Talk:Generalplan Ost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Genocide?

The "elimination of Polish activists and intelligentsia" is is not usually seen as a genocide as defined by the CPPCG. The CPPCG was a diplomatic compromise that thanks to the Soviet Union did not include the killing of groups for political or class reasons -- 'only' "national, ethnical, racial or religious group" so to be a genocide the numbers killed would have to qualify as large enough to pass the "in part" requirement of a national group. It is possible that some verifiable reliable sources do indeed claim it was a genocide, but this is not a generally agreed point of view and the people making such a claim should be cited and mentioned in the narrative in the form of "In fu-bar by XYZ, he claimed that ABC was a genocide". --Philip Baird Shearer 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, how many would be large enough ? --Lysytalk 12:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
One cited source would be a start! If you have lots then cite the two or three what you consider to be the most reliable. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Pająk, Henryk (2004). "Niemieckie ludobójstwo na polskim narodzie" (German genocide of Polish nation) (in Polish). Retro. ISBN 8387510610. 
  • Richard C. Lukas (1986). The Forgotten Holocaust, The Poles Under German Occupation 1939-1944 (in English). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813115663.  review review
  • Bohdan Wytwycky (1980). The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell (in English).  review
  • http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/poland.htm
I meant the number of victims. I believe this may be similar to the question whether Holodomor was a genocide, where a vital "core" group for a nation was targeted (intelligentsia in case of Poland and peasants in case of Ukrainians), yet Russia still denies it was a genocide. --Lysytalk 12:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit clash) I did not mean the number of victims, although the whole article could do with far more citations. I mean the claim that it was a genocide. Thanks to the findings of the Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Trial Chamber I - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2001) ICTY8 (2 August 2001) mentioned in Genocide: in part one could, base an argument used in that court case, and argue that the mass murder of intelligentsia was a genocide (see paragraph 12 of Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)), but if that claim is to be made it should be based on a reliable source making the claim. Not just on the conclusion being drawn from by OR. For all I know it may be current currency in Polish academic literature, but it is not in English language literature, so as I said above the claim is a surprising one and should be quoted.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The quick google check does not confirm that "Genocide of Polish" or "Genocide of Poles" are not used in English language. It also perfectly matches the definition of CPPCG Genocide so why is it surprising to you ? --Lysytalk 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The "in part" definition contains In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration., so 6 million Polish citizens, including most of Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals match the definition all right. It seems to me now that your opposition to the term borders on WP:OR. Are you aware of any sources contesting or disputing that the mass murder of Poles during WW2 was a genocide ? Until we see one, can we revert to the previous wording ? --Lysytalk 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will revert since I see you have lost interest in discussing this further and are busy elsewhere. --Lysytalk 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not that I have lost interest it is that I have other things to do as well as discuss this with you. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Me too, me too ... only seeing your other edits I felt you went away. But as you can see I fought the temptation to revert :-) --Lysytalk 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How do these two authors define genocide? Is it using the CPPCG definition (which is now the legal definition under international law) or by some other definition? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Standard: Planned destruction of an ethnic, national and/or religious group in whole or in part because of the ethnicity, nationality and/or religion of the group's members. --HanzoHattori 13:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Class reasons"? There was no attempt to exterminate the intelligentsia in occupied France (or in Germany for that matter). Actually, you had hundreds or thousands of dedicated Nazis with titles of doctor or professor in SS alone (for example, Josef Mengele), not to mention the engineers etc. --HanzoHattori 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is to do with the "in part". If class was defined as group that could suffer genocide, then the mass killing of the Polish intelligencia presumably the middle and upper classes in Poland, then the proportion killed in part would have been much larger than the as a part of the whole Polish nation. As it stands it is unlikely that "in part" stipulation would be met, unless one introduces the arguments put forward in paragraph 12 of Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment. Now one can construct an argument around that new interpretation, but it needs a source that does so. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not re-insert "genocide" until I have had more time to consider this. My gut feeling is that PBS is right and that "genocide" is not the appropriate word to use here. "genocide" does not mean "mass murder". It means an attempt to wipe out an entire group as in "a people".
I'm in a hurry this morning and don't have time to follow the whole discussion and the links.
--Richard 15:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. "An attempt to wipe out an entire group" is exactly what the German Generalplan Ost was about. --Lysytalk 15:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Even if it was largely an unrealised plan. Look: the Endlösung der Judenfrage was a plan too, once. If the war finished in early 1942 and only some of the Jews of the USSR and some of Poland and other places were quite randomly massacred (and this started long before Wannsee conference), would it be not genocidal? Maybe, you guys want to categorise this based on something so i guess it would be up to you to decide. Anyway, according to the Generalplan Ost, if nothing changed, by 2007 would be no Poles left. At least, in former Poland. --HanzoHattori 19:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
See such discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocides_in_history#Nazi_Genocide_against_the_Jews_and_Slavs Belligero 10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... I've had a chance to do some (admittedly light) reading and to form a more informed opinion. I want to point out that the issue seems to be whether or not to use "Genocide" or "Mass murder of the Polish elite" as the section header of tbe section that describes the targeting of Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals.

