Open Access Articles- Top Results for Lebensraum


File:Greater Germanic Reich.png
The "Greater Germanic Reich" was to be realised with the policies of Lebensraum, and the boundaries were to derive from the plans of the Generalplan Ost, the state administration, and the Schutzstaffel (SS), to include the Ural Mountains.[1]

Lebensraum About this sound listen  (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was an ideology proposing an aggressive expansion of Germany and the German people. Developed under German Empire, it became part of German goals during the First World War and was later adopted as an important component of Nazi ideology in Germany. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories.[2]

It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic people.[3][4][5] The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.[3] The policy of Lebensraum implicitly assumed the superiority of Germans as members of an Aryan master race who by virtue of their superiority had the right to displace people deemed to be part of inferior races.[4] The Nazis insisted that Lebensraum needed to be developed as racially homogeneous to avoid intermixing with peoples deemed to be part of inferior races.[4] As such, peoples deemed to be part of inferior races living within territory selected to be Lebensraum were subject to expulsion or destruction.[4] Nazi Germany also supported other nations' pursuing their own Lebensraum, including Fascist Italy.[6]

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. The German Nazi Party claimed that Germany inevitably needed to territorially expand because it was facing an overpopulation crisis within its Treaty of Versailles-designed boundaries that Adolf Hitler described: "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources".[2] Thus expansion was justified as an inevitable necessity for Germany to pursue in order to end the country's overpopulation within existing confined territory, and provide resources necessary to its people's well-being.[2] Since the 1920s, the Nazi Party publicly claimed the necessity of Germany to eventually expand into territories held by the Soviet Union.[7] Hitler and the Nazi party, before taking power, openly talked about acquiring Polish territories as well[8] From 1939 to 1941, the Nazi regime claimed to have discarded plans to annex Soviet territories in light of improved relations with the Soviet Union via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and claimed that central Africa was where Germany sought to achieve lebensraum.[9] Hitler publicly claimed that Germany wanted to settle the lebensraum issue peacefully through diplomatic negotiations that would require other powers to make concessions to Germany.[10] At the same time however Germany did prepare for war in the cause of lebensraum, and in the late 1930s Hitler emphasized the need for a military build-up to prepare for a potential clash between the peoples of Germany and the Soviet Union.[11]While planning to attack and destroy Poland, Germany at the same time stated that should a conflict erupt between Germany and the Soviet Union resulting in Germany taking lebensraum from the Soviet Union, if Poland would subordinate itself to Germany and allow it to annex Polish territory concessions, it would allow it right to annex parts Ukraine from the Soviet Union while Germany would annex other Soviet territories; Hitler made the proposal fully aware that it will be rejected by shocked Polish diplomats.[12] [13][14]

The Nazi regime invoked a variety of precedents to justify the pursuit of Lebensraum.[15] One was invoking the precedent of the United States.[4] Hitler declared that the size of European states was "absurdly small in comparison to their weight of colonies, foreign trade, etc.," which he contrasted to "the American Union which possesses at its base its own continent and touches the rest of the earth only with its summit."[4] Hitler believed that the colonization of the continental United States by Nordic peoples of Europe that had a large internal market, material reproduction, and fertile biological reproduction, provided the closest model to that of Lebensraum.[4]


See also: Ostsiedlung
File:Friedrich Ratzel.jpg
The German geographer and ethnographer Friedrich Ratzel (1844–1904) coined the word Lebensraum (1901) as a term of human geography, which the Nazis adopted as a by-word for the aggressive territorial expansion of Germany into the Greater Germanic Reich.
The Swedish political scientist Johan Rudolf Kjellén (1864–1922) interpreted Friedrich Ratzel's ethnogeographic term, Lebensraum as a geopolitical term, which the Nazis applied to justify German pre-emptive warfare.

Historically, the concept of a Germanic people with insufficient living space (Volk ohne Raum) predated Adolf Hitler's ideological application of Lebensraum to the national politics of Germany. Through the Middle Ages (1100–1453), the social, economic, and political pressures of overpopulation in the German states had led to their practice of Ostsiedlung, the settlement of Germanic peoples in Eastern Europe. In 1901, the ethnographer and geographer Friedrich Ratzel coined the word Lebensraum (“living space”), as a term of human geography, to describe the importance of physical geography, of habitat as a factor that influences the human activities possible in the course of a people developing into a society.[16] In the period between the First and the Second world wars (1919–39) German nationalists had adapted and adopted the term Lebensraum to their politics for the establishment of a Germanic colonial-empire like the British Empire, the French Empire, and the empire that the U.S. established with the west-ward expansion of the “American frontier”, which was advocated and justified by the ideology of Manifest Destiny (1845).[17] Ratzel said that the development of a people into a society was primarily influenced by their geographic situation (habitat), and that a society who successfully adapted to one geographic territory would naturally and logically expand the boundaries of their nation into another territory.[16] Yet, to resolve German overpopulation, Ratzel said that Imperial Germany (1871–1918) required overseas colonies to which its surplus people ought to emigrate.[18]

