On Genetic Slavicness [former "A. Hitler about Russia" Thread]

[Chevalier]

Russia.
Enormous territory and 145 million population, you know what race.
European Union - 450 million.
Many years ago Stalin was going to attack Germany, therefore Hitler attacked first.
That time has passed. But his book is still actual.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html

[FadeTheButcher]

Hitler had some really nasty things to say about the Russians in the Table Talk. For instance, he says that compared to Russia, Poland is a cultured nation. He also praises Charlemagne for slaughtering the Saxons, as well as the Romans.

[Ross]

Stalin wasn't going to attack Germany. He simply couldn't, and top Nazi realized it (for example, see Goebbels on the Winter War).

With the other hand, Hitler wanted not only to attack Russia, but to enslave and/or exterminate Slavs.

[FadeTheButcher]

"The Russia that Bismarck knew was not a typical Slavic state, at least in terms of political leadership. Slavic peoples themselves generally lack state-forming powers. Particularly in Russia, state formation was always managed by foreign elements. Since the time of Peter the Great, there were above all many Germans (Baltics!) who formed the framework and the brain of the Russian state. Over the course of centuries, countless thousands of these Germans were Russified, but only in the same sense that our national bourgeoisie wishes to Germanize or Teutonize Poles and Czechs. Just as in this case the fresh-baked "German" is in reality only a German-speaking Pole or Czech, these artificial Russians, according to their blood and thus their capabilities, remained Germans -- or better, Teutons. Russians owed its existence as a state, as well as the little cultural value present, to this Teutonic upper class. Without this essentially German upper class and intelligentsia, a Greater Russia would not have emerged, nor could it have preserved itself. Now as long as Russia was a state with autocratic forms of government, this upper class (which in reality was not at all Russian) also decisively influenced the political life of this huge empire. And Bismarck, at least to a certain degree, still knew this Russia. The master of German statecraft undertook political dealings with this Russia. But already during his lifetime, the reliability [especially with which one from Russia] and stability of Russian policy, both internally and externally, had become precariously shaky and somewhat unpredictable. This was due to the gradual pushing back of the Germanic upper class. This process of the conversion of the Russian intelligentsia was partly a consequence of the great losses suffered by the Russian people as a result of countless wars, which -- as already mentioned in this book -- decimate primarily the racially more valuable forces. In reality, the officer corps in particular was for the most part of non-Slavic descent, but in any case not of Russian blood. In addition, there was the more limited reproduction rate of the upper levels of the intelligentsia itself, and finally the training upward of a true ethnic Russian people, artificially acheived through education. The limited state-maintaining value of the new Russian intelligentsia itself was genetically based and showed itself perhaps most clearly in the nihilism of the Russian system of higher education. At the most fundamental level, however, this nihilism was nothing but the genetically based opposition of the real Russian people agaisnt the racially foreign upper class.

As the Germanic state-forming upper class in Russia was replaced by a a racially pure Russian bourgeois class, the Russian notion of the state was confronted with the pan-Slavic idea. From the very hour of its birth, it was completely [Russian] Slavic and anti-German.

But the anti-German disposition of the new developing Russian people, especially among the so-called intelligentsia, was not simply a pure reflex action against the previous autocratic, foreign upper class in Russia; rather, at the deepest level it was a protest of the Slavic character against the German. There are two ethnic souls that have very little in common, and it must even first be established whether or not the little that they do share does not arise from the chaos of individual racial elements from which the Russian as well as the German people seem to be composed. So that which is common to us Germans and the Russians is not more a reflection of the German character than the Russian, and can only be attributed to the mixing of our blood, which has brought eastern, Slavic elements to Germany just as it has brought Nordic-German elements to Russia.

However, if one were to examine the nature of the two souls by taking a pure Nordic German -- let us say, from Westphalia -- and contrasting him with a pure Slavic Russian, an infinite chasm would open between these representatives of the two peoples. Actually, the Slavic-Russian people has always felt this as well, and thus has always had an instinctive aversion to Germans. The rigorous thoroughness as well as the cold logic and matter-of-fact thinking are inwardly unappealing to the true Russian, and to some degree also incomprehensible. Our sense of order will nto only find no reciprocal affinity, but will instead always generate antipathy. What we see as a matter of course is thus a torment for the Russian, as it represents a limitation of his natural, different mental and motivational life. Therefore, Slavic Russia will also always feel itself drawn more and more toward France. And even to an increasing degree, as the Frankish-Nordic elements are pushed back also in France. The easy, superficial, more or less effeminite French life can captivate the Slavs more, as it is more closely related to them than is the harshness of our German struggle for survival. It is thus also no coincidence that politically pan-Slavic Russia gushed over France, just as the Russian intelligentsia of Slavic blood found in Paris the Mecca of its own needs for civilization.

