Talk:Untermensch

explain NPOV edit please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

Asian Racial origins of the Slavs

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

The article

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

The myth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'll put my reply in points:

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

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

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

Halibutt, I am also gonna answer you with points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halibutt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, you really need to provide sources for your claims. Here's a link you can read:[2]. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Untermensch poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translate from German

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

A myth part II

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

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

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

Sieger 20:09, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The Slavic territories lying to the east of Germany were particularly enticing as the Nazis considered their primarily Slavic inhabitants to be subhuman (Untermensch). The Nazis rationalized that the Germans, being a super human (Übermenschlich) race, had a biological right to displace, eliminate and enslave inferiors." [3]

The International Military Tribunal found in its judgment - "The evidence shows that at any rate in the East, the mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely for the purpose of stamping out opposition or resistance to the German occupying forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union these crimes were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used for colonization by Germans. Hitler had written in 'Mein Kampf'on these lines, and the plan was clearly stated by Himmler in July 1942, when he wrote: 'It is not our task to Germanize the East in the old sense, that is to teach the people there the German language and the German law, but to see to it that only people of purely Germanic blood live in the East.'" In August 1942 the policy for the eastern territories as laid down by Bormann was summarized by a subordinate of Rosenberg as follows: "The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and Germanic health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable."[4]

It is late June 1941, the invasion of Russia has gone well. The Slav untermensch have been forced to retreat to avoid destruction in battles all along the frontier.[5]

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

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

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

Sieger 14:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've asked for something.

Sieger 14:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is bull

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Q: What of the Soviet "Asiatic" troops?

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

---

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

---

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

Sieger/Slavs

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

definition out of a 3rd Reich encyclopedia

I already posted this in the discussion about the Aryans, but I think it is useful information for this discussion, too.

Here's a definition contained in an encyclopedia produced in the Third Reich – the “Volks-Brockhaus” from 1935: it says

Aryans: … members of those races that have lived in Europe for a long time (Nordic, Falish, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic) especially in contrast to the Semitic races. Only Aryans can hold public office and serve in the military and labor service.

I'm not sure about the translation - it originally said: nordisch, fälisch, dinarisch, westisch, ostisch, ostbaltisch in contrast to vorderasiatisch, orientalisch.

So I think "Sieger" is making some good points here. As far I as remember Otto Skorzeny was of Polish descent - and he was a member of "the elite of the elite" - namely the Leibstandarte AH in 1940 when the Nazis thought they would win the war. It does not seem very probable to admit a "untermensch" in this unit.

You see there are not only the old racial myths, but also the modern myths about old racial myths ;) --80.131.255.235 18 April 2006

I removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soviet peoples as "untermenschen"

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

The section on subhuman

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

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

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

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

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

Restored from anon edit

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

Poop?

From the first paragraph:

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

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

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

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

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

European sub-races

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

Slavs and Der Untermensch

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

Wrong translation

The German word Mensch literally means person.

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

If Slavs were considered Untermenschen by the Nazis

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

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

Friedrich Nietzsches and Untermensch

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

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

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

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

The book "Der Pharrt" by Fontante = vandalism bullshit

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

Nazi policy in Slovenia

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