In the event, Friedrich Ratzel’s metaphoric concept of society as an organism — which grows and shrinks in logical relation to its Lebensraum (habitat) — proved especially influential upon the Swedish political scientist and conservative politician Johan Rudolf Kjellén (1864–1922) who interpreted that biological metaphor as a geopolitical natural-law.[19] In the political monograph Schweden (1917; Sweden), Kjellén coined the terms geopolitik (the conditions and problems of a state that arise from its geographic territory),œcopolitik (the economic factors that affect the power of the state), and demopolitik (the social problems that arise from the racial composition of the state) to explain the political particulars to be considered for the successful administration and governing of a state. Moreover, he had great intellectual influence upon the politics of Imperial Germany, especially with Staten som livsform (1916; The State as a Life-form) an earlier political-science book that was widely read among the society of Imperial Germany, among whom the concept of geopolitik acquired an ideological definition very different from Kjellén’s original human-geography definition.[20]

After the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which resulted in a smaller, weakened post–WWI Germany, the Nazi Party, under Adolf Hitler would propose and justify territorial expansion as an inevitable,[21] geopolitical necessity for Germany that would resolve overpopulation and provide the natural resources required for the well-being of the German people.[21] Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of the Lebensraum concept was adapted, expanded, and adopted to the politics of Germany by the publicists of imperialism, such as the militarist General Friedrich von Bernhardi (1849–1930) and the political geographer and proponent of geopolitics Karl Ernst Haushofer (1869–1946). In Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg (1911; Germany and the Next War), General von Bernhardi developed Friedrich Ratzel’s Lebensraum concept as a racial struggle for living space; explicitly identified Eastern Europe as the source of a new, national habitat for the German people; and said that the next war [the Second World War] would be expressly for acquiring Lebensraum — all in fulfilment of the “biological necessity” to protect German racial supremacy. That vanquishing the Slavic and the Latin races was necessary, because “without war, inferior or decaying races would easily choke the growth of healthy, budding elements” of the German race — thus, the war for Lebensraum was a necessary means of defending Germany against cultural stagnation and the racial degeneracy of miscegenation.[22]

In the national politics of Germany, the usage of Lebensraum, as a geopolitical term, can be credited to Karl Ernst Haushofer and his Institute of Geopolitics in Munich, especially as expounded by the nationalists who sought to avenge the defeat of Imperial Germany in the First World War (1914–18). As such, in Mein Kampf (1928; My Struggle), Adolf Hitler applied Lebensraum as the conceptual basis of his thesis that Germany was destined to colonise Eastern Europe — specifically Russia — in order to resolve German overpopulation, and that the European states had to accede to his geopolitical demands; thus would Ukraine become the granary of the Greater German Reich. Moreover, the Nazi usages (propaganda, political, and official) of the term Lebensraum were explicitly racist, to justify the mystical right of the racially superior Germanic peoples (Herrenvolk) to fulfil their cultural destiny at the expense of racially inferior peoples (Untermenschen), such as the Slavs of Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, and the other, non–Nordic peoples of “the East”.[23] Based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel's human-geography term, the Nazi régime (1933–45) established Lebensraum as the racist rationale of the foreign policy that allowed them to launch the Second World War in effort to realise the Greater German Reich at the expense of the societies of Eastern Europe.[20]

Since the 1920s, the Nazi Party had espoused and advocated the eventual necessity of expanding Germany into the territory of Russia.[24] In that vein, Hitler and the Nazi Party also espoused acquiring Lebensraum lands from Poland.[25] Given the improved Russo–German political relations consequent to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939), in the pact's three-year period (1939–41), the Germans told the Russians that Nazi Germany had discarded plans to annex territories from the U.S.S.R., and that Germany would seek Lebensraum in central Africa.[26] About the international politics of Lebensraum, Hitler said that Germany sought the diplomatic settlement of claims for living space in Europe, which would require that the European powers cede territories claimed by Nazi Germany.[27]

