940-1990 https://archive.org/details/balticstatesyear00misi/page/66

Utopie Kreativ 167 https://archive.org/details/balticstatesyear00misi/page/66

The other source does Quote Snyder's numbers and does give one for Russians that were to killed on page 173 https://www.amazon.com/Level-History-AQA-Democracy-Nazism/dp/1107573165#reader_1107573165

For the Baltic number its using these books they don't mention percentages of people, that were two be exterminated or deported. https://archive.org/details/balticstatesyear00misi/page/66 https://books.google.com/books?id=lx-UmTnLJv0C&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false

So the chart is Original research but will fix Sine I verified every sourceDriverofknowledge (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 edit

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "dubious and / or not supported by the source provided". For example, Stephenson page 31 (Stephenson, Jill (2006). Hitler's Home Front: Wurttemberg Under the Nazis. Hambledon Continuum. p. 113. ISBN 1-85285-442-1. Other non-'Aryans' included Slavs, Blacks and Roma and Sinti (Romanies), although some of these last were classed as 'racially pure'.) does not mention Generalplan Ost, nor Poles & Ukrainians. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020 edits

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "not supported by the source provided". Specifically, the citation "r|TomaszewskiW10_10" is:

Tomaszewski, Irene; Werbowski, Tecia (2010). Code Name Żegota: Rescuing Jews in Occupied Poland, 1942–1945. ABC-CLIO. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-313-38391-5. Retrieved May 11, 2012.

The book mentions the plan once, but the source does not match what was included in the article, namely:

In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November 1939 and is probably responsible for much of the World War II expulsion of Poles by Germany (first to colonial district of the General Government and, from 1942 also to Polenlager).

The source does not mention "1939", "Polenlager", etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Casualties

I removed the section and am preserving the material here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Rm section: the totality of casualties are not attributable to GPO". It's also a bit of SYNTH to include the total casualties in an article about a specific Nazi program. If there are estimates of what percentage of casualties could be attributed to GPO, that would be more relevant. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not all losses can be attributed to GPO, such as losses during the siege of Leningrad. However, sources that make such connection are already cited in the lead of the page. For example, according to Yad Vashem, [5], "During the war, many of the Nazis' activities were carried out with Generalplan Ost in mind. They massacred millions of Jews in Eastern Europe, in addition to millions of Soviet prisoners of war", and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Holodomor

The plan was directly inspired by the Holodomor. (86.154.234.230 (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Change defeat at Stalingrad to defeat at Stalingrad in the intro. Loqiical (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Original documents of the Generalplan Ost

I have found the main document of the Nazi plan: https://scepsis.net/library/id_703.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Midofe1996 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 

Full translation of the Generalplan Ost document

Comments and suggestions on the general plan "Ost" of the Reichsführer of the SS troops

In November 1941 it became known that the Reich Main Security Office is working on a general plan "Ost". The officer in charge of the Reich General Directorate of Security, Standartenfuehrer Elich, already told me at that time the expected figure of 31 million people of non-German origin to be resettled. This case is in charge of the general directorate of imperial security, which now occupies a prominent place among the bodies subordinate to the Reichsführer of the SS troops. At the same time, the general directorate of imperial security, in the opinion of all the leaderships subordinate to the Reichsführer of the SS troops, will also perform the functions of imperial commissariat for the strengthening of the German race.

General comments on the "Ost" master plan

For its ultimate goal, namely the planned Germanization of the territories in question in the East, the plan must be approved. However, the enormous difficulties that will undoubtedly arise in the implementation of this plan, and which may even raise doubts about its feasibility, seem relatively small in terms of the plan. First of all, it is striking that Ingermanland [1] Dnieper, Tavria and Crimea [2] as colonization territories were left out of the plan. Obviously, this is due to the fact that in the future, the plan will also include new colonization projects, which will be discussed at the end.

At present, it is already possible, more or less definitively, to establish as an eastern boundary of colonization (in its northern and middle parts) a line that runs from Lake Ladoga to Valdai Upland and beyond to Bryansk. Whether these changes will be made to the plan by the command of the SS troops, I do not presume to judge.

