Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: 'National Socialist Europe Ideology' [Prof. Paul Kluke]

  1. #21
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset View Post

    Operation Barbarossa had nothing to do with Ostpolitik or Ostsiedlung.
    I never said that it had.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset View Post
    No Ostpolitik ever became relevant.
    Never claimed this either. Relevance is tied to success. Obiously this wasn't the case. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion about the alledged falsity of these documents though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork
    So, we are different then. Because I do have a clear political aim, with everything and anything I say, write, and do.
    I do have a clear political aim as well, but that wasn't your question.
    Anyway, you're just overthinking the things you think you've read in my post, but weren't actually there. As for political aims, it seems that you are the one who lets the opponent dictate what to think, more than I do. I agree with Ahnenerbe's position in this regard and do not have the urge to tone down nationalsocialist ideology in order for it to be more compatible with an egalitarian nationalist mindset. Yes, there are things in nationalsocialism that I agree with and there are things that I don't agree with, but (unlike you) I let myself be the judge of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork
    If such circumstance would not at least cause a rethinking of a principle, then the principle itself would be insane.
    Here it gets interesting. But so far, this thread has only provided us with examples that show that the principle was not abandoned. To counter this, I reckon that the claim that they're fake should at least be accompanied by a (concrete) example that shows that the principle was abondoned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork
    ...

    Do you understand?
    I understand that you've written a lot of things I already knew, but not what you're trying to say with it.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    853
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    I do have a clear political aim as well,
    And may I ask you what it is? Or is it a secret?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    As for political aims, it seems that you are the one who lets the opponent dictate what to think, more than I do. I agree with Ahnenerbe's position in this regard and do not have the urge to tone down nationalsocialist ideology in order for it to be more compatible with an egalitarian nationalist mindset.
    I am in no way egalitarian. I do strictly uphold, 'in principle', the superiority of the Germanic people, and within them, the superiority of the Germans.

    Yet strength is a product of available will power, and available means. So if even Geman people were 'superior' to all others, as much as they might even wish and dream, and even if their will power was unlimited, yet they had not enough fuel for warfare, this their 'superiority' would be quite limited, and in fact confined to the fantasy world.

    And the mere fact already, that I must write here in English, and not in German, is proof that my will power alone is not enough. There are some hard facts in the outside real world, I have to consider, and I have to deal with, I may accept them in my heart, or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Yes, there are things in nationalsocialism that I agree with and there are things that I don't agree with, but (unlike you) I let myself be the judge of that.
    It is irrelevant which principle you agree, or not agree with. Anyway you are not in the position to dictate principles. But even if you were, you would soon find out your limits.

    Adolf Hitler appointed Karl Dönitz as his successor, because this man had promised him 'never to capitulate and to enforce final victory'. After Hitler was gone, the first thing Dönitz did was to disband, and ban the NSDAP, the second thing he did was to enter in capitulation talks.

    So, even what Adolf Hitler had been thinking, and 'judging' -- whatever that might have been -- was not that relevant, in the end.

    There are always private opinions, and whims, and spleens, and crazy ideas, and perceptions, and misperceptions, of private persons, and there is always the official party line, and then there is always the official government policy. These are always three different things. That one and the same man can be at the same time head of a state, leader of a party, and private person, does not, and can not confuse them.

    Adolf Hitler, as a private person, loved German Shepherds. I do loathe German Shepherds. Adolf Hitler loved all the music of Richard Wagner. I do feel, Wagner made one or two good pieces, the whole rest is crap. Adolf Hitler was vegetarian, and vilified meat eaters in private talk. I do like eating meat very much, I believe Germanics since ever ate meat, and do need it. So -- in your speech -- what would you make out of all this?

    Adolf Hitler wrote a book in two volumes, which he sold as shop ware in order to make a living for himself. A third volume of the same book he also wrote, but did never publish, because he himself felt it was unwise, untimely, and useless, maybe even detrimental for his cause to publish it.

    Adolf Hitler admired and befriended Arno Breker, Albert Speer, and Leni Riefenstahl. I do discard all 3 of them as fags, douche bags, and slimy opportunists. Riefenstahl later produced 'documentaries' about the length of negro penises.