Despite the façade of seeking diplomatic settlements to Germany’s claims for living space, the Third Reich prepared war for Lebensraum, because, by the late 1930s, Hitler had realised the militarisation of German society in preparation for Operation Barbarossa (22 June 1941), the eventual and “necessary” war between the peoples of Germany and of Russia.[28] In planning the destruction of Poland, by partition and annexation, Nazi Germany told the Polish Government that if war between Germany and the Soviet Union resulted in Germany taking Lebensraum from the Soviet Union, then Germany would allow Poland the right to annex parts of the Ukraine, whilst Germany annexed more Soviet territory — if Poland were to subordinate herself to Germany, and allow the German annexation of Polish territories. Aware that the proposal would immediately be rejected, the Reich Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, nonetheless proposed that territorial-annexation settlement to the Polish diplomats who sought to forestall the Nazi invasion of Poland (1 September 1939).[29][30][31]

The Third Reich invoked precedents — geopolitical, historical, cultural — to legalistically justify their pursuit of Lebensraum beyond theborders of Germany.[4] Besides the historical examples of the British and French colonial empires, Nazi territorial expansion was justified with the cultural example of Manifest Destiny (1845), the ideological justification for the colonisation, by the white people of the United States, of the “American frontier”, the inhabited North-American lands south of Canada and north of Mexico.[4] Hitler said that the geographic size of the European nation-states was “absurdly small in comparison to their weight of colonies, foreign trade, etc.”, which he contrasted to “the American Union, which possesses, at its base, its own continent, and touches the rest of the Earth only with its summit”; and that colonisation of the continental U.S., by the Nordic peoples of Europe, would create a nation possessed of a great, internal market, of a great capacity for material reproduction, and a fertile land fit for great biological reproduction; hence was North America the ideal Lebensraum proposed by Nazism.[4]

Lebensraum in practice

Southwest Africa (1884–1915)

During the first decade of the 20th century Imperial Germany colonised Southwest Africa and committed genocide against the local Herero and Nama peoples. Madley (2005) argues that the German experience in German South-West Africa was a crucial precursor to Nazi colonialism and genocide and that personal connections, literature and public debates served as conduits for communicating colonialist and genocidal ideas and methods from the colony to Germany.[32]

The First World War (1914–18)

In September 1914, when victory in the Great War seemed at hand, Berlin introduced a Lebensraum plan for postwar peace terms. The concept of Lebensraum was endorsed secretly by the Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg and the rest of the German government as a war aim in World War I. Documents discovered by the German historian Fritz Fischer have suggested that in the event of a German victory, the policy under discussion by the German government as part of its Septemberprogramm was to annex a strip of Poland, and replace the population with Germans to set up a defensive barrier in the east. Similar proposals were made towards Lithuanians and settlement of Germans in Ukraine; the overall idea of German rule in Central and Eastern Europe during the First World War was to annex large areas and engage in ethnic cleansing (an idea which would later be adopted by Nazis).[33] As the German Empire lost the war, the population policy wasn't enacted.[34] The significance of Fischer's discovery, as the Australian historian John Moses has noted, is that the goal of winning Lebensraum was already in German thinking long before 1933 and thus cannot be seen, as some German historians have argued, as solely Adolf Hitler's personal brain-child.[35] The "September plan" was a proposal that was under discussion but was never adopted and no movement of people was ever ordered. As historian Raffael Scheck concluded, "The government, finally, never committed itself to anything. It had ordered the September Programme as an informal hearing in order to learn about the opinion of the economic and military elites."[36] In contrast the idea of annexing Polish territory and removing Polish population was officially discussed by all elements of German politics, military and industrial circles and widely supported; even members of SDP in general agreed with the idea[37]

As the British historian A. J. P. Taylor noted in his 1963 foreword "Second Thoughts" to his 1961 book The Origins of the Second World War:

It is equally obvious that Lebensraum always appeared as one element in these blueprints. This was not an original idea of Hitler's. It was commonplace at the time. Volk ohne Raum (People Without Space) for instance, by Hans Grimm sold much better than Mein Kampf when it was published in 1928. For that matter, plans for acquiring new territory were much aired in Germany during the First World War. It used to be thought that these were the plans of a few crack-pot theorisers or of extremist organisations. Now we know better. In 1961 a German professor [Fritz Fischer] reported the results of his investigations into German war aims. These were indeed a "blueprint for aggression" or as the professor called them "a grasp at world power": Belgium under German control, the French iron fields annexed to Germany, and, what is more, Poland and the Ukraine to be cleared of their inhabitants and resettled with Germans. These plans were not merely the work of the German General Staff. They were endorsed by the German Foreign Office and by the "good German", Bethmann Hollweg.[38]