In any case, it should be foreseen that the number of people who will be resettled under the plan should be further increased.

It follows from the plan that this is not a program that is subject to immediate implementation, but, on the contrary, the settlement of this space by the Germans should take place within about 30 years after the end of the war. Under the plan, 14 million local residents should remain in this area. However, it is more than doubtful whether they will lose their national characteristics and whether they will suffer Germanization in the planned 30 years, since, again, according to the plan in question, the number of German immigrants is very small. Obviously, the plan does not take into account the desire of the state commissioner to strengthen the German race (Greifelt department) to settle people fit for Germanization within the German empire proper...

The fundamental question of the whole plan of colonization of the East is the question of whether we will succeed in awakening in the German people the desire for resettlement in the East. As far as I can judge from my own experience, there is undoubtedly such a desire in most cases. However, one should also not lose sight of the fact that, on the other hand, a significant part of the population, especially from the western part of the empire, strongly rejects resettlement in the east, including in the Wart region of Danzig region and West Prussia [3] ..., in my opinion, that the competent authorities, especially the Eastern Ministry, should constantly monitor the tendencies expressed in the reluctance to move eastward, and combat them with the help of propaganda.

In addition to encouraging aspirations to relocate to the east, the decisive moments also include the need to awaken in the German people, especially among the German settlers of the eastern territories, the desire to increase motherhood. We must not deceive ourselves: the increase in the birth rate observed since 1933 was in itself a gratifying phenomenon, but it can by no means be considered sufficient for the existence of the German people, especially given their enormous task of colonizing the eastern territories and the incredible biological capacity to reproduce the neighboring eastern peoples.

The general plan "Ost" states that after the end of the war the number of settlers for the immediate colonization of the eastern territories should be... 4550 thousand people. This number does not seem too high to me, considering the period of colonization, equal to 30 years. It is quite possible that it was bigger. After all, it should be borne in mind that these 4,550 thousand Germans should be distributed in territories such as the Danzig-West Prussia region, the Wart region, Upper Silesia, the General Government of Southeast Prussia, the Bialystok region, the Baltic States, Ingermanland, Belarus, partly also the regions of Ukraine... If we take into account the favorable increase in population through an increase in the birth rate, as well as, to some extent, the influx of immigrants from othercountries, countries inhabited by Germanic peoples, then we can count on 8 million. The Germans colonized these territories over a period of about 30 years. However, this does not reach the expected figure of 10 million Germans. For these 8 million Germans, according to the plan, there are 45 million local residents of non-German origin, of which 31 million will be evicted from these territories.

If we analyze the preliminary target of 45 million inhabitants of German origin, it turns out that the local population of the territories in question will in itself exceed the number of settlers. On the territory of former Poland, there are supposedly about 36 million people [4]. Approximately 1 million local Germans should be excluded from them (Volksdeutsche). Then there will be 35 million people. The Baltic countries have 5.5 million inhabitants. Obviously, the general plan "Ost" also takes into account the ex-Soviet regions of Zhitomir, Kamenets-Podolsk and partially Vinnytsia as colonization territories. The population of the Zhytomyr and Kamenets-Podolsk regions is about 3.6 million people, and Vinnitsa - about 2 million people, since a significant part of it is included in the sphere of interests of Romania. Consequently, the total population living here is about 5.5 to 5.6 million people. Thus, the total population of the regions considered is 51 million. The number of people subject to eviction, according to the plan, should in fact be much higher than anticipated. Only when you consider that approximately 5-6 million Jews living in this territory will be liquidated even before the eviction takes place, can you agree with the figure mentioned in the plan of 45 million local residents of non-German origin. However, it can be seen from the plan that Jews are also included in the 45 million people mentioned. It follows, therefore, that the plan is based on an obviously incorrect calculation of the population.

In addition, it seems to me that the plan does not take into account that the local population of non-German origin will multiply very quickly over a period of 30 years... Taking all this into account, it must be assumed that the number of residents of non-German origin in these territories will significantly exceed 51 million human. It amounts to 60-65 million people.