    So, what would you make out of all this??
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Here it gets interesting. But so far, this thread has only provided us with examples that show that the principle was not abandoned. To counter this, I reckon that the claim that they're fake should at least be accompanied by a (concrete) example that shows that the principle was abondoned.
    In Adolf Hitler's Politcal Testament, the Ostministerium, and Rosenberg, are not mentioned. This is the concrete proof that the principle -- if it ever existed -- had been abandoned.

    Two months earlier, in March 1945, in a conversation with Joseph Goebbels, Hitler said that he still hoped to arrive with Stalin at a partition of Poland, because -- said Hitler -- Stalin was an outspoken realist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    I understand that you've written a lot of things I already knew,
    I am sure you did not know all the things I said. It would take you a lot of time to gather the knowledge, just the facts.

    Of course, it is not necessary to know the past in order to act in the present. Just do it. Please help yourself and do some Ostpolitik, out of your fist. Good luck to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    but not what you're trying to say with it.
    Well, I tried to make some things more clear to you than they have been hitherto. You can never be sure of any success, though.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 10th, 2019 @ 08:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norse
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Norse/German
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    I never said that it had.

    Never claimed this either. Relevance is tied to success. Obiously this wasn't the case. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion about the alledged falsity of these documents though.
    You're extracting two statements in an exposition and ignoring all the rest. I was answering your posting and my answer is certainly relevant to the question of authenticity of the said documents. I don't repeat what I wrote earlier in the thread.

    Why are those documents almost certainly fake?

    1. All NS documents were banned and forbidden after the war. The allies NEVER republished anything the "nazis" had written or said except in an out-of-context and forged way. Indeed, if anyone had done otherwise they would have been charged with Volksverhetzung and Wiederbetätigung!

    2. I started reading them and found them grossly contrary to everything NS people had ever written or said. I stopped when I came to a serious discussion of exterminating the russian people. This is antigerman atrocity propaganda of the type employed at the Nurnberg trials. It's also contrary to what the "nazis" ever DID. They didn't even exterminate JEWS during the eastern campaign.

    3. If somebody has time to investigate the source and history and technical details of these documents I'm confident their fraudulent nature will be proved beyond question. So many such docs have already been demonstrated to be fake.

    Here it gets interesting. But so far, this thread has only provided us with examples that show that the principle was not abandoned. To counter this, I reckon that the claim that they're fake should at least be accompanied by a (concrete) example that shows that the principle was abondoned.
    What principle are you talking about? You called it "germanization of the east " but that is something of your own invention. Or can you demonstrate an indubitable NS source for this? What exactly do you MEAN by this phrase? The docs in question allege that NS Germany was pursuing german imperialism, intending to conquer all of Europe and Russia. That is blatantly false.

    As I pointed out above Hitler's principle was : Enough soil to feed and defend the german people. He didn't want to sacrifice any german blood except to attain this. No empire! No wiping out of other nations!

    Here is an important statement from vol 2 ch 14:

    Das politische Testament der deutschen Nation für ihr Handeln nach außen aber soll und muß für immer sinngemäß lauten:

    Duldet niemals das Entstehen zweiter Kontinentalmächte in Europa. Seht in jeglichem Versuch, an den deutschen Grenzen eine zweite Militärmacht zu organisieren, und sei es auch nur in Form der Bildung eines zur Militärmacht fähigen Staates, einen Angriff gegen Deutschland und erblickt darin nicht nur das Recht, sondern die Pflicht, mit allen Mitteln, bis zur Anwendung von Waffengewalt, die Entstehung eines solchen Staates zu verhindern, beziehungsweise einen solchen, wenn er schon entstanden, wieder zu zerschlagen. - Sorgt dafür, daß die Stärke unseres Volkes ihre Grundlagen nicht in Kolonien, sondern im Boden der Heimat in Europa erhält. Haltet das Reich nie für gesichert, wenn es nicht auf Jahrhunderte hinaus jedem Sprossen unseres Bodens sein eigenes Stück Grund und Boden zu geben vermag. Vergeßt nie, daß das heiligste Recht auf dieser Welt das Recht auf Erde ist, die man selbst bebauen will, und das heiligste Opfer das Blut, das man für diese Erde vergießt.

  4. #24
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 09:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    551
    Thanked in
    237 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset View Post
    As I pointed out above Hitler's principle was : Enough soil to feed and defend the german people. He didn't want to sacrifice any german blood except to attain this. No empire! No wiping out of other nations!

