Nazi policy in occupied east

Discussions
User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:54 pm

I am reading Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East by Stephen G. Fritz. This book goes to great lengths to document and describe the basically genocidal nature of the German war in Russia. Of particular interest was Hitler's own description (taken from a meeting on July 16th 1941) of what he sought to acquire:
The Crimea, the Baltic states, and the oil area around Baku would be annexed, and the rest would be treated as Colonial Land......he dismissed the Slavs as "a slave race crying out for a master." The German goals would be simple "First: Rule, Second: Administer,
Third: exploit." To accomplish these goals, "all necessary measures, shootings, resettlements, etc. would be used."................"This vast area must be pacified as quickly as possible, this will best be done by shooting anyone who looks sideways at us"
Hitler had discussed this matter earlier in July:
He related his plans to eradicate Leningrad and Moscow, his contempt for the Slavic peoples, who would simply be put to hard work under German control, and his admiration for Stalin’s brutality.......Through ruthless economic exploitation and harsh rule, the vast expanse of European Russia would be the key to a large, integrated economica rea that would provide prosperity and economic security for the Greater German Reich.
Fritz describes an episode in the General Government, little known to popular history, that was essentially a trial run for German plans in Russia. Odilo Globocnik held the starring role.
In order to make room for German colonists, in November 1942 Globocnik’s men began uprooting over 100,000 people from some three hundred villages in the Zamosc region who were then sent for “selection” to camps at Maidanek and Auschwitz. There, they were racially screened: some of the adults and children were to be Germanized and “won back the German nation”; the remaining children and the elderly were sent to “retirement villages,” where they would starve to death; other adults were to replace Jewish forced laborers, who would then be killed; the rest would be sent to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. 30 From mid-December on, transports with the first Zamosc deportees began arriving at Auschwitz, while other trains arrived in Berlin with Poles bound for work in the armaments industry. There, they were exchanged with the so-called arms factory Jews, who had stayed alive working in the armaments industry but were now superfluous. Trains from Berlin would then carry the Jews to Auschwitz; after unloading their “cargo,” they would then transport Volksdeutsche, primarily from Southeastern Europe, to the Zamosc region. Here, the incoming German colonists would be met by SS resettlement agents, relocated in the surrounding area, and given land that had been seized from the Poles. From Zamosc, the trains would return to Auschwitz with those Poles deemed “undesirable.” This “population exchange” was, thus, part of a pilot demographic project in which highly productive German agricultural settlements would be created in the east, with the Poles displaced either Germanized, put in forced labor, or killed and the Jews murdered immediately.
The project was a disaster: thousands of targeted Polish farmers fled to join the AK, while Volksdeutsche colonists were attacked and killed by the locals. Hans Frank was apoplectic and the project was ultimately temporarily put aside.

I have posted this because it is often alleged, by Michael Mills at AHF more than anyone really, that the German occupation policy in Russia was actually quite benign. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler's own words speak for themselves. I have described the German pilot project in Zamosc so as to present an indication of what was intended to occur in Russia and Poland on a grand scale.

It is true that Hitler did compare German colonization of Russia with British colonial activity in India. That is the basis of Mills' argument. However, Hitler only used the example of India to describe the comparable economic impact the occupation would have on Germany. However, Hitler's description of the procedures of German colonial rule have much more in common with Belgian rule in the Congo than British rule in India. These passages make a mockery of any claims otherwise.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:09 pm

This is my comment so I can follow along.
Carry on.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:10 pm

Oh, and thank you for giving us something else to talk about.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:20 pm

More focused on Jewish and occupation policy but a good complement to Fritz is Alex Kay's book, Exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder: Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940-1941, with really good stuff on Jewish policy and planning for the war of annihilation; also: Kay, Rutherford & Stahel, eds., Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front, 1941: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization on the war of annihilation and genocide.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:18 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:More focused on Jewish and occupation policy but a good complement to Fritz is Alex Kay's book, exploitation, Resettlement, Mass Murder: Political and Economic Planning for German Occupation Policy in the Soviet Union, 1940-1941, with really good stuff on Jewish policy and planning for the war of annihilation; also: Kay, Rutherford & Stahel, eds., Nazi Policy on the Eastern Front, 1941: Total War, Genocide, and Radicalization on the war of annihilation and genocide.
Fritz cited Kay on at least a few occasions IIRC. I will check it out.