The German Empire planned to annex territory in both Lithuania and Poland for direct colonisation by German colonists after the forcible removal of the Polish and Lithuanian population. As early as April 1915, the Polish Border Strip plan against Poland, which was first suggested by General Erich Ludendorff in 1914, was approved as a German war aim by the Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg. The German historian Andreas Hillgruber argued that the foreign policy of General Ludendorff, with its demand for lebensraum to be seized for Germany in Eastern Europe during World War I, was the prototype for German policy in World War II.[39] Lebensraum almost became a reality in 1918 during World War I. The new Communist regime of Russia concluded the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, ending Russian participation in the war in exchange for the surrender of huge swathes of land, including the Baltic territories, Belarus, Ukraine and the Caucasus.[40] However, unrest at home and defeat on the Western Front forced Germany to abandon these favourable terms in favour of the Treaty of Versailles, by which the newly acquired eastern territories were agreed to sacrifice the land to Lithuania, Poland and new nations such as Estonia or Latvia, and a series of short-lived independent states in Ukraine.

The German historian Andreas Hillgruber said that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) was the prototype for Hitler's vision of a Greater German Empire in Eastern Europe:

To understand later German history, one must pay special attention to a consequence of the Eastern situation, in the autumn of 1918, that has often been overlooked: the widely-shared and strangely irrational misconceptions concerning the end of the War that found such currency in the Weimar period. These ideas were not informed, as they should have been, by an appreciation of the enemy's superiority in the West, and the inevitable, step-by-step retreat of the German Western Front before the massive influx of the Americans. Nor did they indicate any understanding of the catastrophic consequences for the Central Powers, following the collapse of the Balkan front, after Bulgaria's withdrawal from the war. They were, instead, largely determined by the fact that German troops, as "victors" held vast strategically and economically important areas of Russia.

At the moment of the November 1918 ceasefire in the West, newspaper maps of the military situation showed German troops in Finland, holding a line from the Finnish fjords near Narva, down through Pskov-Orsha-Mogilev and the area south of Kursk, to the Don east of Rostov. Germany had thus secured the Ukraine. The Russian recognition of the Ukraine's separation, exacted at Brest-Litovsk, represented the key element in German efforts to keep Russia perpetually subservient. In addition, German troops held the Crimea, and were stationed, in smaller numbers, in Transcaucasia. Even the unoccupied "rump" Russia appeared—with the conclusion of the German–Soviet Supplementary Treaty on 28 August 1918—to be in firm, though indirect, dependency on the Reich. Thus, Hitler's long-range aim, fixed in the 1920s, of erecting a German Eastern Imperium on the ruins of the Soviet Union was not simply a vision emanating from an abstract wish. In the Eastern sphere established in 1918, this goal had a concrete point of departure. The German Eastern Imperium had already been—if only for a short time—a reality.[41]

Lebensraum as Nazi ideology

The inter-war period (1919–39)

The feeling that Germans were people without space (Volk ohne Raum) was greatly exploited among German nationalists who felt that the Treaty of Versailles were harsh on Germans, especially with the loss of German territories.[42] Even German Eugenicists took up the nationalist slogan and came to believe that Germany was a Volk ohne Jugend (a people without youth).[43] The desire for Lebensraum was a key tenet of several German nationalist and extremist groups in post-World War I Germany, most notably the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler. As the American historian Gerhard Weinberg noted, German demands for territorial revision went beyond merely regaining land lost under the Treaty of Versailles, and instead embraced calls for the German conquest and colonization of all Eastern Europe, regardless of whether the land in question had belonged to Germany before 1918 or not[44] Likewise, the British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper argued that the goal of overthrowing Versailles was only a prelude to seizing Lebensraum in Eastern Europe for Germany with no regard as to where Germany's 1914 frontiers had been.[45] In Mein Kampf, Hitler was to write:

Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation.

The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence.[46]

This was to be the unvarying aim of foreign policy.[47]

Even the decline in the birthrate from the 1880s, contradicting claims of a vigorous and growing race, could not damp down demands for Lebensraum.[48]

Hitler rejected other nationalist parties emphasis on merely restoring the borders of 1914, saying:

The German borders of 1914 were borders that represented something as unfinished as peoples' borders always are. The division of territory on earth is always the momentary result of a struggle and an evolution that is in no way finished, but that naturally continues to progress. It is dumb to simply take borders from any given year in the history of a people and establish it as a political goal.
—Adolf Hitler, 1928[49]

The Second World War (1939–45)

Main article: Heim ins Reich
File:Bundesarchiv R 49 Bild-0705, Polen, Herkunft der Umsiedler, Karte.jpg
Origin of German colonisers in annexed Polish territories. Set in action "Heim ins Reich"
File:Bundesarchiv R 49 Bild-0025, Ausstellung "Planung und Aufbau im Osten", Schautafel.jpg
The chart “Exhibition: Planning and Construction in the East" details the Nazi expulsion of Poles and Jews (1939-41) and numbers of German colonists in occupied Poland.