Therefore, the conclusion itself suggests that the number of people who must remain in the indicated territories or be evicted is significantly higher than that foreseen in the plan. Consequently, even more difficulties will arise in carrying out the plan. If we take into account that 14 million local residents will remain in the territories under consideration, as provided by the plan, then between 46 and 51 million people must be evicted. The number of residents to be resettled, set by the plan at 31 million, cannot be considered correct. More notes on the plan. The plan envisages the resettlement of racially undesirable local residents in western Siberia. At the same time, percentage figures of individual peoples are given and therefore the fate of these peoples is decided, although there is still no exact data on their racial composition. In addition, the same approach has been established for all peoples without taking into account whether and to what extent the Germanization of the respective peoples is envisaged, whether they are peoples friendly or hostile to the Germans.

General comments on the question of Germanisation, especially on the future attitude towards the inhabitants of the former Baltic states

In principle, here, first of all, it is necessary to take into account the following. Needless to say, the policy of Germanization applies only to those peoples that we consider racially complete. Racially complete, compared to our people, can be considered mainly only those local residents of non-German origin who, like their offspring, have pronounced signs of the Nordic race, manifested in appearance, behavior and abilities ...

In my opinion, it is possible to win over locals fit for Germanization in the Baltic countries if the forced eviction of the unwanted population is carried out under the guise of more or less voluntary resettlement [5]. In practice, this could easily be achieved. In the vast expanses of the East, not intended for colonization by the Germans, we will need a large number of people who, to some extent, were raised in the European spirit and learned at least the basics of European culture. These data are largely available for Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians...

We must constantly start from the fact that, in administering all the vast territories within the sphere of interests of the German Empire, we must save the forces of the German people as much as possible... Then the events that are unpleasant for Russians The population will be carried out, for example, not by a German, but by the German administration is Latvian or Lithuanian, which, if this principle is applied with skill, will undoubtedly have positive consequences for us. At the same time, the Russification of Latvians or Lithuanians should hardly be feared, especially since their numbers are not so small and they will occupy positions that would place them above the Russians. Representatives of this stratum of the population should also be instilled with the feeling and awareness that they are something special compared to russians. Perhaps later the danger of this stratum of the population, associated with its desire to be Germanized, is greater than the danger of its Russification. Regardless of the more or less voluntary resettlement of racially undesirable residents of the former Baltic states to the East proposed here, the possibility of their resettlement in other countries should also be allowed. As for the Lithuanians, whose general racial data are much worse than those of the Estonians and Latvians, and among whom, therefore, there are a very significant number of racially undesirable people, one should think about providing them with a suitable territory for colonization in the east...

Towards a solution to the Polish question

(a) Poles

Their number is estimated at 20-24 million. Of all the peoples, according to the plan, subject to resettlement, the Poles are the most hostile to the Germans, numerically more numerous and therefore the most dangerous.

The plan foresees the eviction of 80-85 percent of Poles, that is, 20 or 24 million Poles, 16-20.4 million are subject to eviction, while 3-4.8 million will have to remain in the territory inhabited by German settlers... These figures proposed by the General Directorate of Imperial Security are at odds with the data of the Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of the German Race on the number of poles of high racial rank suitable for Germanization. The Imperial Commissioner for the Strengthening of the German Race, based on a survey of the rural population of the Danzig-West Prussia and Wart regions, estimates the proportion of residents eligible for Germanization at 3 percent. If we take this percentage as a basis, then the number of Poles subject to eviction should be even more than 19-23 million...

The Eastern Ministry now shows a particular interest in housing racially undesirable Poles. The forced resettlement of some 20 million Poles in a certain region of Western Siberia will undoubtedly provoke a constant danger for the entire territory of Siberia, create a hive of continuous revolts against the order established by the German authorities. Such a settlement of Poles, perhaps, would make sense as a counterweight to the Russians, if the latter regained state independence and the German administration of this territory would become illusory as a result. To this we must add that we must also strive to strengthen the Siberian peoples in every possible way to avoid the strengthening of the Russians. Siberians should feel like a people with their own culture. A compact settlement of several million Poles is likely to have the following consequences: either over time, the smaller Siberians will become pollinated and a "Greater Poland" will emerge, or we will make the Siberians our worst enemies, push them into the arms of the Russians and thus prevent the formation of the Siberian people.