This thread is as much a rebuke to whitewashers as it is a discussion on economic policy.

One major contention was that the Hunger Plan was instituted for logistical reasons alone - on the contrary, Goering explicitly stated on one occasion that the "reduction" of "certain peoples" was a desirable outcome.

I must make clear that the total death toll of the Hunger Plan, GP Ost, as well as an apparent trial bubble on creating an uninhabited zone east of Moscow would have together landed in the high tens of millions. This would have been by far the worst crime in history and would have brought the Nazis past Mao in terms of numerical toll.

Balmoral95
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3232
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Balmoral95 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:39 am

Jeff_36 wrote:I am reading Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East by Stephen G. Fritz. This book goes to great lengths to document and describe the basically genocidal nature of the German war in Russia. Of particular interest was Hitler's own description (taken from a meeting on July 16th 1941) of what he sought to acquire:
The Crimea, the Baltic states, and the oil area around Baku would be annexed, and the rest would be treated as Colonial Land......he dismissed the Slavs as "a slave race crying out for a master." The German goals would be simple "First: Rule, Second: Administer,
Third: exploit." To accomplish these goals, "all necessary measures, shootings, resettlements, etc. would be used."................"This vast area must be pacified as quickly as possible, this will best be done by shooting anyone who looks sideways at us"
Hitler had discussed this matter earlier in July:
He related his plans to eradicate Leningrad and Moscow, his contempt for the Slavic peoples, who would simply be put to hard work under German control, and his admiration for Stalin’s brutality.......Through ruthless economic exploitation and harsh rule, the vast expanse of European Russia would be the key to a large, integrated economica rea that would provide prosperity and economic security for the Greater German Reich.
Fritz describes an episode in the General Government, little known to popular history, that was essentially a trial run for German plans in Russia. Odilo Globocnik held the starring role.
In order to make room for German colonists, in November 1942 Globocnik’s men began uprooting over 100,000 people from some three hundred villages in the Zamosc region who were then sent for “selection” to camps at Maidanek and Auschwitz. There, they were racially screened: some of the adults and children were to be Germanized and “won back the German nation”; the remaining children and the elderly were sent to “retirement villages,” where they would starve to death; other adults were to replace Jewish forced laborers, who would then be killed; the rest would be sent to the gas chambers at Auschwitz. 30 From mid-December on, transports with the first Zamosc deportees began arriving at Auschwitz, while other trains arrived in Berlin with Poles bound for work in the armaments industry. There, they were exchanged with the so-called arms factory Jews, who had stayed alive working in the armaments industry but were now superfluous. Trains from Berlin would then carry the Jews to Auschwitz; after unloading their “cargo,” they would then transport Volksdeutsche, primarily from Southeastern Europe, to the Zamosc region. Here, the incoming German colonists would be met by SS resettlement agents, relocated in the surrounding area, and given land that had been seized from the Poles. From Zamosc, the trains would return to Auschwitz with those Poles deemed “undesirable.” This “population exchange” was, thus, part of a pilot demographic project in which highly productive German agricultural settlements would be created in the east, with the Poles displaced either Germanized, put in forced labor, or killed and the Jews murdered immediately.
The project was a disaster: thousands of targeted Polish farmers fled to join the AK, while Volksdeutsche colonists were attacked and killed by the locals. Hans Frank was apoplectic and the project was ultimately temporarily put aside.

I have posted this because it is often alleged, by Michael Mills at AHF more than anyone really, that the German occupation policy in Russia was actually quite benign. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hitler's own words speak for themselves. I have described the German pilot project in Zamosc so as to present an indication of what was intended to occur in Russia and Poland on a grand scale.

It is true that Hitler did compare German colonization of Russia with British colonial activity in India. That is the basis of Mills' argument. However, Hitler only used the example of India to describe the comparable economic impact the occupation would have on Germany. However, Hitler's description of the procedures of German colonial rule have much more in common with Belgian rule in the Congo than British rule in India. These passages make a mockery of any claims otherwise.
In another world Mills might have been the mirror image of Rumkowski...

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5102
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Morgan de Veldt
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:56 pm

Not sure where this fits. I just received this link today to a piece by Noel Coward, written just after the war, and showing a bit of bitterness:

“It is certainly sad and regrettable that so many innocent people died…Stalin was absolutely adamant on making doubly sure: spare no one…I don’t deny that I supported that view. I was simply not able to study every individual case…It was hard to draw a precise line where to stop.”

Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Skryabin (“Molotov”)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:01 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:I am reading Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East by Stephen G. Fritz. This book goes to great lengths to document and describe the basically genocidal nature of the German war in Russia. Of particular interest was Hitler's own description (taken from a meeting on July 16th 1941) of what he sought to acquire:
The Crimea, the Baltic states, and the oil area around Baku would be annexed, and the rest would be treated as Colonial Land. . .
. . . Fritz describes an episode in the General Government, little known to popular history, that was essentially a trial run for German plans in Russia. Odilo Globocnik held the starring role.
In order to make room for German colonists. . . .
Feferman agrees with Fritz's point about the Crimea and says that the original German plan for the Crimea - abandoned due to the way the war went - included demographic reordering, specifically Germanization through the removal of Russians, Ukrainians, Tatars. The Crimea was to be called Gau Gotenland and the autobahn was to be extended to the region. Ethnic Germans would take the place of the cleansed ethnic groups. Crimea was seen to have geo-strategic value as its location was important to control of Soviet air bases, the Ploiesti oil fields in Romania, the southern Ukraine flank, access to the Caucasus and beyond, and sea communications in the region. Despite the high value of the Crimea, and the German plans for ethnic reshuffling and Germanization, Hitler did not make public German intentions and ultimately abandoned them as fighting in the East lasted longer than anticipated and Hitler tried turning to Turkey for support. (Feferman, pp 47-50)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:12 am

Jeff_36 wrote:. . . One major contention was that the Hunger Plan was instituted for logistical reasons alone - on the contrary, Goering explicitly stated on one occasion that the "reduction" of "certain peoples" was a desirable outcome.

I must make clear that the total death toll of the Hunger Plan, GP Ost, as well as an apparent trial bubble on creating an uninhabited zone east of Moscow would have together landed in the high tens of millions. This would have been by far the worst crime in history and would have brought the Nazis past Mao in terms of numerical toll.
Report of 2 December 1941 from Peter-Heinz Seraphim to General Georg Thomas (Wehrmacht Economic and Armament Dept), USA-290:
The creaming-off of agricultural surpluses from Ukraine as food supplies for the Reich is only conceivable if trade in Ukraine is pushed down to a minimum. Efforts to achieve this will be made by:
1. Eradicating surplus mouths (Jews, and the population of the large Ukrainian cities), which, like Kiev, will receive no quit of supplies. . . .
(quoted in Feferman, p 231)

Manstein, commanding general of German 11th Army, order of 20 November 1941 (p 238):
The food situation in the Fatherland requires that the troops be supplied with food from local resources and, furthermore, that as much stocks as possible be put at the Fatherland's disposal . . . A considerable part of the population of the enemy's towns will have to starve.
How such ideas were translated into action on the ground can be glimpsed in a 27 November 1941 military report (p 239) concerning the situation in Kerch:
. . . the liquidation of he Jews [there] will be accelerated, owing to the dangerous food situation in the town.
In the Crimea, for example, Feferman argues that food supplies were sufficient before the German occupation but under stringent German food policy, including outright denial of food to Jews kept alive to work the fields, a food crisis developed by early 1942. So harsh were the German orders that local residents found with food were to be executed.

An aspect of this could be seen in the camp established for Jews at Dzhankoi, About this camp a military report of 1 January 1942 said (p 241) that
hunger is rampant in the camp, and there is a danger of epidemic, so the cleansing has to be carried out immediately.
Or as the quartermaster of the 11th Army tried having it in postwar testimony, the extermination actions were
carried out solely in the interests of the local population[!], in order to maintain orderly provisions . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:41 pm