    Here is an important statement from vol 2 ch 14:

    Das politische Testament der deutschen Nation für ihr Handeln nach außen aber soll und muß für immer sinngemäß lauten:

    Duldet niemals das Entstehen zweiter Kontinentalmächte in Europa. Seht in jeglichem Versuch, an den deutschen Grenzen eine zweite Militärmacht zu organisieren, und sei es auch nur in Form der Bildung eines zur Militärmacht fähigen Staates, einen Angriff gegen Deutschland und erblickt darin nicht nur das Recht, sondern die Pflicht, mit allen Mitteln, bis zur Anwendung von Waffengewalt, die Entstehung eines solchen Staates zu verhindern, beziehungsweise einen solchen, wenn er schon entstanden, wieder zu zerschlagen. - Sorgt dafür, daß die Stärke unseres Volkes ihre Grundlagen nicht in Kolonien, sondern im Boden der Heimat in Europa erhält. Haltet das Reich nie für gesichert, wenn es nicht auf Jahrhunderte hinaus jedem Sprossen unseres Bodens sein eigenes Stück Grund und Boden zu geben vermag. Vergeßt nie, daß das heiligste Recht auf dieser Welt das Recht auf Erde ist, die man selbst bebauen will, und das heiligste Opfer das Blut, das man für diese Erde vergießt.
    What do you think “In every attempt to establish a second military power on Germany’s border, be it merely in the way of forming a state capable of military power, see an attack against Germany. Not only think of it as your right, but your duty to oppose the forming of such a state with all possible means up to the force of arms, and if such a state already formed, to shatter it again.” means?
    That means, at best, some sort of satellite state with no external autonomy.

    Coupled with the next sentences though, it already shows in which direction this is heading:
    See to it, that the strength of our people doesn’t look for its foundation in colonies but in the soil of the homeland in Europe. Don’t think of the Reich as secure, unless it can provide every son of our people for centuries to come with a parcel of soil of his own.
    Since Germany was already densely settled and overpopulated, this can only mean land in the east. Since this land was already settled, there weren’t very many viable options:
    1. Settling Germans among the native inhabitants and absorbing the latter. Hardly in the interest of NS, at least for the majority of inhabitants.
    2. Deporting most of the native inhabitants to somewhere else. Hardly possible without full victory and a logistical nightmare.
    3. Well, everyone can figure this out himself...
    4. A combination of these.
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  5. #25
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    71
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    110
    Thanked in
    42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    And may I ask you what it is? Or is it a secret?
    No it's not a secret. In short, it is the attachment of my people to nature and God. In practice this means that politics is primarily about the survival and the (qualitative) improvement of my people as a whole. In my profile I have tried to describe this as 'folkish traditionalism', but I'm not a big fan of labels.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    I am in no way egalitarian. I do strictly uphold, 'in principle', the superiority of the Germanic people, and within them, the superiority of the Germans.

    Yet strength is a product of available will power, and available means. So if even Geman people were 'superior' to all others, as much as they might even wish and dream, and even if their will power was unlimited, yet they had not enough fuel for warfare, this their 'superiority' would be quite limited, and in fact confined to the fantasy world.

    And the mere fact already, that I must write here in English, and not in German, is proof that my will power alone is not enough. There are some hard facts in the outside real world, I have to consider, and I have to deal with, I may accept them in my heart, or not.
    I agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    It is irrelevant which principle you agree, or not agree with. Anyway you are not in the position to dictate principles. But even if you were, you would soon find out your limits.

    Adolf Hitler appointed Karl Dönitz as his successor, because this man had promised him 'never to capitulate and to enforce final victory'. After Hitler was gone, the first thing Dönitz did was to disband, and ban the NSDAP, the second thing he did was to enter in capitulation talks.

    So, even what Adolf Hitler had been thinking, and 'judging' -- whatever that might have been -- was not that relevant, in the end.

    There are always private opinions, and whims, and spleens, and crazy ideas, and perceptions, and misperceptions, of private persons, and there is always the official party line, and then there is always the official government policy. These are always three different things. That one and the same man can be at the same time head of a state, leader of a party, and private person, does not, and can not confuse them.

    Adolf Hitler, as a private person, loved German Shepherds. I do loathe German Shepherds. Adolf Hitler loved all the music of Richard Wagner. I do feel, Wagner made one or two good pieces, the whole rest is crap. Adolf Hitler was vegetarian, and vilified meat eaters in private talk. I do like eating meat very much, I believe Germanics since ever ate meat, and do need it. So -- in your speech -- what would you make out of all this?

