Hi Jim!
It's my opinion that the Russians would have been much better off if the
Germans would have defeated and controlled Russia for the last 60 years.
You are writing this not knowing what Hitler wanted to do with the Slavs. He believed them to be underdogs. And he wanted to treat them like underdogs.
Is that what you hoped writing "the Russians would have been better off ..."? Or didn't I understand the meaning of this sentence?
Regards from Germany
Klaus (Stahl)
Hello Klaus
Of course the Slavs were looked down on by most of the Western States of
Europe as they were mostly uneducated and slaves to the land owners most of
their lives. Even the rulers of Russia wrote that they were an unruly lot
and brought Christians to Russia to educate and give direction to the
people. Of course I am talking here about the Slavs in Russia and not
Poland. That is another subject. When you read about what Hitler wanted to
do you must be careful and read his original messages and not what the
winners wrote.
What I was thinking when I wrote this sentence was that Hitler and his party
would not rule Germany for long even if the war had a different ending. All
despots meet their end one day. As we look at Western Germany today and how
fast the former Eastern states of Germany are catching up we can only
imagine what Russia would have become under the guidance of a Germany.
If you know the history of the Donau/Schwabins then you are aware that they
were instrumental in developing vast areas along the Donau and were invited
to do so by the Queen of the Austro/Hungarians because her subjects were not
up the job.
Than there were the Volgedeutscher's who developed the lands along the
Volge. Even though both the Donau/Schwabins and the Volgedeutscher's were
much envied and resented for their industrialness they were making the areas
in where they lived better for all people. And so the Germans of the 1940's
would have improved the lives of the Slavs of Russia unless of course you
believe that all German's are bad as some do.
Jim
Klaus allow me to respond to your comments here also, over and beyond Jim's own excellent input. I couldn't agree more that Hitler's poor estimation of the Slavs - and the Russians in particular - was a defect in his thinking. But as in everything, it's a bit more complicated than what it first appears. The Slavs had an abundance of land, the land Hitler deemed necessary for his intended lebensraum. As he saw it, far more land than they could possibly manage, or were managing. The Russians in particular were extremely behind the times by almost any gauge, in fact almost medieval in their ways (although militarization and industrialization had been ratcheted up under Lenin and Stalin). The Slavic Russians were also under the yoke of a murderous form of Marxism, where millions of their own - and many other ethnic groups from across this newly hatched Soviet federation - were being plowed under or marched off to gulags. The Communist Revolution had already decimated the Volga German Russians as "counter revolutionaries". Because of their German heritage, they were branded "Enemies of the Government" and called "Kulaks". This was years before Hitler had his war machine in place and on the roll. [see more below]
So how else can you put it? There was BAD BLOOD between the National Socialists and the Communists. As Hitler had long since vowed to destroy this world-wide Marxist revolution, they were sworn enemies, and a showdown between these two political systems was pretty much inevitable. Hitler and his brownshirts had already crushed the Communist strongholds in Germany itself, after years of pitched battles in the streets. Germany came very close at one point to being declared a Soviet itself!
How would the Slavs have been treated as time went on under these new Germanic overlords? Hard to say of course, but it could be argued it couldn't get much worse than what they were already experiencing at the hands of the Marxists, and the Czars before that!
It can't be forgotten that the Romanians and Hungarians were allies of Hitler in all of his campaigns to the east. Those nations were (are) Slavic the last time I looked. Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Serbia - again mostly Slavic - all produced substantial Waffen-SS legions or divisions for the German war effort. These volunteers, regardless of nationality, were not treated as inferiors; they were judged on their ability and performance as soldiers. There were even White Russian, Cossack and Croat Moslem units serving as auxiliaries or irregulars to the Wermacht. Throughout the course of the war, over a million volunteers are believed to have joined up from across the span of Europe to do battle in the NS ranks. Most of these non-German recruits were either staunch anti-communists, Pan-Europeans (or ethnic Nationalists), or simply admirers of Germany and its National Socialist government.
Just as Jim noted, the history of wars are written by the winners. And much of the truth (or "unpleasant" facts) unfortunately gets lost or is conveniently dismissed in the accounting. Those who often dig up and try to publish these little 'unpleasantries' are invariably branded "revisionists", generally with the implication that they are up to no good and want to "change" history. How sad that so many facts and overlooked details don't always cooperate with the "accepted" version. And that so many folks don't seem to care, in America and elsewhere. In Germany today, revisionism in almost any form would be considered a crime, and you could be hauled before a court simply for speaking such things in a public place. I find that odd to say the least, though we in this country aren't too far behind (truth be known).
Jb
PS. Underdogs does not translate well here. It was 'submenschen' you were referring to of course, thus literally "sub-humans".