In the North Caucasus, OTOH, where the food supply was satisfactory and the region was seen as a surplus area (for feeding the Wehrmacht and Germany), according to Feferman "the Germans never raised the food argument as a pretext for getting rid of the Jews". In many cases, Jews were denied food there, however, such as when they were put to forced labor or in transports or when they were assembled for extermination actions. Of course, as town dwellers, Jews were affected by restrictions on food that were imposed on locals generally. But food was also used as a weapon against the Jews, e.g., in Essentuki there were signs in store windows saying "No bread for Jews." Still, the extermination occurred without the Germans giving "food as the rationale behind their decision to kill the Jews in the region, in contrast to the Crimea." (Feferman, pp 246-251)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:36 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:An interesting RSHA document which Feferman quotes, p 466. The passage quoted by Feferman deals with the Germans’ concerns about the management of the Orthodox churches in the occupied east and how the Germans might use them, "if skillfully handled" so that "the solution of the Church question in the occupied eastern regions . . . could be wonderfully resolved in favor of a religion free from Jewish influence."
Fritz's book gave me the impression that the local population would not be allowed to form congregartions - there was a general consensus that the Russians would be restricted to a very simple education system that would teach them to sign their names, count to a few hundred, obey Germans, and nothing else. It is hard to imagine freedom of religion in that context - particularly from the notoriously anti-Christian Nazis. I know that the Catholic Church in Poland was brutally suppressed, and I can;t see why it would have been nay different for the Russians. Western Ukraine was a different story but they were an exception.
The danger with posting bits from Feferman's book is that he sets strong context which you have to read the whole thing to get. So I apologize for that. I am finding, too, that it is a dangerous business to extrapolate and make assumptions about how the Germans operated without looking at specifics, because the Nazis used flexible tactics, not one-size-fits-all thinking.

On the churches in the USSR, Feferman says that the Nazis hoped to exploit that "public discontent within some circles of the Soviet population over the Soviet persecution of the Orthodox Church." (p 465) The premise that the Nazis had to endorse Christianity to use the church in such a manner is false. Likewise, for example, the Nazis utilized Islam in the occupied east and in the Crimea, to win Tatar support, even reopening several dozen mosques that had been shut down under Soviet rule and revitalizing Islam in the region - without themselves becoming Muslim or wavering in their views on religion. These were utilitarian moves to help make the occupation successful.

In terms of the Orthodox Church, and the passage of the RSHA document I referred to, the Nazis had some success - Feferman finds echoes of Nazi propaganda in some sermons and church publications, for example (Judeo-Bolshevism, etc.). The clergy in the Crimea were, like clergy elsewhere in the occupied East, placed under strict control, and the content of sermons was monitored. But the carrot part of the strategy of exploiting the church was that in the early part of the occupation the Nazis allowed 70 churches on the peninsula to reopen and in the North Caucasus, where Nazi rule was milder, many churches were also reopened. In the North Caucasus Sunday Schools were opened to train priests; religious instruction was mandatory in private schools, which were allowed; Orthodox holidays were observed with time off from work; and German officers even attended services as guests. Here, the Germans didn't interfere as much in the functioning of the churches as in the Crimea except when it came to Judenpolitik (e.g., banning the baptism of Jews; requesting anti-Jewish motifs in sermons). (All this goes back to the situation in the North Caucasus, where the partisans were not so active, large-scale fighting was not ongoing, and the Germans wanted to exploit the local economy - resulting in a softer occupation policy.)

The aim was to win over the local population or at least confuse them and blunt their opposition to German occupation by playing on the bad experiences they'd endured during the Soviet era (Feferman doesn't believe the tactic was very successful in the Crimea, as other, negative aspects of occupation policy outweighed the religious permissions granted; the tactic was probably more successful in the North Caucasus where the population was more antagonistic to the Soviets and the occupation regime was milder).
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:33 am

I think that the fact that the North Caucasus were under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Army, under Von Paulus - who was known to be a non-ideological individual - played a major role. I can tell you that the occupation was far from mild elsewhere in Russia. in eastern Ukraine for example, Goering suggested deliberate decimation of the local population. The Reichskommissar of Ukraine closed all schools and was especially hard on ethnic Poles. This individual, Erich Koch, was tapped to oversee the planned occupation of Moscow, but turned it down due to the "unpleasant" nature of the task. This should tell you all you need to know about what they intended.

Here is Goring, quoted by Fritz, on the food question:
God knows, you are not sent out there [to the east] to work for the welfare of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost out of them so that the German people can live. . . . It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your people will starve. Let them do so, as long as no German faints from hunger. . . . We conquered such enormous territories through the valor of our troops, and yet our people have almost been forced down to the miserable rations of the First World War. . . . I am interested only in those people in the occupied regions who work in armaments and food production.
Von Paulus represents the moderating trend - Hitler emphatically agreed more with Koch and Himmler than with him.

