Talk:Ahnenpass

Ahnenpass

User MyMoloboaccount is using Nursing History Review, Volume 12, 2004: Official Publication of the American Association for the History of Nursing as the source that 'Aryan' equaled German and that people had to trace their ancestry to not have any Jewish or Slav ancestry, this is not considered a reliable source, I have reverted it. The Ahnenpass itself as examples mentions two Slav ethnic groups (Czechs and Poles) as examples of Aryans, this refutes this poor uncited source.

see: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources--198.58.112.253 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It refers to citizens of other countries, which could be of various ethnic identity. I might also suggest you do not use Junge Freiheit. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not a cited source and is not reliable, period. Junge Freiheit you can remove but the text is also cited in Deutsch: Eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945 By Christopher J. Wells and in the Meine Neue Enzyklopädie by Jörn Scheer, it is reliable and cited.

Can you identify any other sources that state the Ahnenpass was to prove no Slavic ancestry - despite the fact Slavs were accepted as Aryan and the example of Aryans in the world used both Czechs and Poles as examples, and what are they - Slav.--198.58.112.253 (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Slavs weren't accepted as Aryans by Nazis.Dozens of sources confirm this. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No they do not. Can you show me any evidence from the Nazis themselves that they viewed Slavs as non-Aryan? I have given MORE than enough sources that show they DID regard them as Aryan. Plenty of scholars also state they were regarded as Aryan. Even the term subhuman, can you show me anywhere the Nazis applied to the Slavs?--106.187.53.216 (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 To the Present - Page 106

Michael S. Neiberg - 2004 Since Nazi racial ideology denigrated the Poles and Slavs as sub-human.

• Sexuality And German Fascism - Page 44

Dagmar Herzog - 2005 However, they accept the division between "races" ("Aryan," Jewish, Slavic, etc.) as a priori --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not what this article is about, I said can you show me a source where the Ahnenpass stated one had to prove to have no Slav ancestry?

The "races" has already been discussed, the "Slavic race" was non-existent but the Nazis used to describe it through propaganda against the Slavs. The Nazis knew it was nothing more than a linguistic term. The sub-human concept is also another topic altogether, (even if we take that Slavs were sub-humans), so were the German 'Aryan' Communists that were put into concentration camps in 1933 - this is not what we are here to discuss. Unless you can prove to me through a cited confirmed source that the Ahnenpass stated no Slavic ancestry then I'm sorry but a source from a nursing history review is not going to cut it. You also seem to keep denying the fact Czechs and Poles (both Slav) were seen as examples of Aryans for this document.--106.187.53.216 (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm re-adding a direct quotation from the very document this article is about.

de Gruyter is a well-know reliable publishing house. Re-added paragraph:

• The Ahnenpaß stated that "wherever they might live in the world" Aryans were "e.g. an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian".

Source: Walter de Gruyter publishing house. Author: Christopher J. Wells
Deutsch: Eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945. Walter de Gruyter. (1990) p. 447. ISBN 978-3-11-091484-9.

For the sake of truth -- please do not remove this historical information. Thanks.