My position is that "Generalplan Ost" is definitely a plan for the genocide of the Polish people. It consisted of two parts, a short-range plan and a long-range plan. As HanzoHattori, if the long range plan had been implemented, the Polish people would have ceased to exist.

HOWEVER...the debate between "Genocide" vs. "Mass murder of the Polish elite" is a different question from whether Generalplan Ost was a plan for genocide. It is clear that operations such as Operation Tannenberg (Unternehmen Tannenberg) and various Intelligenzaktionen were parts of the overall genocidal plan and may or may not be called "genocide" in themselves.

Looking at Genocide: in part, the question is not just how many people were killed. How many Polish leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals were killed? 100,000? Out of the total Polish population, this is not a large percentage.

However, consider...

In Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic - Appeals Chamber - Judgment - IT-98-33 (2004) ICTY 7 (19 April 2004)[12] paragraphs 8,9,10, and 11 addressed the issue of in part and found that "the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." The Appeals Chamber goes into details of other cases and the opinions of respected commentators on the Genocide Convention to explain how they came to this conclusion.
The judges go on to say in paragraph 12 that "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4 [of the Tribunal's Statute]."

So, the question is whether the leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals were prominent (yes), emblematic of the overall group (yes) and/or essential to its survival (not so clearly yes but mostly yes).

But, this whole argument amounts to asking whether the killing of the Polish elite constitutes a "genocide" in itself or whether it was a "mass murder" that was part of the overall genocidal plan that was called Generalplan Ost. We could get wrapped in arguing whether the targeting of the Polish elite was a "genocide" or not but I think that this is not a very worthwhile argument.

My recommendation would be to use the word "genocide" to characterize the overall plan that was called Generalplan Ost and to use "mass murder" to characterize the targeting of the leaders, intelligentsia and intellectuals.

A Google search for "Genocide" and "Poland" seems to indicate that "genocide of the Poles" is a widely used phrase.