These are the political considerations that arise when becoming familiar with the plan. They may be too focused on them, but in any case they deserve consideration.

I agree that far more than 20 million people will be able to settle in the vast expanses of the Western Siberian steppe with its black earth regions, provided that systematic settlement takes place. Certain difficulties may arise in the practical implementation of such mass resettlement. If, according to the plan, a period of 30 years is foreseen for resettlement, then the number of resettled will be around 700 to 800 thousand per year. This means that for the transport of poles alone, between 100 and 120 trains will be required annually. In a relatively peaceful time, this can be considered technically feasible.

It is quite clear that the Polish question cannot be solved by eliminating the Poles, as is done with the Jews. Such a solution to the Polish question would burden the conscience of the German people for eternity and deprive us of the sympathy of all, especially the neighboring peoples would begin to fear that one day they would suffer the same fate. In my opinion, the Polish question must be resolved in such a way as to minimise the political complications I mentioned earlier. In March 1941, in a memorandum, I expressed the view that the Polish question could be partially resolved by the more or less voluntary resettlement of Poles abroad. As I learned later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not without interest in the idea of a possible partial solution of the Polish question by resettling Poles in South America, especially in Brazil. In my opinion, after the end of the war, the cultural layers and partly other layers of the Polish people, unfit for Germanization for racial or political reasons, should emigrate to South America, as well as to North and Central America... To resettle millions of the most dangerous for us Poles to South America, especially Brazil, is quite possible. At the same time, it could be attempted, through exchange, to return the South American Germans, especially from southern Brazil, and settle them in new colonies, for example, in Tavria, Crimea and also in the Dnieper region, since now we are not talking about settling the African colonies of the empire...

The overwhelming majority of racially undesirable Poles should be resettled in the East. This applies to the main images of peasants, agricultural workers, artisans, etc. They can easily resettle on the territory of Siberia...

When the industrial regions of Kuznetsk, Novosibirsk and Karaganda begin to operate at full capacity, a large amount of manpower will be required, especially technical workers [6]. Why shouldn't Walloon engineers, Czech technicians, Hungarian merchants and the like work in Siberia? In this case, one could rightly speak of a European reserve territory for the colonization and extraction of raw materials. Here, the European idea would make sense in all respects, while in the territory destined for German colonization it would be dangerous for us, since in this case it would mean that we accept, by virtue of the logic of things, the idea of Miscegenation of the peoples of Europe... You have to constantly keep in mind that Siberia up to the Baikal Lake has always been a territory of European colonization. The Mongols who inhabit these areas, like the Turkic peoples, appeared here in the recent historical period. It should be emphasized once again that Siberia is one of the factors that, if used correctly, could play a decisive role in depriving the Russian people of the opportunity to restore their power.

(b) On the question of Ukrainians.

According to the plan of the Imperial Main Directorate of Security, Western Ukrainians should also be resettled in Siberia. This provides for the resettlement of 65 percent of the population. This figure is significantly lower than the percentage of the Polish population subject to eviction...

(c) The question of Belarusians.

According to the plan, it is planned to evict 75 percent of the Belarusian population from the territory it occupies. This means that 25 percent of Belarusians, according to the plan of the main administration of imperial security, are subject to Germanization...

The Belarusian population, racially undesirable, will remain on the territory of Belarus for many years. In this regard, it seems extremely necessary to select, with the greatest possible care, the Belarusians of nordic type, suitable for racial reasons and politics of Germanization, and send them to the empire to be used as labor... They could be used in agriculture as agricultural workers, as well as in industry or as artisans. Since they would be treated as Germans and because they do not have a national feeling, soon, at least in the next generation, they could be completely Germanized.