    Adolf Hitler wrote a book in two volumes, which he sold as shop ware in order to make a living for himself. A third volume of the same book he also wrote, but did never publish, because he himself felt it was unwise, untimely, and useless, maybe even detrimental for his cause to publish it.

    Adolf Hitler admired and befriended Arno Breker, Albert Speer, and Leni Riefenstahl. I do discard all 3 of them as fags, douche bags, and slimy opportunists. Riefenstahl later produced 'documentaries' about the length of negro penises.

    So, what would you make out of all this??
    Everyone is at least in the position of dictating his own principles. These can be the foundation of one's life course; whether it will be influential is a different question. The basis on which we dictate our own principles seems to be different though. In the context of this thread: I don't think I have to keep my mouth shut about certain aspects of NS ideology, because of the consequences it might have, because my own position (and in extension my people) is not inseperably bound to nationalsocialism. To be honest, I think such a position would be benificial to you to, considering the 'diversity' of your ideas (which I mean in a positive non-restricting sense).

    I agree that there were a lot of different ideas in NS Germany. But that actually supports the idea that these documents weren't falsified. There was space for these ideas to develop and they did not abandon NS 'orthodoxy'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    In Adolf Hitler's Politcal Testament, the Ostministerium, and Rosenberg, are not mentioned. This is the concrete proof that the principle -- if it ever existed -- had been abandoned.

    Two months earlier, in March 1945, in a conversation with Joseph Goebbels, Hitler said that he still hoped to arrive with Stalin at a partition of Poland, because -- said Hitler -- Stalin was an outspoken realist.
    At best this proves a revision of tactic; Germany was in absolutely no position of dreaming of a grander future anymore.


    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    I am sure you did not know all the things I said. It would take you a lot of time to gather the knowledge, just the facts.
    I do spend some time reading and thinking once in a while.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    Of course, it is not necessary to know the past in order to act in the present. Just do it. Please help yourself and do some Ostpolitik, out of your fist. Good luck to you.
    This is exactly the problem with this discussion. I haven't one time said that I support nationalsocialist Ostpolitik, yet your entire contribution to the discussion seems to be based on this presupposition. You're discussing with a phantom.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    You're extracting two statements in an exposition and ignoring all the rest. I was answering your posting and my answer is certainly relevant to the question of authenticity of the said documents. I don't repeat what I wrote earlier in the thread.
    I extracted what was relevant. The rest wasn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    1. All NS documents were banned and forbidden after the war. The allies NEVER republished anything the "nazis" had written or said except in an out-of-context and forged way. Indeed, if anyone had done otherwise they would have been charged with Volksverhetzung and Wiederbetätigung!
    Logical fallacy: begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    2. I started reading them and found them grossly contrary to everything NS people had ever written or said. I stopped when I came to a serious discussion of exterminating the russian people. This is antigerman atrocity propaganda of the type employed at the Nurnberg trials. It's also contrary to what the "nazis" ever DID. They didn't even exterminate JEWS during the eastern campaign.
    The source is secondary, so one should read the original source before drawing any conclusions about the Abel plan as well. If that's what your referring to?
    If you continued reading you would have read that 'Ausrottung' is understood is further specified as 'Aufspaltung'. I think there is some ambiguity in this term, but perhaps a native German speaker can say more about this. Anyway, your perception doesn't count as evidence either.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    3. If somebody has time to investigate the source and history and technical details of these documents I'm confident their fraudulent nature will be proved beyond question. So many such docs have already been demonstrated to be fake.
    You asked 'Why are those documents almost certainly fake?' and this is your answer? This is no evidence, this is a call to find evidence. Please do and we can finally have a discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    What principle are you talking about? You called it "germanization of the east " but that is something of your own invention. Or can you demonstrate an indubitable NS source for this? What exactly do you MEAN by this phrase? The docs in question allege that NS Germany was pursuing german imperialism, intending to conquer all of Europe and Russia. That is blatantly false.
    In the second chapter of Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the wrong interpretations of 'Germanization of the East' (he uses this phrase in regard to the discussion about Poland) to counter it with the idea that 'only soil can be Germanized'.
    How about this part in the chapter about ostpolitik:

    "Damit ziehen wir Nationalsozialisten bewusst einen Strich unter die aussenpolitische Richtung unserer Vorkriegszeit. Wir setzen dort an, wo man vor sechs Jahrhunderten endete. Wir stoppen den ewigen Germanenzug nach dem Süden und Westen Europas und weisen den Blick nach dem Land im Osten. Wir schliessen endlich ab die Kolonial- und Handelspolitik der Vorkriegszeit und gehen über zur Bodenpolitik der Zukunft".

