Would the German public support Generalplan Ost?

Would the German public support Generalplan Ost?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 41.6%
  • No

    Votes: 11 10.9%
  • To a degree

    Votes: 48 47.5%

  • Total voters
    101
If the Nazis won the war in an AANW scenario, would the German population support the genocide/enslavement of the Slavs and Poles in Eastern Europe?
 
Bigger question: even if they disagreed with it, would they do so publicly or to such a degree that they were willing to risk Gestapo attention?
 

SsgtC

Banned
I think the general consensus would be the same as OTL, namely willful ignorance. And if asked their response would be, "I didn't know."
 
Do you mean people who actually know what is happening in the East, from firsthand experience, or those who only know what the state media tells them about it, apart from scattered rumours?
 
Yes. Not because of direct support mind, but because they wouldn't be able/willing to do anything to stop it.
 
For someone to see firsthand what was happening in the East, they would have had to see combat or at least occupation duties. It would be easier, I think, to convince those people that Slavs were subhuman, by virtue of the fact that Slavs were trying to kill them. Among the WAllies many veterans retained a hatred of Germans or Japanese for their entire lifetimes, and understandably so given their training and experiences. So, troops with Eastern Front experience would probably have agreed with Generalplan Ost as presented to them (with less brutality and glossing over the murders), and they would have been first in line to be farmer-soldiers in the annexed East.

For people on the home front, many people might disapprove of the plan, but few would dare speak of it. We can say that they would only know what the state media was telling them; however, everybody was secretly listening to foreign news and everybody was sharing rumors. So many people would have been exposed to the truth, even if they chose not to believe it.

I imagine the churches would be quite opposed, and there would be pastors and priests here and there who risked their lives to preach on the topic, but little organized opposition outside of that. So, as mentioned, the usual tactic would be wilful ignorance. I do not think the average moderately successful city-dweller would have been anxious to start a farm in the East, no matter how idyllic the lifestyle. Nor would farmers give up their plots in the Old Reich for a few more acres of land outside Germany (particularly with Nazi agricultural land reforms in place). The people who did elect to go East would be the same sort as tended to emigrate to the USA in earlier years -- people who were ambitious but had little to speak of in the old country.
 
What is your definition of support then?
Go along with it. Willfully ignore the signs of what was happening around them, and indirectly aid the effort. Much like the average response to the Holocaust when it was ongoing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Go along with it. Willfully ignore the signs of what was happening around them, and indirectly aid the effort. Much like the average response to the Holocaust when it was ongoing.
Then America has a LOT to answer for.
 
Yes

People approve of something that only ever seems an idea, albeit one they know is being put into practice

These are the same people you can ask of: Do they support the Nuremburg Laws?

By and large, yes they did. Because it all seemed so theoretical or, like Brexit fanatics, they can quote analogies to Romanian super-families on benefits, which sing to their prejudice
 
Then America has a LOT to answer for.
Yes, yes it does. Lots of people could have taken action earlier but didn't. And they all share some of the blame.

And in case you are wondering, no I don't think anyone ELSE would have stepped in to stop the Germans in the East.

That wasn't the question though.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, yes it does. Lots of people could have taken action earlier but didn't. And they all share some of the blame.

And in case you are wondering, no I don't think anyone ELSE would have stepped in to stop the Germans in the East.

That wasn't the question though.
Just making sure there is consistency of definitions.
We definitely agree then.
 
The German people had been wronged by Versailles. After years of abuse, Hitler restored their pride, their power, and their prestige. The German people proved they were willing to ignore the causes of their success for the rewards that followed. Many of them would never see the horrors of the East and those willing to go would be fanatics who agreed with the regime. The next generation, raised in National Socialism, would have embraced what Hitler advocated. It doesn't matter what the passive present thinks but how the next acts. Germany is an incredibly socially connected nation that cares more for the whole than the individual. The pressure to conform with the regime, especially as it succeeded more and more would be impossible to resist, especially as the Nazis went in desensitizing steps. With every new victory, Hitler became more powerful. If the Soviets fall, no one is questioning what follows. They'll merely sit in the dark, relishing Germany's prominence and what that brings, accepting whatever comforting lies Goebbels offers. People enjoy beef as long as they don't know where it comes from.
 
By and large, yes they did. Because it all seemed so theoretical or, like Brexit fanatics, they can quote analogies to Romanian super-families on benefits, which sing to their prejudice
Do you really have to compare something like leaving the EU for political reasons to something like a genocide of one half of pre-1991 Russia? I'm honestly baffled at this unless you're referring to unreasonable people who were for Brexit (not all Brexiters I guess).

But as for my two cents on this support for this...Ost thing, the German public would be supportive of it, if the regime presents it as some form of "punishment" for the Soviet Union who were supposedly out to get the Germans; heck they might end up distorting the reality of the horrid treatment of the Slavic peoples (sugar coating it no doubt) by saying it's some form of necessity in bringing "security to the Eurasian continent". Remember, it's best to attract flies with honey than vinegar in regards to getting public support for this kind of atrocity.
 
The German people had been wronged by Versailles. After years of abuse, Hitler restored their pride, their power, and their prestige. The German people proved they were willing to ignore the causes of their success for the rewards that followed. Many of them would never see the horrors of the East and those willing to go would be fanatics who agreed with the regime. The next generation, raised in National Socialism, would have embraced what Hitler advocated. It doesn't matter what the passive present thinks but how the next acts. Germany is an incredibly socially connected nation that cares more for the whole than the individual. The pressure to conform with the regime, especially as it succeeded more and more would be impossible to resist, especially as the Nazis went in desensitizing steps. With every new victory, Hitler became more powerful. If the Soviets fall, no one is questioning what follows. They'll merely sit in the dark, relishing Germany's prominence and what that brings, accepting whatever comforting lies Goebbels offers. People enjoy beef as long as they don't know where it comes from.
I agree with most of your post but would prefer to say "The German people believe they had been wronged at Versailles". While Versailles was a harsh settlement, it was nowhere near as harsh as Brest-Litovsk or the break up of the Austro-Hungarian state or the Ottoman Empire. The belief stems I think from three main drivers.

1) the "stab in the back legend", put about by their own generals to save face.
2) the continuation of the RN blockade during the armistice, which we today would think harsh but at the time probably seemed necessary to the Allies to stop the Germans regrouping at fighting on.
3) the ''War Guilt' clause, which in historical hindsight was wrong in laying the moral responsibility for the War solely on Germany. I've read it was initially a 'War Damage' clause which would have been more acceptable since the Western Front was fought alamost entirely on French and Belgian territory.

Sorry about the nitpick, I do think that in practical terms you're right about how the German people would have been led to believe the Ostplan was justified. Is it fair to compare this to Confederates attitude to slaves?
 
3) the ''War Guilt' clause, which in historical hindsight was wrong in laying the moral responsibility for the War solely on Germany. I've read it was initially a 'War Damage' clause which would have been more acceptable since the Western Front was fought alamost entirely on French and Belgian territory.
It was always a war damage clause. The section is the legal justification for why reperations were levied.

All the treaties had that clause, modified based on what country was signing.
 
Yes. They would support the plan as it would be presented to them and as it would be seen and understood by them.

That doesn't mean there would be an overwhelming positive response to the call for "colonists". The government would need to offer hefty enticements. Given what the government was, it would do so, and it would get at least enough volunteers to be able to call it a success.

So, troops with Eastern Front experience would probably have agreed with Generalplan Ost as presented to them (with less brutality and glossing over the murders), and they would have been first in line to be farmer-soldiers in the annexed East.

This I strongly doubt. My take (I have no hard evidence for this) is that those who had soldiered there would be happy never to go back, save maybe for a small number of fanatics. Those who would go would be poor farmers and peasant day laborers who owned no land in Germany, who had served elsewhere or at most in supporting duties in the rear areas, and who would know about the place only or almost only what the government was telling them.
 

NoMommsen

Donor
It was always a war damage clause. The section is the legal justification for why reperations were levied.

All the treaties had that clause, modified based on what country was signing.

From wikisource
Article 231
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
It was lesser the part about the responsibility for losses and damages, that caused the german embarresment but more the last, highlightened part, which was a "new" element of such treaties in declaring one nation to be the sole responsible and "guilty" for the outbreak of a multinational war at all.
 
Top