The next question is the question of a place for the resettlement of Belarusians who are racially unsuitable for Germanization. According to the general plan, they should also move to Western Siberia. It can be assumed that Belarusians are the most harmless people and therefore the safest for us among all the peoples of the eastern regions [7]. Even Belarusians whom we cannot, for racial reasons, leave on the territory destined for colonization by our people, we can, to a greater extent than the representatives of other peoples of the eastern regions, use in our interest. The land of Belarus is scarce. To offer them the best lands is to reconcile them with some things that could turn them against us. To this, by the way, we must add that the Russian population and especially the Belarusian itself is inclined to change homes, so that resettlement in these areas is not perceived by residents as tragically as, for example, in the Baltic countries... We must also think about resettling Belarusians in the Urals or in the regions of the North Caucasus, which in part could also serve as reserve territories for European colonization...

On the future treatment of the Russian population.

It is necessary to address one more question, which is not mentioned at all in the general plan "Ost", but it is of great importance for the solution of the whole Eastern problem in general, namely how it is possible to preserve and whether itis possible to preserve German domination for a long time in the face of an enormous biological force of the Russian people. Therefore, it is necessary to briefly consider the question of attitude towards the Russians, about which almost nothing is said in the general plan.

It is now safe to say that our previous anthropological information about the Russians, not to mention the fact that they were very incomplete and outdated, is largely incorrect. This was already noticed in the autumn of 1941 by representatives of the department of racial politics and famous German scientists. This view was confirmed once again by Professor Dr. Abel, former first assistant to Professor E. Fischer, who this winter, on behalf of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, conducted detailed anthropological studies of the Russians...

Abel saw only the following possibilities to solve the problem: either the complete destruction of the Russian people, or the Germanization of that part that has clear signs of the Nordic race. These very serious positions of Abel deserve a lot of attention. It's not just about the defeat of the state with its center in Moscow. Achieving this historic goal would never mean a complete solution to the problem. It is more likely that it will be a question of defeating the Russians as a people, of disuniting them. Only if this problem is considered from a biological point of view, especially from a racial-biological point of view, and if German policy in the eastern regions is carried out in accordance with this, will it be possible to eliminate the danger posed by the Russian people to us.

The way proposed by Abel to eliminate the Russians as a people, not to mention the fact that its implementation would hardly be possible, is not suitable for us also for political and economic reasons. In this case, you need to follow different paths to solve the Russian problem. These paths are briefly as follows.

A) First of all, it is necessary to provide for the division of the territory inhabited by the Russians into several political regions with their own governing bodies in order to ensure in each of them a separate national development...

For now, it is possible to leave open the question of whether an imperial commissariat should be established in the Urals or whether separate district administrations should be created here for the non-Russian population living in this territory without a special local central government body. However, it is of decisive importance here that these areas are not administratively subordinated to the German supreme authorities, which will be created in the central regions of Russia. The peoples who inhabit these areas need to be taught that under no circumstances should they be guided by Moscow, even if a German imperial commissar is in Moscow...

In both the Urals and the Caucasus, there are many different nationalities and languages. It will be impossible, and perhaps politically incorrect, to make the main language in the Urals Tatar or Mordovian, and in the Caucasus, say, Georgian. This could irritate other people in these areas. Therefore, it is worth considering the introduction of the German language as a language that connects all these peoples... Thus, German influence in the East would increase significantly. One should also think of the administrative separation of northern Russia from the territories under the control of the Imperial Commissariat for Russian Affairs... The idea of transforming this area in the future into a Great German Colony should not be rejected, as its population is still largely possessing signs of the Nordic race. In general, in the rest of the central regions of Russia, the policy of the individual commissariats-general should be directed, as far as possible, to the separate separation and development of these regions.

The Russian of gorky's commissariat-general must be instilled with the feeling that he is somehow different from the Russian of the general commissariat of Tula. There is no doubt that such an administrative division of Russian territory and the systematic isolation of individual regions will be one of the means of struggle against the strengthening of the Russian people [9].