    I suggest to read the entire chapter.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset
    Here is an important statement from vol 2 ch 14:
    Clearly you haven't understood what is written here. Juthunge has already explained this.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 10th, 2019 @ 08:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norse
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Norse/German
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    What do you think “In every attempt to establish a second military power on Germany’s border, be it merely in the way of forming a state capable of military power, see an attack against Germany. Not only think of it as your right, but your duty to oppose the forming of such a state with all possible means up to the force of arms, and if such a state already formed, to shatter it again.” means?
    That means, at best, some sort of satellite state with no external autonomy.
    It means exactly what it says: No military might at Germany's border which can threaten Germany's national security.

    Coupled with the next sentences though, it already shows in which direction this is heading:
    See to it, that the strength of our people doesn’t look for its foundation in colonies but in the soil of the homeland in Europe. Don’t think of the Reich as secure, unless it can provide every son of our people for centuries to come with a parcel of soil of his own.
    Since Germany was already densely settled and overpopulated, this can only mean land in the east. Since this land was already settled, there weren’t very many viable options:
    1. Settling Germans among the native inhabitants and absorbing the latter. Hardly in the interest of NS, at least for the majority of inhabitants.
    2. Deporting most of the native inhabitants to somewhere else. Hardly possible without full victory and a logistical nightmare.
    3. Well, everyone can figure this out himself...
    4. A combination of these.
    I already pointed out that Germany needed land in the east to cultivate. Read my posts before you answer them.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    853
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    What do you think “In every attempt to establish a second military power on Germany’s border, be it merely in the way of forming a state capable of military power, see an attack against Germany. Not only think of it as your right, but your duty to oppose the forming of such a state with all possible means up to the force of arms, and if such a state already formed, to shatter it again.” means?
    That means, at best, some sort of satellite state with no external autonomy.
    No, not necessarily. For example, Switzerland is no 'satellite state' of Germany, yet it is also no threat to Germany, at least not by itself, on its own. So, you just turn all neighbors of Germany into little Switzerlands, and all is fine.

    Or take for example the British doctrine of not letting any fleet become a threat. They two times, in 1801, and again in 1807, pre-emptively assaulted and destroyed the Danish fleet in its Danish home bases, thereby violating Danish territory, under blatant 'breach of international law'. Yet after both times, Denmark did not become a 'satellite state' of Britain; just its fleet was crippled, and thus its military potential disabled.

    So, just do the same with any emerging army, fleet, or air force around you. And everything is fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Coupled with the next sentences though, it already shows in which direction this is heading:
    See to it, that the strength of our people doesn’t look for its foundation in colonies but in the soil of the homeland in Europe. Don’t think of the Reich as secure, unless it can provide every son of our people for centuries to come with a parcel of soil of his own.
    Juthunge, we still do not have achieved this. A few days ago I read in the newspaper that Germany is that country among the developed ones with the highest percentage of people without property appartments. There is so much fallow land in Germany, and nobody wants to cultivate it, not even the turks.

    I think in earnest we should carry out a land reform, first and foremost.
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Since Germany was already densely settled and overpopulated, this can only mean land in the east.
    This is nonsense. The population of the Großdeutsches Reich was 80 million. The population of the FRG, whose territory is half in size, has a population of 84 million.

    Yet if you land by plane at Frankfurt Airport, you can see from above wide stretches of land, very next to Frankfurt, which are empty spaces, unpopulated.

    The territory of Iceland is bigger than that of South Korea. Yet in Iceland live 350 thousand people, whereas in South Korea live 50 million.

    The Germanics are simply land wasters. I said in another thread: we simply do not live in the Ice Age anymore. We have machines, we have ships with engines, we have everything we need.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 10th, 2019 @ 08:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norse
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Gender
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Norse/German
    Posts
    70
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    I extracted what was relevant. The rest wasn't.
    Now you're reduced to stubborn denial. You obviously don't want to make any progress towards thruth.