The ascension process of the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie also [meant] accounted for the inner alienation of this new Russia from Germany, which could no longer build upon a racially related Russian upper class.

Indeed, the anti-German attitude of the representatives of the ethnic pan-Slavic idea was laready so strong by the turn of the century, and its influence on Russian policy so developed, that even Germany's more than decent stance toward Russia with regard to the Russo-Japanese War could not stop further estrangement of the two states. The Great War came, which pan-Slavic agitation ahd very much helped to ignite. The true national Russia insofar as it was represented by the previous upper class, had hardly any say about this.

The Great War itself then brought [the last] a further bleeding of Russia's Nordic-German elements, and the last remnants were finally eradicated by the revolution and Bolshevism. It is not as if the Slavic racial instinct alone deliberately alone carried out the extermination battle against the previous non-Russian upper class. No, in the meantime it had received its new leadership in Jewry. With the help of the Slavic racial instinct, the Jews -- pushing toward the upper class and therefore upper leadership -- exterminated the previous foreign upper class. Because if, with the Bolshevik Revolution, Jews took over leadership in all areas of Russian life, then this is a self-evident process, because in and of itself the Slavic people completely lacks any organizational capability and thus also any state-forming and state-maintaining power. If one were to pull out of the Slavic people all of the elements that are not purely Slavic, then the state would also immediantly break up. Fundamentally, every state formation can indeed initiatally have its deepest cause in the coming together of peoples of higher and lower rank, whereby the carriers of the higher-quality blood -- out of reasons of self-preservation -- develop a certain spirit of community that first allows them the possibility of organizing and controlling their inferiors. Only the overcoming of common tasks [for] compels organizational forms. But the difference between state-forming and non-state-forming elements lies in the fact that it is possible for the former to create an organization to preserve their kind over other beings, whereas those who are incapable of state formation are themselves incapable of finding that organizational form that would ensure their existence above others.

Thus, current Russia -- or, better, the current Slavic people of Russian nationality -- obtained the Jew as masters, who first eliminated the previous upper class and now had to prove its own state-forming power. But due to the overall tendency of Judaism, which is ultimately only destructive, this will only act as the historical "ferment of decomposition" here as well. It called for help from spirits that it will no longer be able to get rid of, and the fight of the inwardly antinational pan-Slavic idea against the Bolshevik Jewish notion of the state will end with the destruction of Jewry. But what will then remain will be a Russia with limited national power and a deep-rooted anti-German attitude. Because this state will not longer possess a state-maintaining upper class that is anchored in any way, it will become a source of perpetual agitation and uncertainty. A gigantic land mas wil lthus be handed over to a most changeable fate, and instead of a stabilization of the relations between nations on the earth, a period of troubled changes will begin.

The first phase of these developments will be that the most varied nations of the world will attempt to establish relations with this vast state complex in order to bring about a strengthening of their own positions and intentions in this way. But such an attempt will also always be linked with the effort to exercise a spiritual and organizational influence on Russia.

Germany cannot hope to come into consideration in any way in this development. The entire mentality of current and future Russia is opposed to it. For Germany, a future alliance with Russia has no sense, neither from the standpoint of sober expediency nor form that of a human connection. On the contrary -- it is fortunate for the future that this development took place in this way, because it broke a spell that would have prevented us from seeking the goal of German foreign policy in the one and only place possible: space in the East."

Adolf Hitler as translated by Krista Smith, Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (New York: Enigma Books, 2003), pp.148-154

[Ross]

A. Hitler hardly can be a source of Russian history.

If I recall properly, nobles of German heritage made up no more than 10% of nobility... and of course the Great Russia existed long before any Germans came in significant numbers. French (cultural) influence was much greater, of course.

Another thing to consider: the core of Germany - Prussia (German Prussia, not Polish and Russian), exists on former Slavic lands, and it's population is largely Slavic genetically. That's why Prussia was dominating in the Reich, I wonder?

[FadeTheButcher]

::A. Hitler hardly can be a source of Russian history.

This thread is about Hitler and his perspective on the Russians and their history. So his views are entirely relevant to this debate.

::That's why Prussia was dominating in the Reich, I wonder?

I would not call East Prussia the core of Germany, as the Germans expanded into these areas during the High Middle Ages.

:: Another thing to consider: the core of Germany - Prussia (German Prussia, not Polish and Russian), exists on former Slavic lands, and it's population is largely Slavic genetically.

Explain to me what makes a population genetically Slavic. This should be interesting.

:: If I recall properly, nobles of German heritage made up no more than 10% of nobility...

For the record, what's your source? Its unfortunate we lost the old Phora. We had a thread full of documentation about this very issue there.

