Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Outrageous-Door8924 t1_jb84hgf wrote

Why was north eastern Europe the geographical goal of Nazi Germany's Lebensraum? Claimed that it was historically lost land of Germans? The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

2

Doctor_Impossible_ t1_jb890gn wrote

>The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

Prior to WWI, Germany had tried expansion overseas, and found itself promptly cut off, as war commenced, by much superior navies. This expansion was explained by German politicians and thinkers as a natural consequence of population expansion; one required the other, whichever way you worked it out, so post-WWI, with overseas colonies gone, the natural place for territorial expansion would be somewhere safe from naval interference, where Germans could travel back and forth without any other country intervening. Somewhere contiguous with the existing German state would be perfect, for instance. The extermination of 'lesser' races was essential to Nazi ideology, and taking land those races formerly occupied was part and parcel of that, to the extent that it was emphasised that this was the 'natural' thing to do. In order for Germany to expand and become the sole real power in Europe, it would need vast amounts of land, resources, and an even larger population to draw on for labour. The populations already living there were 'destined' to be swept away by the unstoppable might of Germany.

2

Outrageous-Door8924 t1_jda3o1b wrote

Although I imagined their race-based ideology played big part, you put it all in way more clear, concrete terms and made that easily understandable for an uneducated person (like myself). Thanks for explaining!

1

Eminence_grizzly t1_jb8z2wu wrote

They also Germanized a lot of Slavic (and Baltic) lands in the Middle Ages, including the land around Berlin, Silesia, Eastern Prussia, etc.

2

Sgt_Colon t1_jbo05o4 wrote

A not insignificant part of it was irredentist claims to areas inhabited by various 'Germanic' peoples such as the Goths based on archaeology of the time. Areas covered by what are today termed the Wielbark and Chernyakhov archaeological cultures were associated with these 'germanic' people and seen as areas stolen during the migrations by, at present at least, the Slavs. Such as it was, during the invasion eastwards, various places were renamed like Simferopol to "Gotenburg" and Sevastopol to "Theodorichshafen", reflecting this ideological justification.

Post war the old völkisch ideas of migration faced heavy criticism (in no small due to their use in Nazi propaganda) seeing eventual reform with the origin of the Vienna school of thought and criticism of ethnoarchaeology such as Kramer's 1977 “Pots and Peoples”.

2

Wallo420 t1_jbggme8 wrote

The idea originated from the medieval Teutonic Knights who were a Germanic order similar to the Templars in the holy land but in the Baltic region conquering pagan Slavs. It’s why one of the Nazi symbols is that black cross as this is what the Teutonics wore

−2

en43rs t1_jbjzdew wrote

>it’s why one of the Nazi symbols is that black cross as this is what the Teutonics wore

That's completely false. While it's true that Iron Cross is a reference to the Teutonic Knights it did not originate with the Nazis, it's a Prussian medal that dates back to the Napoleonic Wars. They used it because Prussia has its origins in the Order.

The Nazis used it because it's a German military symbol, but it is not associated with the Nazis in Germany (although it is in the West), it's still the symbol of the German Armed Forces and they still use it to this day on vehicles (here it is on a tankand here it is on an helicopter).

3