    Logical fallacy: begging the question.
    You're resorting to these ultrashort assertions without anything to back them up because you've run out of arguments, I suppose. Arbitrary assertions, arbitrary denial.

    The source is secondary, so one should read the original source before drawing any conclusions about the Abel plan as well. If that's what your referring to?
    If you continued reading you would have read that 'Ausrottung' is understood is further specified as 'Aufspaltung'. I think there is some ambiguity in this term, but perhaps a native German speaker can say more about this. Anyway, your perception doesn't count as evidence either.
    I read the text that was published by the occupation regime in postwar Germany and that you linked to. What they DIDN'T publish is irrelevant. Ausrottung does NOT mean Aufspaltung. You think nothing people write means anything, it's just perceptions? ;-|

    You asked 'Why are those documents almost certainly fake?' and this is your answer? This is no evidence, this is a call to find evidence. Please do and we can finally have a discussion.
    You're really refusing to admit ANYTHING. I appealed to the fact that numerous such docs already have been refuted and that similar docs therefore a priori must be judged unlikely to be authentic. This is the THIRD part of my answer.

    In the second chapter of Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the wrong interpretations of 'Germanization of the East' (he uses this phrase in regard to the discussion about Poland) to counter it with the idea that 'only soil can be Germanized'.
    He quotes "Germanisation des Ostens" as a demand from his political adversaries. So you now admit that this wasn't an NS concept or agenda? Hitler counters (vol 2 ch 2):

    Was in der Geschichte nutzbringend germanisiert wurde, war der Boden, den unsere Vorfahren mit dem Schwert erwarben und mit deutschen Bauern besiedelten. Soweit sie dabei unserem Volkskörper fremdes Blut zuführten, wirkten sie mit an jener unseligen Zersplitterung unseres inneren Wesens, die sich in dem - leider vielfach sogar noch gepriesenen - deutschen Überindividualismus auswirkt.

    In other words the same demand for more soil for german farmers to cultivate. Any other interpretation of "Germanisation" he rejects for racial reasons.

    How about this part in the chapter about ostpolitik:

    "Damit ziehen wir Nationalsozialisten bewusst einen Strich unter die aussenpolitische Richtung unserer Vorkriegszeit. Wir setzen dort an, wo man vor sechs Jahrhunderten endete. Wir stoppen den ewigen Germanenzug nach dem Süden und Westen Europas und weisen den Blick nach dem Land im Osten. Wir schliessen endlich ab die Kolonial- und Handelspolitik der Vorkriegszeit und gehen über zur Bodenpolitik der Zukunft".
    This once again confirms my thesis. Don't you understand german?

    Clearly you haven't understood what is written here. Juthunge has already explained this.
    I understand it perfectly, but you seem not to. See my reply to Juthunge.

    This is my last reply to you in this thread, since your postings are devoid of substance.
    Last edited by Juthunge; Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Rule 3. Ad hominems. Please stay civil.

  9. #29
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 09:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    551
    Thanked in
    237 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset View Post
    In other words the same demand for more soil for german farmers to cultivate. Any other interpretation of "Germanisation" he rejects for racial reasons.
    Is it possible, that we’re all talking past each other here since quite a while and simply have different understandings of “Germanisation”?
    I get the impression, that your understanding of Germanisation concerns chiefly trying to turn the natives into Germans and that you suppose, that this wasn’t wanted by NS. That is certainly true, at least for the overwhelming part of the native population. I agree with that.

    I and probably also Bernhard, although I can’t speak for him, understand the term Germanisation more broadly however and it already encompasses the meaning of merely Germanising the soil. But for the latter purpose, the native inhabitants living there, somehow had to make room for Germans.
    Which is pretty much stated in the MK passages you and Bernhard quoted. The land was to be conquered, the natives somehow, in whichever way, removed, and the land then settled by German(ic)s.

    Quote Originally Posted by solkorset View Post
    It means exactly what it says: No military might at Germany's border which can threaten Germany's national security.
    How is this to be attained, in your opinion, without the “wiping out of other nations”, at least in the sense of making them politically irrelevant, as you doubt that?