--Richard 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert and Richard, for taking time to look into this. I agree with what you propose. --Lysytalk 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A Google of "genocide of the Poles" only returns "1,380 English pages" of those a lot fail to meat the reliable source criteria, and some are also refuting the idea eg http://www.codoh.com/review/revcwnsmd.html "On page 466 Lifton drags in the old nonsense about the attempted genocide of the Poles." (I no idea on the quality of that particular page I am using it just to show that 1,380 is not an indicator of a generally agreed theory). Indeed I do not think that about 10,800 English pages for "genocide of the Germans" is any indication that a genocide of the Germans took place either. about 139,000 English pages for genocide Dresden -wikipedia does not indicate that the bombing of Dresden is widely regarded in reliable sources to be part of a genocide.
To be a genocide not only must there be a plan/conspiracy but it must be implemented ("any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy). As I said above we can all draw our own conclusions from the Radislav Krstic Case on whether it was a genocide or not. But this judgement may or may not be of use in this case because it shifted genocide from a general crime against a the total group to a specific crime carried out by the perpetrator against the group available to the perpetrator of the genocidal act. This means that just because one person was guilty of genocide not everyone involved might be. For example the commander of the person who is found guilty of genocide might have the means to attempt genocide on a larger proportion of a group and in that group the proportion might not reach the "in part" requirement! Further it allows prosecutors to work around the restrictions placed on the meaning of genocide by the diplomatic compromise that was reached when the wording of the CPPCG was agreed. It is interesting to speculate like this, but it does not advance the development of Wikipedia. As the Radislav Krstic Case did not end until 2004 any analysis of "Generalplan Ost" as a genocide using the arguments put forward in the Radislav Krstic Case would have to post-date the case. As the references given so far pre-date that ruling then the analysis would probably be different.
Lysy you wrote above "Are you aware of any sources contesting or disputing that the mass murder of Poles during WW2 was a genocide?". I do not know of any reliable sources that claim that the Nazi plans to kill Freemasons and other groups (See Walter Schellenberg Invasion 1940: The Nazi Invasion Plan For Britain) in Britain during and after Operation Sealion was not a genocide, because for there to be a reliable source refuting something there usually has to be a reliable source claiming that something is true and I do not know of a reliable souce that claims that the plans were a genocide. It is not up to me to produce such sources (other than to create a neutral point of view) it is up to the person wishing to insert a claim into Wikipedia to find a reliable source. (See the recent discussion over the section Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon for an example where this was discussed)
I think that as it is not generally agreed that a genocide was carried out against the Polish nation, that it should not be used as a section heading (we do not footnote or qualify section headings) and if it is to be mentioned in the text then the most reliable authors that can be found should be quoted explaining why in their view it was a genocide. See for example the entry in Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for an example of what I mean. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be not as common in English, because obviously most of the publications about it are in Polish, which does not make it any less valid. Anyway, I understand, that you object that a "plan to exterminate a nation" is not a genocide unless it's fully implemented. I believe we can call Generalplan Ost a "plan to carry out a genocide", correct ? --Lysytalk 10:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is common currency in a foreign language does not make it common currency in English, so an assertion can still be surprising or novel narrative in the English language Wikipedia even if it is not in another Wikipedia. Also there is a problem of NPOV. A Poles opinion on whether the French were implicated in the Rwandan Genocide, is likely to have less of a problem with NPOV than articles published by French people (a lot of the French article on this are attempts to score points by politicians (and politically active journalists) on the the left and right for domestic political consumption). That is not to say that both Frenchmen, Poles, and an members of all other nations, can not write NPOV books and articles about events that happen with their nations, just that far more articles are likely to have a non NPOV.
In the Introduction why not introduce it as (targeted) mass murder -- no sane person is going to deny that -- and then in the appropriate section mention that "XYZ " has asserted that this plan was a nothing less than a planned genocide (or what ever the source claims)? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See Genocide definitions 1945: Count 3 of the indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials:

They (the defendants) conducted deliberate and systematic genocide - viz., the extermination of racial and national groups - against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial or religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, Gypsies and others.

--Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to General Plan East

Is there any good reason for using the German name for this plan "Generalplan Ost" when the naming convention says "use English words" and it would alow the introduction to be:

General Plan East (German:Generalplan Ost) ...

At the moment:

Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan...

there is no indication that it is a German name it just looks like an English spelling mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was the original name of the plan, similarly to "Fall Weiß", we do not translate proper names, do we ? It seem better to leave the original name to me. --Lysytalk 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do translate proper names see for example Operation Sealion, particularly when the mame is used in reliable sources (which this one is). WP:NC "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So it boils down to which form ("transliteration", huh ?) is more widely recognized. --Lysytalk 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with moving the article to General Plan East if that's used in the scholarly literature. Personally, I would prefer General Plan for the East as a better translation but I will go with whatever is used in the literature.
I've often wondered about these kinds of issues. When you get a chance, take a look at Deutsche Volksliste and tell me whether you think that article is appropriately titled.
--Richard 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2,230,000 people were killed in Belarus within the three years of German occupation