I am not suggesting that your source says otherwise - I am only adding to the record assembled here.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by nickterry » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:12 am

Jeff_36 wrote:I think that the fact that the North Caucasus were under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Army, under Von Paulus - who was known to be a non-ideological individual - played a major role. I can tell you that the occupation was far from mild elsewhere in Russia. in eastern Ukraine for example, Goering suggested deliberate decimation of the local population. The Reichskommissar of Ukraine closed all schools and was especially hard on ethnic Poles. This individual, Erich Koch, was tapped to oversee the planned occupation of Moscow, but turned it down due to the "unpleasant" nature of the task. This should tell you all you need to know about what they intended.

Here is Goring, quoted by Fritz, on the food question:
God knows, you are not sent out there [to the east] to work for the welfare of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost out of them so that the German people can live. . . . It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your people will starve. Let them do so, as long as no German faints from hunger. . . . We conquered such enormous territories through the valor of our troops, and yet our people have almost been forced down to the miserable rations of the First World War. . . . I am interested only in those people in the occupied regions who work in armaments and food production.
Von Paulus represents the moderating trend - Hitler emphatically agreed more with Koch and Himmler than with him.

I am not suggesting that your source says otherwise - I am only adding to the record assembled here.
The North Caucasus was under the control of Army Group A, which consisted of 17th Army and 1st Panzer Army. 6th Army was rather famously stuck at Stalingrad in what would not be considered the North Caucasus.

German-readers (and those willing to use google translate) can find out more in the following article online at the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte website:
Zeidler, Manfred, ‘Das ‘kaukasische Experiment’. Gab es eine Weisung Hitlers zur deutschen Besatzungspolitik im Kaukasus?’, VfZ 3/2005, pp.475-500
http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2 ... eidler.pdf

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:41 am

Jeff_36 wrote:I think that the fact that the North Caucasus were under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Army, under Von Paulus - who was known to be a non-ideological individual - played a major role. I can tell you that the occupation was far from mild elsewhere in Russia. in eastern Ukraine for example, Goering suggested deliberate decimation of the local population. The Reichskommissar of Ukraine closed all schools and was especially hard on ethnic Poles. This individual, Erich Koch, was tapped to oversee the planned occupation of Moscow, but turned it down due to the "unpleasant" nature of the task. This should tell you all you need to know about what they intended.

Here is Goring, quoted by Fritz, on the food question:
God knows, you are not sent out there [to the east] to work for the welfare of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost out of them so that the German people can live. . . . It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your people will starve. Let them do so, as long as no German faints from hunger. . . . We conquered such enormous territories through the valor of our troops, and yet our people have almost been forced down to the miserable rations of the First World War. . . . I am interested only in those people in the occupied regions who work in armaments and food production.
Von Paulus represents the moderating trend - Hitler emphatically agreed more with Koch and Himmler than with him.

I am not suggesting that your source says otherwise - I am only adding to the record assembled here.
As Nick Terry says . . . I will add that the commander in charge of the offensive in the North Caucasus was, first, List, then von Kleist, for whom Feferman says that it is "plausible" that his attitude toward the region's Jews was "somewhat restrained." The North Caucasus was not under Reichskommassariat Ukraine. Koch isn't relevant to the North Caucasus. In fact, Hitler's original plan was to exploit the region economically, then turn it over to Turkey - thus the mild occupation approach in comparison to Ukraine or the Crimean peninsula, for example. German rule of the North Caucasus was by the Wehrmacht, effected through a network of Ords- and Feldkommandaturen, not the civil administration. To the extent that the Ostministerium had formal jurisdiction, it was weak - and the authority in the region was the Wehrmacht - with an important role played by EG-D; Reichskommissariat Kaukasien was a paper or speculative project that failed to come to fruition during the comparatively brief occupation of the region. The Wehrmacht was stretched thin in the North Caucasus and many rural areas saw no or virtually no Wehrmacht presence. German rule in the region was short-lived compared to Ukraine. All this makes extrapolating from Ukraine to figure out the North Caucasus, as noted, a risky proposition.