Sincerely,84.187.237.219 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Yes, Germanic ethnic groups in other countries were eligible for the pass, Poland in particular had a big German minority before the war.It's already mentioned in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You're simply wrong on this one - the Germans living in those countries were called Germans by the Nazis, they were not called Czechs, or Poles, which is absolute obvious nonsense if you read articles, documents ... whatever from that time. So this statement from the official document does speak about ethnic Czechs, Poles etc. For the sake of truth please, please simply leave the quotation in the article -- do you fear that the reader might not understand it like you want them to? 84.187.237.219 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you don't know that, but the Nazis did not equate Germans and Aryans -- it was called Aryan certificate. And that's why in the Nuremberg laws is was written about "German blood" and "related blood" (German: "artverwandtes Blut"). Sincerely, 84.187.237.219 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC) "So this statement from the official document does speak about ethnic Czechs, Poles"-it doesn't. Also as ethnic Poles were considered sub-human non-Aryans it can't apply to them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's seems to be really hard to clear up that error -- have you heard of Edwin Erich Dwinger? He was a famous writer in Nazi Germany. He was a member of what the Nazis wanted to be the "racial elite". His mother was Russian. Think about that. Have you heard of Victor Tourjansky? He was Russian/Ukrainian -- he made movies in Nazi Germany, he was awared by Goebbels. Think about that. A "subhuman" awared by Goebbels? Lída Baarová was Goebbel's lover. Have you heard about Pola Negri, about Adina Mandlová? Have you heard about Boris Rajewsky? (Russian heritage) Rajewsky even became a member of the Nazi Party. I hope you can see that what you wrote is simply an error. Sincerely, 84.187.237.219 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Nero made a horse a senator, but it doesn't mean Romans viewed horses as humans.Neither did Nazis view Slavs or Poles as such, even if some people would fly under the radar. As to actors? Like said before, we have dog actors too, and don't see them as human, neither did the Nazis view Polish actors as such. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Like I said I'm sure this dogma that the Nazis viewed Slavs as "Untermenschen" is an error -- and I have not encountered primary sources with German original wording which do maintain this.
I did read original German sources from that time which maintain that Slavs are Aryan. Himmler e.g. wrote that Russians were an Aryan people in a book published by a Nazi publishing house (published in the 1930s). I'm sure you would remove such a "revisionist" original authentic Nazi source. But I really wonder how you could reconcile this with what you THINK. 84.187.237.219 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC) " Himmler e.g. wrote that Russians were an Aryan people in a book published by a Nazi publishing house" Really? Care to explain in more detail? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The book is called:
"Sammelheft ausgewählter Vorträge und Reden", 1939, Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Franz Eher Nachf., Berlin
84.187.238.55 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Correction, I double-checked, it's this one: "Die Schutzstaffel als antibolschewistische Kampforganisation.", München, Zentralverlag der NSDAP, Franz Eher Nachf., (1936). 84.187.238.55 (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
PS Maybe read over this -- the writer Edwin Erich Dwinger, who was famous back then, was a member of Himmler's SS -- and Dwinger's mother was Russian. The Russian Boris Rajewsky was a member of the Nazi party -- and acceptance in both organizations was especially strict -- e.g. the mathematician Helmut Hasse applied for Nazi party membership -- but the Nazis denied this because he also had Jewish ancestors. 84.187.238.55 (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
PPS I just found the following (it shows you just how strict the Nazis were concerning racial acceptance in their organizations). Here (Heidelberg university) [1] one can read that the Nazi mathematician Prof. Erhard Tornier denounced Helmut Hasse of having a Jewish great grandmother.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/untermenschen/himmler-fremdvolk.php Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Falsification in the article

It's really a shame that the article includes an outright falsification and even gives a link with the (different! and true) German original wording. It's an error or a lie to say (like in this article) "Aryans could be citizens from German minorities living in countries like England, France, Czech Republic or Poland" -- the original says that Aryans might be e.g. "an Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, or a Pole or an Italian".
How disgusting to not correct this falsehood and mislead those who cannot read the original. 87.182.101.67 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC) PS I'm readding a comment which I made last year and which had been removed -- I just discovered that. I'm disgusted. You are doing a disservice to Wikipedia. You give the Wikipedia a bad name. That's the way dictatorships work -- censorship instead of discussion. 93.224.106.11 (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) PPS And by the way -- I've never met "English Patriot Man". You might take a look at WHOIS etc. But I doubt that you actually care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.106.11 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Original source -- readded for the sake of truth

I readded the following source: ... which shows a page from the very document this Wikipedia-article is about. I cannot understand why somebody would remove it. If wished I can provide the translation of the whole page -- which clearly shows, that it DOES try to clarify and explain who is meant by Aryan. If the goal of the Wikipedia is to present truth there is absolutely no reason to remove the original source. If you want to serve lies and falsification the best way is to remove original sources and block those who provide them. But why? WHY? 93.224.106.11 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll give it a try and provide the translation of the important part. Maybe there is still hope that you are actually interested in the truth. Here we go:

"Those people are considered to have an Aryan lineage (i.e. “of German blood”) who have -- from the perspective of the German nation -- no alien blood. Mainly the blood of Jews or Gypsies is considered alien, even if they live in the European territory, and also the blood of the Asian and African races and the natives of Australia and America (Indians), while on the contrary for example an Englishman or Swede, a Frenchman or Czech, a Pole or an Italian must be regarded as related i.e. as Aryan if he himself has no such also for him alien blood, no matter whether he lives in his homeland, in East Asia or in America, whether he is a citizen of the USA or of a South-American state."

(Original German in the official Ahnenerbe-document): Arischer Abstammung (= "deutschblütig") ist demnach derjenige Mensch, der frei von einem, vom deutschen Volkes aus gesehen, fremdrassigen Blutseinschlage ist. Als fremd gilt hier vor allem das Blut der auch im europäischen Siedlungsraum lebenden Juden und Zigeuner, das der asiatischen und afrikanischen Rassen und der Ureinwohner Australiens und Amerikas (Indianer), während z.B. ein Engländer oder Schwede, ein Franzose oder Tscheche, ein Pole oder Italiener, wenn er selbst frei von solchen, auch ihm fremden Blutseinschlägen ist, als verwandt, also als arisch gelten muss, mag er nun in seiner Heimat, in Ostasien oder in Amerika wohnen oder mag er Bürger der U.S.A. oder eines südamerikanischen Freistaates sein."

93.224.106.11 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

PS The translation crucial section of the original document could of course be added to the article -- for everybody to be able to read the truth. But of course one can also try to hide the truth and not add it and delete the document. But as long as you don't censor the internet one or the other might still find out what the subject of this Wikipedia-article actually says. I'll leave it there. 93.224.106.11 (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The above fragment says about citizens and it is clearly that speaks about Germans not ethnic Poles. Poland and Czechoslovakia for example had large German minority who were Polish citizens.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotation: "... while on the contrary for example ... a Pole ... must be regarded as related i.e. as Aryan if he himself has no such also for him alien blood, no matter whether he lives in his homeland, ... or in America ... . At the same time considering e.g. a marriage it is obvious that the German member of our nation, the girl who has purely German heritage is closer to us than an Aryan whose racial relation is more distant."

How can you still maintain that it speaks about Germans not ethnic Poles?! It's right there for you to read. Poles were considered Aryan but still (Ahnenpass-quote) "more distant" than somebody who (Ahnenpass-quote) "has purely German heritage". Poles in Poland were called Poles. Very simple. Germans in other states (e.g. German Polish citizens) were called "Volksdeutsche" (and not e.g. Poles) by the Nazis and "Auslandsdeutsche" before 1933 (Source: Johann Böhm: Die deutschen Volksgruppen im unabhängigen Staat Kroatien und im serbischen Banat: ihr Verhältnis zum Dritten Reich 1941–1944. Peter Lang, 2012, ISBN 3-63163-323-8, p. 19.). 93.224.100.106 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

PS It would be absolutely absurd to maintain that they were trying to explain that Germans in England, Poland, Italy etc. (while calling them Englishmen, Poles, Italians) had to be considered Aryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.224.100.106 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Germans in other states (e.g. German Polish citizens) were called "Volksdeutsche" (and not e.g. Poles) by the Nazis and "Auslandsdeutsche" before 1933 (Source: Johann Böhm: Die deutschen Volksgruppen im unabhängigen Staat Kroatien und im serbischen Banat: ihr Verhältnis zum Dritten Reich 1941–1944. Peter Lang, 2012, ISBN 3-63163-323-8, p. 19.) Again a false claim,not supported by source, the term Volksdeutsche was of course in use, but that didn't mean other terms weren't.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I provide a source and provide exactly the meaning that is also given in the very beginning of the German Wikipedia w:de:Volksdeutsche which is where I found the source that I provided in the first place -- and you simply say "false claim" without source, without reasoning.

It's a pity and it's disgusting. You have an agenda and are not interested in truth itself. Utterly disgusting. But I'll leave it there. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with leaving this huge quotation in the article. We don't normally build our articles using quotations; we use prose that we write ourselves. The point made with the quotation could be succinctly made using a couple sentences of prose. Besides, my reading shows that the Ahnenpass was not issued by the government, but by any of a number of private firms that were paid to do the genealogical research. Therefore there may have been more than one version of the document, and we should not display any one of these as being the official or only version. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa-that's an interesting point.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to speculate. The Ahnenpass was issued by the "Reich Association of Marriage Registrars in Germany" (Reichsverband der Standesbeamten in Deutschland). Source: Cornelia Schmitz-Berning: Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. de Gruyter, Berlin u. a. 1998, ISBN 3-11-013379-2. Page 20.

Thus instead of having an endless content dispute concerning a rephrasing one could let the Ahnenpass-document speak for itself in the Ahnenpass-article. Sincerely, 93.224.100.106 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of who issued the documents, I don't agree with adding the quotation and translation. A concise summary of the contents is the way we normally do it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm. If you read e.g. my last comments/replies above (cf. MyMoloboaccount comments) it is absolutely beyond me how one can infer the opposite of what the actual quotation -- from the very document this article deals with after all ! -- says.

But it obviously does happen.

One should also consider that the quotation is very succinct and terse considering it is trying to prevent wrong interpretation. It is obviously not an easy conception from today's point of view.

Ergo what e.g. MyMoloboaccount would consider a "concise summary" would be wrong. And MyMoloboaccount would certainly not want "English Patriot Man" to write a "concise summary".

Since the subject matter is so disposed for erroneous presentation truth can be served by letting the document also speak for itself. Sincerely, 93.224.100.106 (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

PS Another thought -- if there absolutely must be a statement in the article that clearly contradicts what the document says, OK, so be it -- but the reader should at least have the chance to see and read for himself what the Ahnenpass truly says. For God's sake one could even hide the original wording -- I mean also the translation -- in a reference. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I for one do not speak German and am unable to verify what the document says. This is one good reason why eer normally use secondary sources over primary sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Diannnaa, I speak German. The term Pole can mean German of Polish citizenship. In view of the fact that it is clear that Nazis didn't view Slavs as Aryans but wanted to enslave/exterminate them, it is clear that the text is either badly translated or means Germans of Polish citizenship.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand that -- but this should not prevent us from including both -- the original formulation plus a translation if the reasons given above are accepted. If only my translation and not the original formulation was there, the reader would have no chance of verifying -- but now he or she at least can find someone to check. Furthermore there already had been a German paragraph plus translation in this Wikipedia-article. It also holds true for all Wikipedia-articles that include non-English secondary sources (and the Ahnenpass is not the only Wikipedia-article including also non-English secondary sources) that someone who does not speak the language can also not verify the secondary source. But those are also not removed. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

PS One example: I read in a German source (Springer publishing house) in a book edited by computer scientist Prof. Dr. Hans Dieter Hellige that in the Soviet Union cybernetics was considered a "pseudoscience" and "ideological weapon" of "imperialist reactionaries" -- and the German source pointed to the Soviet Philosophical Dictionary, (Философский словарь, 1954). I do not speak Russian but trusted the German source, which was pointing to the Russian source. Using Google I also found quotations approving it. So I pointed to the primary Russian source and not the secondary German one. I think it's interesting information.

And voilà -- what I added is still there. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research. Either find a source confirming your claims and quote or it simply has no place in the article. The cut and paste quote you have been pushing in the article has for example nothing about Polish "nation".

Anyway we know clearly that Nazis didn't view Poles or other Slavs as Aryans and wanted to exterminate them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I wrote -- write want you want in this article -- but the reader should at least have the chance to find out what the document the article is about says itself. Look at this Wikipedia-article: United States Constitution -- the first page is right there for everybody to read. Here, too: United States Bill of Rights.

You are not even interested in the truth. You will just delete information that does not suit your agenda. Disgusting. It's a pity that people like you that are the opposite of open-minded have such a malign influence in the Wikipedia.

Let's just for one second assume that you actually believe that the translation is bad like you wrote in the comment when deleting it in the article -- you could try to find people who speak German fluently and convince yourself that the translation is accurate ... . I hope you are at least a little ashamed of yourself.

Have a thoughtful day. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

PS When are you going to delete the very long quotation of the "The 25-point Program of the NSDAP" in this article:National Socialist Program using your argument that "Wikipedia doesn't allow original research"?! But of course you won't and I stated the reason why. 93.224.100.106 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sock of English Patriot Man
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For some reason, despite all of the evidence that clearly shows the Nazis regarded the Slavs as Aryan, some people insist including the article the myth that the Slavs were "non-Aryans". Nazi documents during the Third Reich and scholarly sources clearly show they were regarded as Aryans. Although it is true that some Slavic ethnic groups were regarded as racially inferior and after WW2 began were persecuted. If the Nazis truly regarded the Slavs as Aryans when the Nuremberg Laws were announced they would have forbidden sexual relations between Germans and Slavs yet no such thing was ever mentioned and Poles were used as an example of a racial minority living in Germany that were racially related to the Germans.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Are you also 93.224.106.11 from above? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC) No, but the truth should not be excluded from the article. The fact remains that the Nazis regarded the Slavs as Aryans.--92.29.159.95 (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Sock of indef blocked editor English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC) No, that's correct, you are not 93.224.106.11, but you are User:88.109.64.25, User:92.29.153.231, and User:2.97.224.21, all of whom have edited this article, and all of whom geolocate to the same place you do. Furthermore, all their edits were reverted, and the three IPs blocked, by admin User:Diannaa as being socks of the indef blocked editor User:English Patriot Man, who is a prolific sockmaster. [2] All of your edits will be struck out or reverted as block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Let me add User:92.17.102.156, geolocates to the same place, has edited this article, blocked as sock of English Patriot Man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC) 92.29.159.95 blocked by Acroterion for block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny reading this, big L for the people refusing to back up the ridiculous claim that NSDAP considered Slavs not Aryan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxspitter (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"Opposition clergy ..."

"Opposition clergy helped many racially persecuted individuals by providing them with fake passports as a personal document necessary for survival". What is the source for that claim? Do they actually name any clergymen who did that? Norvo (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)