(B) The second means, even more effective than the measures referred to in paragraph "A", is the racially weakening of the Russian people. The Germanization of all Russians is impossible for us and undesirable from a racial point of view. However, what can and should be done is to separate the Nordic groups from the existing population in the Russian people and gradually Germanize them...

It is important that the population on Russian territory consisted mostly of people of a primitive semi-European type. It won't cause much concern to German leaders. This mass of foolish and racially inferior people needs, as the centuries-old history of these areas attests, a guide. If the German leadership manages to avoid rapprochement with the Russian population and avoid the influence of German blood on the Russian people through extramarital relations, then it is quite possible to preserve German domination in this area, provided that we can overcome a biological danger such as the monstrous ability of reproduction of these primitive peoples...

C) There are many ways to undermine the biological strength of the people... The aim of German policy in relation to the population on Russian territory will be to bring the birth rate of Russians to a lower level than that of Germans. The same applies, among other things, to the extremely prolific peoples of the Caucasus and, in the future, partly to Ukraine. For now, we are interested in increasing the Ukrainian population versus the Russian one. But this should not lead to the fact that the Ukrainians will eventually take the place of the Russians.

To avoid an undesirable increase in population in the eastern regions, it is imperative to avoid in the East all the measures we use to increase the birth rate in the empire. In these areas, we must consciously pursue population reduction policies. Through propaganda, especially through the press, radio, cinema, leaflets, short pamphlets, reports, etc., we must constantly inspire the population with the idea that it is harmful to have many children.

It is necessary to show how much money it costs to raise children and what could be bought with these funds. It is necessary to talk about the great danger to the health of the woman, to which she is exposed, giving birth to children, etc. Alongside this, the widest contraceptive propaganda should be launched. It is necessary to organize the generalized production of these funds. The distribution of these funds and abortion should not be restricted in any way. The expansion of the network of abortion clinics in every possible way should be encouraged. For example, it is possible to organize special training for midwives and paramedics and train them to perform abortions. The better the quality of abortions, the more confident the population will have in them. It is quite understandable that doctors must also be allowed to perform abortions. And this should not be considered a violation of medical ethics.

Voluntary sterilization should also be promoted, the fight to reduce infant mortality should not be allowed, and the education of mothers in child care and preventive measures against childhood diseases should not be allowed. The training of Russian doctors in these specialties should be kept to a minimum and no support should be provided to kindergartens and other similar institutions. Along with these health activities, there should be no barriers to divorce. No help should be provided to children born out of wedlock. You should not allow any tax privileges for large families, not provide them with financial assistance in the form of salary supplements...

It is important for us Germans to weaken the Russian people to such an extent that they will no longer be able to prevent us from establishing German dominance in Europe. We can achieve this goal in the above ways...

D) The question of the Czechs. According to current opinions, most Czechs, since they do not cause racial concerns, are subject to Germanization. Approximately 50 percent of the entire Czech population is subject to Germanization. If we start from this figure, there will still be 3.5 million Czechs not foreseen for Germanization, which should be gradually withdrawn from the territory of the empire...

Consideration should be be made of resettling these Czechs in Siberia, where they will dissolve among the Siberians and thus contribute to further alienating the Siberians from the Russian people...

The problems discussed above are enormous in scope. But it would be very dangerous to refuse to solve them, declaring them impracticable or fantastic. Future German policy towards the East will demonstrate whether we are truly determined to provide a solid basis for the long-term existence of a third empire. If the third empire is to exist for thousands of years, our plans must be developed for entire generations. This means that the racial-biological idea should have a decisive importance in the future of German politics. Only then can we secure the future of our people.

Dr. Wetzel.

Source(in russian): https://scepsis.net/library/id_703.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midofe1996 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

70 million of russian?