To illustrate some of the above Feferman uses this USHMM map (p 182 - the North Caucasus region is "down" around Krasnodar and Stavropol on this map, across the Sea of Azov from Ukraine):

Image
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:28 pm

nickterry wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:I think that the fact that the North Caucasus were under the jurisdiction of the Sixth Army, under Von Paulus - who was known to be a non-ideological individual - played a major role. I can tell you that the occupation was far from mild elsewhere in Russia. in eastern Ukraine for example, Goering suggested deliberate decimation of the local population. The Reichskommissar of Ukraine closed all schools and was especially hard on ethnic Poles. This individual, Erich Koch, was tapped to oversee the planned occupation of Moscow, but turned it down due to the "unpleasant" nature of the task. This should tell you all you need to know about what they intended.

Here is Goring, quoted by Fritz, on the food question:
God knows, you are not sent out there [to the east] to work for the welfare of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost out of them so that the German people can live. . . . It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say that your people will starve. Let them do so, as long as no German faints from hunger. . . . We conquered such enormous territories through the valor of our troops, and yet our people have almost been forced down to the miserable rations of the First World War. . . . I am interested only in those people in the occupied regions who work in armaments and food production.
Von Paulus represents the moderating trend - Hitler emphatically agreed more with Koch and Himmler than with him.

I am not suggesting that your source says otherwise - I am only adding to the record assembled here.
The North Caucasus was under the control of Army Group A, which consisted of 17th Army and 1st Panzer Army. 6th Army was rather famously stuck at Stalingrad in what would not be considered the North Caucasus.

German-readers (and those willing to use google translate) can find out more in the following article online at the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte website:
Zeidler, Manfred, ‘Das ‘kaukasische Experiment’. Gab es eine Weisung Hitlers zur deutschen Besatzungspolitik im Kaukasus?’, VfZ 3/2005, pp.475-500
http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/2 ... eidler.pdf
Apologies. I was of the understanding that the 6th Army passed though Rostov on its way to Stalingrad and considered Rostov to have been part of the North Caucasus. I was also aware that Von Paulus was considered to be more lenient with the local population than other Heer Generals.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:35 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:. Koch isn't relevant to the North Caucasus. In fact, Hitler's original plan was to exploit the region economically, then turn it over to Turkey - thus the mild occupation approach in comparison to Ukraine or the Crimean peninsula, for example.
I was aware of that. However I was mentioning the RK Ukraine example as part of a general observation on the difference between the occupation of the North Caucasus and the rest of the East. I used RK Ukraine as an example because Fritz looks a lot at Ukraine and I could cite something to give the impression that I'm not just talking out of my ass. In this context Koch was only something that could be used to juxtapose the different character of Army Group A's presence in Stavropol.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 02, 2017 11:48 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Nazi leaflet directed to Cossacks, many of whom collaborated with the Nazis in the North Caucasus (p 447). Note the mighty Cossack who, virtually depicting Heydrich's infamous order, hauls off a frightened Jew and confused Red Army officer:
The Don Cossacks were most likely to collaborate with the Nazis, who formed a special regiment for them. Terek Cossacks also collaborated in large numbers. Hitler was initially opposed, but yielded due to manpower considerations - IIRC a waiver of sorts was signed that declared the Cossacks to be a "lost Germanic bloodline" or something like that LOL.

Kuban Cossacks were less likely to collaborate - They were far less numerically represented in German collaborator units than other Cossack hosts (Don in particular). I don't know the reason for this.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:11 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:. Koch isn't relevant to the North Caucasus. In fact, Hitler's original plan was to exploit the region economically, then turn it over to Turkey - thus the mild occupation approach in comparison to Ukraine or the Crimean peninsula, for example.
I was aware of that. However I was mentioning the RK Ukraine example as part of a general observation on the difference between the occupation of the North Caucasus and the rest of the East. I used RK Ukraine as an example because Fritz looks a lot at Ukraine and I could cite something to give the impression that I'm not just talking out of my ass. In this context Koch was only something that could be used to juxtapose the different character of Army Group A's presence in Stavropol.
The statement that Hitler favored Koch's line implied to me that you were using Ukraine as a model for how an occupation should be. I'm trying to stress that the Nazis to some extent evaluated different regions and countries for what they could offer/what problems they presented, looked for different opportunities they could exploit, and tailored tactics to situations. Reading what you posted, this idea didn't really come through, so I wanted to emphasize the point.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:59 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:. Koch isn't relevant to the North Caucasus. In fact, Hitler's original plan was to exploit the region economically, then turn it over to Turkey - thus the mild occupation approach in comparison to Ukraine or the Crimean peninsula, for example.
I was aware of that. However I was mentioning the RK Ukraine example as part of a general observation on the difference between the occupation of the North Caucasus and the rest of the East. I used RK Ukraine as an example because Fritz looks a lot at Ukraine and I could cite something to give the impression that I'm not just talking out of my ass. In this context Koch was only something that could be used to juxtapose the different character of Army Group A's presence in Stavropol.
The statement that Hitler favored Koch's line implied to me that you were using Ukraine as a model for how an occupation should be. I'm trying to stress that the Nazis to some extent evaluated different regions and countries for what they could offer/what problems they presented, looked for different opportunities they could exploit, and tailored tactics to situations. Reading what you posted, this idea didn't really come through, so I wanted to emphasize the point.
Hitler did favor an exploitative, harsh, colonial policy - Koch's rule is the personification of what Hitler wanted. I used this example as something against which the occupation of the Northern Caucuses could be assessed. The involvement of different agencies in different regions can be stated to have played a role in the discrepancy, as well as the planned annexation by Turkey as you mentioned.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:22 am