:: and of course the Great Russia existed long before any Germans came in significant numbers.

Its my understanding (from reading the the Cambridge History of Medieval Europe) that the Rus were Scandinavian slave traders who settled amongst the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages.

:: French (cultural) influence was much greater, of course.

This is probably true. French was for centuries the language of European diplomacy.

[Ross]

This thread is about Hitler and his perspective on the Russians and their history. So his views are entirely relevant to this debate.

As well as my comment.

I would not call East Prussia the core of Germany, as the Germans expanded into these areas during the High Middle Ages.

Slavs were living all over Northern Germany. Hamburg was known as a Slavic city. Slavs almost reached Frisia.

I was talking about "West Prussia", of course.

Explain to me what makes a population genetically Slavic. This should be interesting.

Slavic specific genetical markers, of course. I'm talking about not only Y-chromosomes and mtDNA, but rare mutations and autosomal DNA as well.

For the record, what's your source? Its unfortunate we lost the old Phora. We had a thread full of documentation about this very issue there.

I'll look for it, if you're interested.

Its my understanding (from reading the the Cambridge History of Medieval Europe) that the Rus were Scandinavian slave traders who settled amongst the Slavs in the Early Middle Ages.

This theory which was invented by German scholars of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 18th century is viewed as an historical anecdote in modern historical science. There are more than a dozen solid theories explaining origins of the word "RUS", but the Scandinavian version is totally rejected, as it has no grounds at all.

Anf of course the Russian state(s) existed long before Rjurik times.

[FadeTheButcher]

:: Slavs were living all over Northern Germany.

East of the Elbe.

:: Hamburg was known as a Slavic city. Slavs almost reached Frisia.

Now you are pushing it. Cite your sources.

:: I was talking about "West Prussia", of course.

I really don't see what is 'Slavic' about West Prussia, to be honest.

:: Slavic specific genetical markers, of course. I'm talking about not only Y-chromosomes and mtDNA, but rare mutations and autosomal DNA as well.

Alright. What genetic markers are there that distinguish Slavs from non-Slavs? Be specific. Furthermore, I still don't buy into the claim that there is any genetic essence to 'Slavness' (although Hitler and yourself seem to be of that point of view). IMO you are simply taking arbitrary genetic markers and constructing essentialist categories out of them.

:: I'll look for it, if you're interested.

I will attempt to recover some of the old material.

:: This theory which was invented by German scholars of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the 18th century is viewed as an historical anecdote in modern historical science. There are more than a dozen solid theories explaining origins of the word "RUS", but the Scandinavian version is totally rejected, as it has no grounds at all.

I haven't seen any evidence that this theory has been 'totally rejected'. If that is the case, then by all means, cite your sources. Barbara H. Rosenwein's A Short History of the Middle Ages (2004) makes reference to it, as does the Cambridge History of Medieval Europe.

:: Anf of course the Russian state(s) existed long before Rjurik times.

LOL you are pushing it again, Ross. There was no 'Russian state' in Early Medieval Europe.

[Ross]

East of the Elbe.

East of the Rhein.

Now you are pushing it. Cite your sources.

L. Niederle. Slavic antiquities.

Chapter XI. Movement of Slavs to Elba, Saale and Western Germany.

Chapter X. Movement of Slavs into Western Germany.

I really don't see what is 'Slavic' about West Prussia, to be honest.

Slavic substratum.

Btw, if you accept that Slavs were living east to the Elbe, how can't you see what's Slavic about West-Prussia? Or rather Brandenburg = German "Prussia"?

Alright. What genetic markers are there that distinguish Slavs from non-Slavs? Be specific.

For example:

Our results indicate that this mutation is particularly common in
Czech, Russian, Belorussian, Austrian, German, Polish, Ukrainian,
Slovenian, and Slovak patients. It is the second most common CF
mutation to be identified in Central and Eastern European CF
patients. By contrast, it was only sporadically detected in Western
Europe and was absent in Bulgarian, Croatian, Romanian and Serbian CF
patients. It was not found in diverse other populations of non-Slavic
origin. The geographic distribution of the mutation is similar to the
spread of Slavic populations during the first millenium.