Where in the document does this appear? The total number of people the Germans wanted to deport was 31 million. Midofe1996 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rephrasing of first sentence

I have no issues with coverage or terminology, just a language editor's perspective on the first sentence of the article. I believe it reads badly and can easily be improved. Tightening up its grammar will greatly improve its clarity. Instead of "The Generalplan Ost, abbreviated GPO, was the Nazi German government's plan for the genocide[1] and ethnic cleansing on a vast scale, and colonization of Central and Eastern Europe by Germans." I propose "The Generalplan Ost, abbreviated GPO, was the Nazi German government's plan for the genocide[1] and ethnic cleansing of Central and Eastern Europe on a vast scale, and for its colonization by Germans." Editingfrank (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The 70 million figure for Russians is inaccurate

The source given for the 70 million figure in the article appears to be a single line from the Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany. The source in question is Footnote 20, which reads "The Ashgate Research Companion to Imperial Germany edited by Matthew Jefferies Colonialism and Genocide by Jurgent Zimmerer page 437 Routledge 2015 discussions about the Generalplan Ost – which foresaw up to 70 million Russians being deported to Siberia and left to perish'." The research companion itself concerns the second German empire, which ended in 1918 and is thus far outside the scope of expertise for this topic. I cannot independently verify where the source attained the 70 million figure because it requires money to access, but I can point to the lack of that number in all other sources on the topic and the number that those sources give instead. The German documents used to reconstruct Generalplan Ost make no mention of a 70 million number and nor do they imply it as a goal. Here is a breakdown of those German documents:

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/gpo/gpoarticle.HTM.

As can be seen from that article, what the German documents do mention is a goal of roughly 31 million deportations in all of the occupied territories, not just for Russians. This same number can be seen in the German Wikipedia article for this topic: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost. An example is this excerpt from the German Wikipedia article:

"Document 6: “ General settlement plan”, created in September 1942 by the planning office of the RKF (scope: 200 pages including 25 maps and tables). Content: Description of the scope of the planned settlements in all conquered areas intended for this purpose, with specific geographical delimitation of the individual settlement areas. The planned area should cover 330,000 km² with 360,100 farms. The number of settlers required for this was estimated at 12.21 million people (including agricultural and forestry professionals: 2.859 million). To this end, around 30.8 million people should be removed from the planned area. The cost of the planned measures was estimated at 144 billion Reichsmarks ."

Neither the German documents themselves nor any other (non-paywalled) sources I can find give a 70 million figure for Russians. The article should be edited to give the correct number.

--Potato152 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not have access to that particular source either, but reading the others cited within the table I was also unable to find mention of specific numerical plans for the Russian population. They do make mention of the 31 million total figure, which puts 70 million Russians outside of the realm of possiblity.

I will also note that several other editors have commented on this topic above. For now, I have removed the citation and and replaced the table entry with "Unclear" until a better source can be found. — Goszei (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In the original Generalplan ost the total number of deportees to Siberia is 31 million, of which we know from the Wetzel document that 16-20.4 million are Poles, the rest of the deportees would be divided among the other nationalities (Ukrainians, Russians , Belarusians) but we do not know the exact number corresponding to each group.

Therefore, I think it would be best to put a total of 31 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midofe1996 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The GPO was not one plan it was a number of different plans from 3 different Instituts

Known documents:

These Documents where developt by 3 different Institutions.

• Planungsamt des Reichskommissar für die Festigung deutschen Volkstums (RKF),
• Planungsgruppe III B im Amt III (SD-Inland) des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes der SS
• Institut für Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik der Berliner Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

• Dokument 1: „Planungsgrundlagen“ , erstellt im Februar 1940 durch das Planungsamt des RKF (Umfang: 21 Seiten). Inhalt: Beschreibung des Umfangs der geplanten Ostsiedlung in Westpreußen und im Wartheland. Das beplante Gebiet sollte eine Fläche von 87.600 km² umfassen, davon 59.000 km² landwirtschaftliche Nutzfläche. In diesem Gebiet sollten rund 100.000 Siedlerhöfe zu 29 ha eingerichtet werden. Insgesamt sollten rund 4,3 Millionen Deutsche in diesen Gebieten angesiedelt werden; davon 3,15 Millionen im ländlichen Raum und 1,15 Millionen im städtischen Raum. Hierzu sollten sukzessive 560.000 Juden (100 % aller Personen dieser Ethnie im Planungsgebiet) und 3,4 Millionen Polen (44 % aller Personen dieser Ethnie im Planungsgebiet) entfernt werden. Zu den Gesamtkosten des Plans wurden keine Schätzungen vorgenommen.