    I already pointed out that Germany needed land in the east to cultivate. Read my posts before you answer them.
    So what exactly, are you doubting, then? That land in the east wasn’t empty. What do you think was planned for the people living there?
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  10. #30
    Mein Glaube ist die Liebe zu meinem Volk. Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    2 Hours Ago @ 09:19 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,597
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    364
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    551
    Thanked in
    237 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Spjabork View Post
    No, not necessarily. For example, Switzerland is no 'satellite state' of Germany, yet it is also no threat to Germany, at least not by itself, on its own. So, you just turn all neighbors of Germany into little Switzerlands, and all is fine.

    Or take for example the British doctrine of not letting any fleet become a threat. They two times, in 1801, and again in 1807, pre-emptively assaulted and destroyed the Danish fleet in its Danish home bases, thereby violating Danish territory, under blatant 'breach of international law'. Yet after both times, Denmark did not become a 'satellite state' of Britain; just its fleet was crippled, and thus its military potential disabled.

    So, just do the same with any emerging army, fleet, or air force around you. And everything is fine.
    Yes but because Switzerland is small both in population, area and military capacity, it already wouldn’t be in the scope of the quote I mentioned.
    But if you take, for example, Poland with a vastly larger population, area and military capacity and cut it down into small states the size of Switzerland and refuse them the right to unite. Well, then you've effectively wiped them out as a nation of their own and the individual states pretty much become satellites.

    As for the other example, Hitler speaks clearly of “shattering” states though, not “merely” destroying their military force.
    But even so, little of the Danish fleet was destroyed in the first attack and the second attack, in which it was in fact destroyed, let to Denmark having to let Britain pass through the Kattegat at their own discretion. Perhaps they would've also become a satellite state of Britain, if they hadn't allied themselves with France and had become their satellite state, instead.

    Juthunge, we still do not have achieved this. A few days ago I read in the newspaper that Germany is that country among the developed ones with the highest percentage of people without property appartments. There is so much fallow land in Germany, and nobody wants to cultivate it, not even the turks.

    I think in earnest we should carry out a land reform, first and foremost.

    This is nonsense. The population of the Großdeutsches Reich was 80 million. The population of the FRG, whose territory is half in size, has a population of 84 million.

    Yet if you land by plane at Frankfurt Airport, you can see from above wide stretches of land, very next to Frankfurt, which are empty spaces, unpopulated.

    The territory of Iceland is bigger than that of South Korea. Yet in Iceland live 350 thousand people, whereas in South Korea live 50 million.

    The Germanics are simply land wasters. I said in another thread: we simply do not live in the Ice Age anymore. We have machines, we have ships with engines, we have everything we need.
    Obviously there are patches of apparent and real uncultivated land in all of Germany and other countries. In Iceland, for example, you could build a lot of houses but you couldn’t sustain any more people on the rocky, volcanic soil.
    You’d have to ship in all goods from somewhere else. Which is already the case, for the small population currently residing there, for most goods, anyway. The fact, that South Korea is undoubtedly even more overpopulated, doesn’t change that fact.

    The mere option, if it’s possible to build a house on it, is not the way overpopulation is measured, anyway:
    „Human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group.
    Overpopulation can further be viewed, in a long term perspective, as existing when a population cannot be maintained given the rapid depletion of non-renewable resources or given the degradation of the capacity of the environment to give support to the population.“

    So, first of all, not all land is usable for agriculture in the first place and we’re talking about different circumstances, again.

    With the technical possibilities today, we can produce about 3-5 times the amount of food grown on a given patch of land. In the 30s, most work was still done by hand and the fertiliser used, was much inferior.
    But even with all our much better usage of the land, we can’t reach autarky in food.

    Of course you could argue, that we could still cut down all remaining forests and expropriate all unused land. But even that likely wouldn’t suffice and in any case wouldn’t be a healthy state for a country due to various environmental problems.

    Ironically we likely could reach autarky for our current population, if we had kept the borders of 1938 or especially pre-war 1939 and coupled it with our current technological possibilities.
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Is National Socialism a Germans' Only Ideology?
    By Siebenbürgerin in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 274
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 24th, 2012, 11:27 AM
  2. The New National Socialist Party
    By Caledonian in forum Parties, Organizations, & Activism
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 7th, 2011, 01:24 AM
  3. National Socialist Toys!
    By frippardthree in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 24th, 2010, 08:08 AM
  4. National AND Socialist?
    By ogenoct in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: Friday, August 5th, 2005, 06:51 AM
  5. While A National Socialist Travels...
    By Aristotle in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Monday, October 4th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •