Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny

Watch
BlukuBluku2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Hi,

So I was thinking, could the Manifest Destiny idea of 18th-19th c. America have inspired Nazi plans to conquer and settle Europe? MD was justified by the racial superiority of WASP Americans, who had to civilise the untamed Indians, (and Mexicans in the SW) and although the Nazis advocated extermination rather than 'civilisation' and assimilation, how much of an influence do you guys think the 'coast to coast' doctrine influenced the Nazis?
0
reply
mazigh
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
(Original post by BlukuBluku2013)
Hi,

So I was thinking, could the Manifest Destiny idea of 18th-19th c. America have inspired Nazi plans to conquer and settle Europe? MD was justified by the racial superiority of WASP Americans, who had to civilise the untamed Indians, (and Mexicans in the SW) and although the Nazis advocated extermination rather than 'civilisation' and assimilation, how much of an influence do you guys think the 'coast to coast' doctrine influenced the Nazis?
I think the Mexicans in the SW part is false and so is the Nazis wanting to conquer all of Europe
0
reply
BlukuBluku2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by mazigh)
I think the Mexicans in the SW part is false and so is the Nazis wanting to conquer all of Europe
I mean Mexicans in the part that was formally part of Mexico, before the 1846-8 war. The Nazis did definitely want Europe under their hegemony, and to exterminate Slavs and other 'lesser' peoples.
0
reply
mazigh
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by BlukuBluku2013)
I mean Mexicans in the part that was formally part of Mexico, before the 1846-8 war. The Nazis did definitely want Europe under their hegemony, and to exterminate Slavs and other 'lesser' peoples.
You would have to provide evidence for that because most of the white settlers in the Southwest were brought in by the Mexican gov to fight hostile indians
Whatever the Hitler wrote in his book was not reflected by his action in WWII he only wanted the former German territory
0
reply
username931319
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Perhaps, but it was more a reflection of the progressive eastward hegemony of Germanic peoples over slavs. Sorbs, Pomeranians the Czechs after Habsburg dominance etc

The idea of Ostiedlung had begun long before lebensraum. Indeed lebensraum was an irredentist reaction to the loss of de jure German lands in the east and the baltic; whatever the conclusion of WW1, German peoples were displaced for the sake of french honor after WW1.
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
its a well known link

The Nazi regime invoked a variety of precedents to justify the pursuit of Lebensraum.[6] One was invoking the precedent of the United States.[3]Hitler declared that the size of European states was "absurdly small in comparison to their weight of colonies, foreign trade, etc.," which he contrasted to "the American Union which possesses at its base its own continent and touches the rest of the earth only with its summit."[3] Hitler noted that the colonization of the continental United States by Nordic peoples of Europe that had a large internal market, material reproduction, and fertile biological reproduction, provided the closest model to that of Lebensraum.[3]


0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
I don't think the Americans set out with the intention of exterminating the Indians or cared much about the Indians at all. The Americans wanted to be able to settle cities and farms where they pleased; if the Indians interfered violently they were fought, but once the Americans had established hegemony over the parts of land they wanted, they gave the Indians citizenship and large tracts of land under semi-sovereignty. The Indians were so sparsely settled that the Americans usually saw themselves as occupying empty land, even if the net effect of very many such occupations was to reduce the span of Indian sovereignty greatly.

The Nazis on the other hand explicitly wanted to displace people from already populated cities and farms in a way that was impossible without killing them, not just to stop military resistance but simply to clear room and make food supplies available.

Lebensraum ultimately comes from protectionist and socialist economic doctrines; Germany could have easily become a rich and well-fed industrial country based on the import rather than ownership of raw materials, but they were not willing to accept that.
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Observatory)
I don't think the Americans set out with the intention of exterminating the Indians or cared much about the Indians at all. The Americans wanted to be able to settle cities and farms where they pleased; if the Indians interfered violently they were fought, but once the Americans had established hegemony over the parts of land they wanted, they gave the Indians citizenship and large tracts of land under semi-sovereignty. The Indians were so sparsely settled that the Americans usually saw themselves as occupying empty land, even if the net effect of very many such occupations was to reduce the span of Indian sovereignty greatly.

The Nazis on the other hand explicitly wanted to displace people from already populated cities and farms in a way that was impossible without killing them, not just to stop military resistance but simply to clear room and make food supplies available.

Lebensraum ultimately comes from protectionist and socialist economic doctrines; Germany could have easily become a rich and well-fed industrial country based on the import rather than ownership of raw materials, but they were not willing to accept that.
From reading Adolf Hitler, I thought that Lebensraum meant using bravado and force to take unused spaces for ones own population so there might be some "collateral damage" from the act I warfare as opposed to directory killing their own populations to move them.

Do you have an example / source for where people were killed to facilitate population movements from densely populated areas?



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
From reading Adolf Hitler, I thought that Lebensraum meant using bravado and force to take unused spaces for ones own population so there might be some "collateral damage" from the act I warfare as opposed to directory killing their own populations to move them.

Do you have an example / source for where people were killed to facilitate population movements from densely populated areas?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Quote from that article: "Nearly all the wartime documentation on Generalplan Ost was deliberately destroyed shortly before Germany's defeat in May 1945. Thus, no copies of the plan were found after the war among the documents in German archives."

I get a little suspicious about how a
Many thing from Germany are said to have been destroyed at the end of the war hence no trace.

Personally I think a lot of this is propaganda which like all propaganda has a basis in truth.

Those trials at Nurmberg were political trials and highly politicised, and people knew they could escape the hangman's noose by testifying to the victors. So I think one has to factor this into account before taking this as gospel.

I remembers reading in Irving's Hitlers War that Hitler was set on taking one Russia region and that he instructed the intended local government planners to arrange things so that in schools, the native people to that region learned only to understand traffic signs so that they could avoid causing accidents for German cars. The point being that they were supposed to be the servant class for the German people, a bit like the British in India.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
Quote from that article: "Nearly all the wartime documentation on Generalplan Ost was deliberately destroyed shortly before Germany's defeat in May 1945. Thus, no copies of the plan were found after the war among the documents in German archives."

I get a little suspicious about how a
Many thing from Germany are said to have been destroyed at the end of the war hence no trace.

Personally I think a lot of this is propaganda which like all propaganda has a basis in truth.

Those trials at Nurmberg were political trials and highly politicised, and people knew they could escape the hangman's noose by testifying to the victors. So I think one has to factor this into account before taking this as gospel.

I remembers reading in Irving's Hitlers War that Hitler was set on taking one Russia region and that he instructed the intended local government planners to arrange things so that in schools, the native people to that region learned only to understand traffic signs so that they could avoid causing accidents for German cars. The point being that they were supposed to be the servant class for the German people, a bit like the British in India.



Posted from TSR Mobile
It also says this:

According to the testimony of SS-Standartenführer Dr. Hans Ehlich (one of the witnesses in Case VIII before the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials), the final version of the plan was drafted in 1940. As a high official in the RSHA, Ehlich was the man responsible for the drafting of Generalplan Ost along with Dr. Konrad Meyer, Chief of the Planning Office of Himmler's Reichskommissariat for the Strengthening of German Nationhood. It had been preceded by the Ostforschung, a number of studies and research projects carried out over several years by various academic centres to provide the necessary facts and figures. The preliminary versions were discussed by the SS head Heinrich Himmler and his most trusted colleagues even before the outbreak of war. This was mentioned by SS-Obergruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski during his evidence as a prosecution witness in the trial of officials of the SS-Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (RuSHA) (SS Office of Race and Settlement).

Nearly all the wartime documentation on Generalplan Ost was deliberately destroyed shortly before Germany's defeat in May 1945.[3][4] Thus, no copies of the plan were found after the war among the documents in German archives. Apart from Ehlich's testimony, there are several documents which refer to this plan or are supplements to it. Although no copies of the actual document have survived, most of the plan's essential elements have been reconstructed from related memos, abstracts and other ancillary documents.[5]

One principal document which made it possible to recreate with a great deal of accuracy the contents of Generalplan Ost is a memo of April 27, 1942 entitled Stellungnahme und Gedanken zum Generalplan Ost des Reichsführers SS ("Opinion and Ideas Regarding the Master Plan for the East of the Reichsführer-SS") and written by Dr. Erich Wetzel, the director of the Central Advisory Office on Questions of Racial Policy of the Nazi Party (Leiter der Hauptstelle Beratungsstelle des Rassenpolitischen Amtes der NSDAP). This memorandum is an elaboration of Generalplan Ost.[5]
So:

1. There is documentary evidence that Generalplan Ost existed

2. There is documentary evidence of what it contained

3. Both are corroborated by testimony of high ranking officials responsible for drafting it

Short of a note by Hitler reading, "I dunnit!", I don't know what more you could reasonably expect.

I think what you are saying is very close to Holocaust denial - do you at least accept that the Germans killed and removed a lot of people from their conquered territories for non-military purposes?
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by Observatory)
It also says this:



So:

1. There is documentary evidence that Generalplan Ost existed

2. There is documentary evidence of what it contained

3. Both are corroborated by testimony of high ranking officials responsible for drafting it

Short of a note by Hitler reading, "I dunnit!", I don't know what more you could reasonably expect.

I think what you are saying is very close to Holocaust denial - do you at least accept that the Germans killed and removed a lot of people from their conquered territories for non-military purposes?
Well in the countries that Germany had intended reach mainly Russia, it never got passed military interaction so the only displaced people were soldiers. In the countries where Germany had civilian reach I.e. Poland, Austria, France I am aware of civilians being removed and detained. As far as I know the reason for this was that those people were considered to be a political threat, criminals or people considered to have contravened "good values" e.g. Excessive drinking or homosexuality.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
Well in the countries that Germany had intended reach mainly Russia, it never got passed military interaction so the only displaced people were soldiers. In the countries where Germany had civilian reach I.e. Poland, Austria, France I am aware of civilians being removed and detained. As far as I know the reason for this was that those people were considered to be a political threat, criminals or people considered to have contravened "good values" e.g. Excessive drinking or homosexuality.



Posted from TSR Mobile
The Germans also shot huge numbers of Jews and others in the USSR. The USSR didn't suffer so much from the industrial killing machine because rail capacity required to move people to death camps was needed for the army.
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Observatory)
The Germans also shot huge numbers of Jews and others in the USSR. The USSR didn't suffer so much from the industrial killing machine because rail capacity required to move people to death camps was needed for the army.
I have heard this claim before about Germans shooting Jews in the USSR. Are you aware of any hard evidence to back this up?



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
I have heard this claim before about Germans shooting Jews in the USSR. Are you aware of any hard evidence to back this up?



Posted from TSR Mobile
The evidence presented at the trials of some of the people responsible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen_Trial
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Observatory)
The evidence presented at the trials of some of the people responsible - nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen_Trial
Nuremberg and IMT were political trials (in the same way that the trial of Nelson Mandela was a political trial.

We know that all of the German interaction in Russia was harsh and severe fighting with Russian troops. Considering that the Germans were engaged in heavy fighting in a Russia, how would they have has the ability to sift through civilian populations, pick out Jews and shoot them. The German military commanders were constantly calling for more troops on the Russian front and they didn't get most of these requests met. So how is this technically possible?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
Nuremberg and IMT were political trials (in the same way that the trial of Nelson Mandela was a political trial.
Every trial is a political trial in the sense that what should and shouldn't be illegal is a political question. Nelson Mandela's trial does not tell us that he deserved to go to prison but it does tell us that he was trying to overthrow the government of South Africa, which is a question of fact. I don't believe he ever denied that. Similarly, the commander of Einsatzgruppen D seems to have believed that he was acting honourably in killing Jews and others, and therefore should not have been hanged, but he freely admitted that he did those things.
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Observatory)
Every trial is a political trial in the sense that what should and shouldn't be illegal is a political question. Nelson Mandela's trial does not tell us that he deserved to go to prison but it does tell us that he was trying to overthrow the government of South Africa, which is a question of fact. I don't believe he ever denied that. Similarly, the commander of Einsatzgruppen D seems to have believed that he was acting honourably in killing Jews and others, and therefore should not have been hanged, but he freely admitted that he did those things.
Allow me to make my point a little stronger. There is a difference between a fair trial based against a law passed by politicians and a political trial where only one outcome is allowed. Let's take one Nuremberg example....


The Katyn massacre, was a series of mass executions of Polishnationals carried out by the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), the Soviet secret police
.
.
One of them, Arno Düre, (German) who was charged with murdering numerous civilians using machine-guns in Soviet villages, confessed to having taken part in burial (though not the execution) of 15,000 to 20,000 Polish POWs in Katyn. For this he was spared execution and was given 15 years of hard labor......

He later recanted his confession, claiming that he was forced to confess by the investigators.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre


A fairly recent high budget film called Katyn still attributed the Katyn massacre to the Germans when it is now known by historians that the Soviets perpetrated the act.



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Old_Simon
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by SpikeyTeeth)
I have heard this claim before about Germans shooting Jews in the USSR. Are you aware of any hard evidence to back this up?



Posted from TSR Mobile
I think it is really reprehensible that well established historical fact on a matter of this gravity involving the deaths of huge numbers of men, women and children should be described as "a claim". Whether through design or through ignorance this is also close to holocaust denial and is highly offensive to many people.
0
reply
SpikeyTeeth
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Old_Simon)
I think it is really reprehensible that well established historical fact on a matter of this gravity involving the deaths of huge numbers of men, women and children should be described as "a claim". Whether through design or through ignorance this is also close to holocaust denial and is highly offensive to many people.
See my post above yours re "truth" of the Katyn massacre.

It's highly offensive to people because it upsets their world view / paradigm and makes them have to consider whether they have been duped on a large number of things they take for granted.




Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (173)
14.53%
I'm not sure (55)
4.62%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (348)
29.22%
I have already dropped out (35)
2.94%
I'm not a current university student (580)
48.7%

Watched Threads

View All