Any independent sources? Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

[1] is not a blog or personal web page, so WP:EL 4 #11 is irrelevant. It is a nonprofit organization. Even if it were a blog or personal page, as it employs (a) recognized, published expert(s)[2], one of whom used to work for the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, it is pretty clear it (and not just the material hosted there) fits the stronger RS guideline, not just the relevant weaker EL one, which is Links to be considered 3.2.4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Lastly, a glance at the page makes it clear that it is a very useful positive addition to the meager list of external links and references for this page. The real use of WP:EL is to prune overlong lists, and get rid of obvious garbage, which this is not. (" As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. ") Common sense is a better guideline than any wikirule. It is clearly not the kind of thing that the guidelines aim to eliminate. Cordially, John Z (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I must concede that I did not know this wwf/staffbio-page before. Vice president Mr Alexander Rossino seems to be a sufficient reference in order to include material from the site in Wikipedia. Greetings, --Schwalker (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that page wasn't too easy to find. Happy editting!John Z (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful link

http://gplanost.x-berg.de/sgplanost.html --Molobo (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I removed Leningrad whole section

Also, the plan was only about Poland, right? I guess the article should be globalized - Ukraine, Russia, Belarus? never mind now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's "Tischgespräche"?

It's never explained. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It translates into and means roughly "table talk" in English - informal confidential conversations. It was published in various editions after the war. e.g. Hitler's Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, 1941-42 by Henry Picker. John Z (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Duh (to myself) - and of course we have an article on it. Hitler's Table Talk.John Z (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, was I right as of including Ukrainians? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De-mythologised the article

"250 million German settlers"... where they would find them? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They would have been born sooner or later, and please stop deleting everything you see especially when it has a source, you have no right in deleting sourced information just because you do not like what it saysAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, let's see... "Their place could be taken, over a period of 30 years - allowing for natural increase and immigration from other Germanic countries - at most by 10 million, though probably not more than 8 million, settlers." http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm And yes, I have "right in deleting" unsourced information. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation section

I have restored the section. Please discuss blanking of such scale before implementing them Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed in the OTHER ARTICLES (in the same words, even). And frankly, much of it has nothing to do with the plan. There was nothing about how to besiege Leningrad in the plan - it was about occupational policies. Burning villages in Belarus was meant to wipe out the partisans/punish villagers, not "clear the Slavs". This kind of siege warfare (starve the enemy) is ancient. SS race doctors did not invent punitive expeditions and village burning (which was also put into practice even in France or Italy). In any case, it was simply not written in the plan, so it can't be called "implementation". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant "internal links" of course. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Zamosc area was implementation of GeneralPlan Ost. It was FIRST CHOSEN for colonisation, expulsion of POles, and ONLY LATER partisans appeared in that area. Szopen (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Partial using of articles to get summaries needed for related articles is an old Wikipedia tradition. It increases readability and does not violate GFDL. Your comment on Nazi crimes in the East being unrelated to plan Ost is not a universally accepted notion. E.g. the Byelorussian historian working in Khatyn memorial seems to have different opinion. It seems to be logical that much more savage Nazi behavior in the East then in the West is somehow connected with the plans for Genocides. Do you have any sources supported that it was not connected? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant the part about the village burning in Belarus. It was directly connected with the Soviet partisan activity - just a brutal counter-insurgency campaign. Whole Khatyn thing (choosing this village from hundreds burned and concentrating on this one) was just a Soviet propaganda's diversion aimed at diverting public attention (mostly abroad) from the scandal of the Katyn killings. Do you think they were burning mountain villages in Italy (like here) because of Generalplan Ost? Zamosc stuff can be mentioned easily, just like I inserted stuff about the killings of the Polish elites (even if these started actually before the first draft of the plan was made, and so I'm not sure about the direct relation - or maybe the original killings were meant just to eliminate the potential resistance leaders, I don't know). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaming everything what happened in the East on this paper and a couple of German pseudo-scientists is silly. Hitler was talking about his plans since the 1920s (Lebensraum, "Armenian quote" about let's kill Poles, life-and-death struggle destruction of Bolshevism and what not). The SS did not need any elaborate plans this to kill people left and right in dealing with the resistance (and yes, including "Aryans" in the West). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)