Jeff_36 wrote:Hitler did favor an exploitative, harsh, colonial policy - Koch's rule is the personification of what Hitler wanted. I used this example as something against which the occupation of the Northern Caucuses could be assessed. The involvement of different agencies in different regions can be stated to have played a role in the discrepancy, as well as the planned annexation by Turkey as you mentioned.
For sure. Milder/harsher are relative terms in the east - a so-called milder regime wasn't going to be good for most of the people of region - Germany wanted oil from the Caspian region and grain from the North Caucasus and also military advantages (but a milder occupation did enable some different responses to the Germans). My reading suggests that it is a mistake to think that one size fit all or to transpose considerations from different regions onto others.

Believe me (pronounce it the way Donny does), I am not trying to say that the Germans were benevolent, not in the North Caucasus, not anywhere, but that German authorities made some distinctions in the administration of different places based on factors like location and geography, military-strategic considerations, whether lebensraum was a goal, population characteristics and mix, demographic reengineering prospects, resources, future plans, security issues, timing, available forces, etc., as noted.

The total number of Ashkenazi Jews killed during German occupation in the Crimea and the North Caucasus was maybe 80,000, most of the region's Ashkenazi Jews - another 5,000-6,000 Krymchaks were murdered and 1,500 "Mountain Jews." Given the comparative numbers, in this forum and others we haven't focused as much on the region as on others that are more central to the Holocaust; however, occupation and the "Jewish Question" are not the same things, and German goals for the North Caucasus also involved important economic matters (Baku's oil resources) and strategic issues (desired route to the Middle East) and an occupation approach (IIRC some kind of protectorate was considered) to support these interests.

Feferman delineates an "Eastern" policy and a "Southern" policy; the southern policy applied in these regions where a variety of factors made the Germans take account of regional and international considerations over more of a brute exploitation. I didn't read in Feferman that Hitler would've preferred Koch's approach in the North Caucasus; rather, Feferman has the Führer instrumental in architecting the occupation approach, which was modified as the course of the war changed (the Muslim factor increasing over time, as Turkey and the Middle East became more important in German thinking; not the North Caucasus but Crimea eventually being incorporated into the RKU, changing thinking about the special Jewish groups in the region).

I guess I'm saying that the Germans administered this region somewhat differently to Poland or the Ukraine because they had different goals for their occupation and confronted a different situation, including population peculiarities, there.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:43 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Believe me (pronounce it the way Donny does), I am not trying to say that the Germans were benevolent, not in the North Caucasus, not anywhere


Fear not, I never once intended to say that.
but that German authorities made some distinctions in the administration of different places
Of course, hence the difference between the North Caucuses and the rest of the East.
population characteristics and mix
The high Turkic population of the North Caucuses (Balkar, Chechen, Ingush, Tartar) would have enebled the Germans to play the divide to rule game more effectively by offering incentives to more easily co-opted ethnicities.
I didn't read in Feferman that Hitler would've preferred Koch's approach in the North Caucasus
I never stated that he did. I merely stated that, on the whole, he favored that approach vis a vis Russia in general. In the North Caucuses the situation was clearly different.