• Dokument 2: Materialien zum Vortrag „Siedlung“, erstellt im Dezember 1940 durch das Planungsamt des RKF (Umfang 5 Seiten). Inhalt: Grundsatzartikel zu „Landbedarf für die notwendige Aussiedlung aus dem Altreich“ mit konkreter Forderung von 130.000 km² für 480.000 neue, lebensfähige Siedlerhöfe zu 25 ha, dabei 40 % Zuschlag für Wald, Wehrmacht, Reserveflächen im Wartheland und Generalgouvernement Polen.

Dokumente, erstellt nach dem Angriff auf die Sowjetunion am 22. Juni 1941.

• Dokument 3 (lost, details unkown): „Generalplan Ost“, (general plan east) erstellt im Juli 1941 durch das Planungsamt des RKF. Inhalt: Beschreibung des Umfangs der geplanten Ostsiedlung in der Sowjetunion mit konkreter geographischer Abgrenzung der einzelnen Siedlungsgebiete.

• Dokument 4 (lost, details unkown): „Gesamtplan Ost“, (comprehensive plan east) erstellt im Dezember 1941 durch die Planungsgruppe III B des Amts III (SD-Inland) des RSHA unter SS-Standartenführer Dr. Hans Ehlich. Inhalt: Beschreibung des Umfangs der geplanten Ostsiedlung in der Sowjetunion und dem Generalgouvernement mit konkreter geographischer Abgrenzung der einzelnen Siedlungsgebiete.

• Dokument 5: „Generalplan Ost“, erstellt am 28. Mai 1942 durch das Institut für Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik der Berliner Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (Umfang: 84 S.).[13]

Inhalt: Beschreibung des Umfangs der geplanten Ostsiedlung in der Sowjetunion mit konkreter geographischer Abgrenzung der einzelnen Siedlungsgebiete. Das beplante Gebiet sollte 364.231 km² umfassen, einschließlich 36 „Siedlungsstützpunkten“ und drei „Siedlungsmarken“ im Großraum Leningrad (heute Sankt Petersburg), Krim-Cherson-Gebiet und im Memel-Narew-Gebiet (Bezirk Białystok und Westlitauen). Hierbei sollten Siedlerhöfe mit 40–100 ha Fläche sowie landwirtschaftliche Großbetriebe mit mindestens 250 ha Fläche entstehen. Die Zahl der hierfür benötigten Siedler wurde auf 5,65 Millionen geschätzt.[14] Hierzu sollten aus dem geplanten Gebiet rund 31 Millionen Menschen nach Sibirien deportiert oder ermordet werden.[15][16] Die Kosten der Planungen wurden auf 66,6 Milliarden Reichsmark geschätzt.

• Dokument 6: „Generalsiedlungsplan“ (general settlement plan), erstellt im September 1942 durch das Planungsamt des RKF (Umfang: 200 Seiten einschließlich 25 Karten und Tabellen).

Inhalt: Beschreibung des Umfangs der geplanten Siedlungen in allen dafür vorgesehenen eroberten Gebieten mit konkreter geografischer Abgrenzung der einzelnen Siedlungsgebiete. Das beplante Gebiet sollte 330.000 km² mit 360.100 landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben umfassen. Die Zahl der hierfür benötigten Siedler wurde auf 12,21 Millionen Menschen (davon land- und forstwirtschaftliche Berufszugehörige: 2,859 Millionen) geschätzt. Hierzu sollten aus dem beplanten Gebiet rund 30,8 Millionen Menschen entfernt werden. Die Kosten der geplanten Maßnahmen wurden auf 144 Milliarden Reichsmark geschätzt.

None of those plans is known to be officially approved or disaaproved by Hitler. There is a lack of information about that.(Documents lost)--2003:E5:3F3A:3B00:54F7:DB9E:75CF:F224 (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)