Albania 0/15 0 Rome
Austria 12/470 2.6 Graz
Belarus 3/90 3.3 Minsk/Prague
Belgium 0/230 0 Leuven
Bulgaria 0/392 0 Sofia
Canada (I) 3/1268 0.2 Toronto
Canada (II) 1/400 0.3 Halifax
Canada (III) 2/676 0.3 Vancouver
Croatia 0/276 0 Zagreb
Czechia 40/628 6.4 Prague
Estonia 0/60 0 Tartu
France (I) 1/2800 a ‹0.1 Brest
France (II) 1/980 a 0.1 Montpellier
France (III) 1/1500 a ‹0.1 Lyon
Germany (I) 21/1400 1.5 Hanover
Germany (II) 6/242 2.5 Rostock
Germany (III) 0/212 0 Leipzig
Germany (IV) 5/290 1.7 Freiburg
Germany (V) 3/200 1.5 Münster
Germany (VI) 1/124 0.9 Magdeburg
Germany (VII) 1/200 0.5 Erlangen
Greece 2/718 0.3 Athens
Italy 0/225 0 Verona
Latvia 1/36 2.8 Riga
Lithuania 2/94 a 2.1 Vilnius
Macedonia 2/167 1.2 Skopje
Poland (I) 14/764 1.8 Poznan
Poland (II) 6/586 1.0 Warsaw
Romania 0/50 0 Manchester
Russia (I) 38/668 5.8 Moscow
Russia (II) 12/294 4.1 St. Petersburg
Slovakia 3/282 1.1 Bratislava
Slovenia 2/132 1.5 Ljubljana
Spain 2/1280 0.2 Barcelona
Sweden 0/120 0 Goteborg
Turkey (I) 1/174 0.6 Istanbul
Turkey (II) 2/30 n.s. Hanover
Ukraine 5/419 1.2 Kiev
UK 2/1720 a 0.1 Manchester
USA 2/1372 0.2 Chapel Hill
Uruguay 0/104 0 Montevideo
Yugoslavia 0/398 0 Belgrade

http://www.mh-hannover.de...kunde/kfg/cf/dork2000.pdf

Of course, there are other Slavic specific markers, as well as correlated with the spread of Slavs markers, and, of course, autosomal DNA...

I haven't seen any evidence that this theory has been 'totally rejected'. If that is the case, then by all means, cite your sources. Barbara H. Rosenwein's A Short History of the Middle Ages (2004) makes reference to it, as does the Cambridge History of Medieval Europe.

I'll post the info in the new thread in the History forum.

LOL you are pushing it again, Ross. There was no 'Russian state' in Early Medieval Europe.

Another new thread.

[FadeTheButcher]

:: Slavic substratum.

Lets cite your own source. For the gallery. . .

"The historic migration of the Eastern Slavs did not go beyond the River Elbe, but in the South, they spread over the entire Balkans, with the exception of Albania, and briefly invaded the northern parts of Greece (Fig. 3)."

:: East of the Rhein.

See above.

:: Btw, if you accept that Slavs were living east to the Elbe, how can't you see what's Slavic about West-Prussia? Or rather Brandenburg = German "Prussia"?

Because it is a non sequitur to infer that present day Germans are somehow 'Slavs' because 'Slavs' lived there a thousand or so years ago. That's like saying Americans are Indians because Indians once lived in Virginia.

:: For example

Yes. I checked your source. This is what I found:

"F508 homozygotes indicate that this deletion represents a severe mutation associated with pancreatic insufficiency and early age at diagnosis. Current data show that the mutation is particularly common in Czech (6.4% of all CF chromosomes), Russian (5.2%), Belorussian (3.3%), Austrian (2.6%), German (1.5%), Polish (1.5%), Slovenian (1.5%), Ukrainian (1.2%), and Slovak patients (1.2%)."

Well. So much for the illusive 'Slavic' gene, as this mutation is absent amongst the vast majority of people you would describe as 'Slavs'.

:: Of course, there are other Slavic specific markers, as well as correlated with the spread of Slavs markers, and, of course, autosomal DNA...

So I take it you would agree then that only 5.2% of Russians can be considered 'Slavs'. This also goes for 1.5% of Poles.

:: I'll post the info in the new thread in the History forum.

I will pick up some more sources from the library this afternoon.

:: L. Niederle. Slavic antiquities.

Niederle's argument has been thoroughly discredited within contemporary historiography:

"The Slavs did not migrate from the Pripet marshes because of hostile environmental conditions. Nor did they develop forms of social organization enabling them to cope with such conditions and presumably based on cooperation and social equality (zadruga). Nierderle's thesis does not stand against the existing evidence and has at its basis an outdated concept of migration. That the migrationist model should be abandoned is also suggested by the archaeological evidence examined in Chapter 6. No class of evidence matches current models for the archaeological study of (pre)historic migration. More important, assembleges of the Lower Danube area, were, according to the migrationist school, the Slavs migrated from the Pripet marshes, long antedate the earliest evidence available from assemblages in the alleged Urheimat. Short-distance population movements, but not migration, must have accompanied the implementation of a form of "itinerant agriculture," which, though not based on the slash-and-burn method, may have encouraged settlement mobility."

Florin Curta, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500-700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p.337