I guess I'm saying that the Germans administered this region somewhat differently to Poland or the Ukraine because they had different goals for their occupation and confronted a different situation, including population peculiarities, there.
I agree - did Feferman take the Turkic speaking populations into account? I would not be surprised if that was a major factor in the different approach in occupation.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:13 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
I didn't read in Feferman that Hitler would've preferred Koch's approach in the North Caucasus
I never stated that he did. I merely stated that, on the whole, he favored that approach vis a vis Russia in general. In the North Caucuses the situation was clearly different.
But he also favored the approach taken in the Crimea and the North Caucasus in that region, for the conditions there and given Germany's intentions for the region and needs for it.
Jeff_36 wrote:did Feferman take the Turkic speaking populations into account?
Absolutely. Of those people, Feferman cites the Karachaevos as the most "pro-German," and the others as generally supportive of Germany.

I should clarify, too, the word "milder" doesn't by any means indicate "non-exploitative" or "non-colonial": one major difference in the North Caucasus was that movement restrictions were less severe; capital punishment wasn't used widely. The timing of the occupation was a factor, as when the North Caucasus fell into the hands of the Germans, according to Feferman, there was some moderation in policies across the occupied east (Feferman cites a 1988 book by Mulligan on this point). The lack of major battles in the area also meant a reduced occupation force in comparison to the size of the area. The Germans didn't find the region valuable on its own, and plans for what to do with it weren't stable (at one point the thought was to divide the region and give one part to the RKU portion - this was abandoned); the food supply was better than elsewhere, at first the population was favorably disposed to the Germans - and the German policy was to encourage this sentiment. That the region had a military government rather than a civil administration made a difference, in that the military was more oriented toward using the local conditions to Germany's benefit (local militias for security, exploiting pro-German feeling, granting a degree of religious freedom to the local peoples). The importance of the German alliance with the Cossacks played a role, too.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5221
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeff_36 » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:at first the population was favorably disposed to the Germans - and the German policy was to encourage this sentiment.
Everything makes sense - but I am curious about one thing and I am wondering if Feferman takes it into account: There was a decent amount of pro-German sentiment in the western part of the Ukraine after the invasion, but the German occupation policy in RKU was extremely harsh. Is it possible that the more favorable German racial attitude towards Turkic peoples than Slavic peoples also played a role in this discrepancy?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:55 pm

Feferman doesn't make an effort to compare the two regions, except for briefly at the level of policy.

F. actually places a lot of emphasis on the importance of the Tatars in the Crimea and the Cossacks in the North Caucasus. In the Crimea, the Tatars were seen as the Germans' "most valuable allies." As the tide of the war shifted, so too did Tatar attitudes, growing less positive toward the Germans.

According to F., the North Caucasus from the outset was seen differently to what F. describes as "the dead zone" of Ukraine. The Germans singled out actually the Cossacks for privileged treatment and even allowed an "autonomous Cossack region [with] 160,000 people . . . in the lower Kuban area." Cossack traditions - support for the Whites, anti-Semitism - drew the Cossacks to welcome German rule. Over 10,000 Cossacks fought for the Germans, and 80,000 retreated with them when they were forced to withdraw from the region. German propaganda was pitched to the Cossacks, and Cossack units were sometimes, under supervision of the Feldgendarmerie, into screening, security, and supervisory tasks in the Jewish massacres.

Generally, the heterogeneous population, says F., required the Germans to find ways to balance treatment of ethnic groups to preserve their overall anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiments. I get the sense from F., however, that the indifference to pro-German feeling was shared by Slavic and non-Slavic parts of the population, more pronounced among the non-Slavic groups. F. writes about fairly widespread resentment among the Russians of the Jewish refugees who poured into the North Caucasus in 1941 and the alienation of many from the Soviet government. So a qualified yes to the question - and F. really stresses Berlin's policy objectives, war conditions and the military operations, the military occupation as opposed to civic administration, and other factors as combining to support the occupation approach.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27622
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jul 04, 2017 12:13 pm

Jeff_36, Nick Terry and I apologize for this brief interruption of the Trump Channel . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12614
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Nazi policy in occupied east

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:25 pm

No, I'm enjoying it...carry on.
:lol:
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Harvard Crimson (on why it refused to run an add by Bradley Smith):
“(It is) vicious propaganda based on utter BS that has been discredited time and time again.”