The official German history of World War II was to conclude that the conquest of Lebensraum was for Hitler and the rest of the National Socialists the most important German foreign policy goal.[50] At his first meeting with all of the leading Generals and Admirals of the Reich ("Empire") on February 3, 1933, Hitler spoke of "conquest of Lebensraum in the East and its ruthless Germanization" as his ultimate foreign policy objectives.[51] For Hitler, the land which would provide sufficient Lebensraum for Germany was the Soviet Union, which for Hitler was both a nation that possessed vast and rich agricultural land and was inhabited by what Hitler saw as Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans) ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of blood-thirsty, but grossly incompetent Jewish revolutionaries.[52] These people were not Germanizable in his eyes; only the soil was.[53]

In Mein Kampf, Hitler rejected the "Germanization" of a non-German people, of an inferior race:

Not only in Austria, however, but also in the Reich, these so-called national circles were, and still are, under the influence of similar erroneous ideas. Unfortunately, a policy towards Poland, whereby the East was to be Germanized, was demanded by many, and was based on the same false reasoning. Here, again, it was believed that the Polish people could be Germanized, by being compelled to use the German language. The result would have been fatal. A people of foreign race would have had to use the German language to express modes of thought that were foreign to the German, thus compromising, by its own inferiority, the dignity and nobility of our nation.[54]

Total extermination was not required only because Eastern Europe was regarded as having people of Aryan-Nordic descent, among some of their leaders and these few were to be spared.[55] Himmler declared that no drop of German blood would be lost or left behind to mingle with any "alien races".[56] The Nazi leadership believed that the conquest of Eastern Europe was historically justified: in fact, it was the Slavs who took these lands from the native Goths by force, and thus Germany had the right to take them back.[57]

In accordance with Nazi blood and soil beliefs, it was to be turned into an agricultural breadbasket for Germany, and its cities destroyed as hotbeds of Russianness and Communism.[58] Even during the war itself, Hitler gave orders that Leningrad was to be razed with no consideration given for the survival and feeding of its population.[59] This would also ensure that blockades, unlike those of World War I, would not produce starvation in Germany.[60] The use of it to feed Germany was to help eliminate Slavs by starving millions to death.[61] Industry would also die off in this region.[61] The Wehrbauer, or soldier-peasants, settled there would maintain a fortified line that would prevent civilization from arising outside their settlements to threaten Germany.[62] Plans for western Europe were less severe, as the Nazis needed local cooperation and the local industry with its workers; furthermore, the countries were regarded as more racially acceptable, the assortment of racial categories being boiled down by the average German to mean "East is bad and West is acceptable."[63] Nevertheless, plans for the future included the annexation of the Scandinavian countries, and also Alsace and Lorraine; Belgium and northern France would follow, while Great Britain might be annexed or kept as a puppet state.[64] Italy's withdrawal from the war led to the addition of northern Italy as part of the territory to be annexed.[65]

In Hitler's view, the idea of restoring the 1914 borders of the Reich was absurd as those borders did not provide sufficient Lebensraum; only a foreign policy that aimed at the conquest of the proper quantity of Lebensraum would justify the necessary sacrifices that war entailed.[66] In Hitler’s view, history was dominated by a merciless struggle between different “races” for survival, and “races” that possessed large amounts of territory were innately stronger than those that did not.[67] Eberhard Jäckel has expressed a Primat der Außenpolitik (“primacy of foreign policy”) interpretation of German foreign policy as opposed to the Primat der Innenpolitik ("primacy of domestic politics") thesis favored by some left-wing historians such as Timothy Mason. Jäckel wrote that since Hitler regarded the conquest of Lebensraum as his most important project, and since that could only be accomplished through war, domestic policy comprised simply preparing the nation for the inevitable struggle for Lebensraum.[68] The demand for Lebensraum was not just a Nazi dream. At the London Economic Conference of 1933, the head of the German delegation, the Economics Minister Dr. Alfred Hugenberg of the German National People's Party, put forth a programme of German colonial expansion in both Africa and Eastern Europe as the best way of ending the Great Depression, which created a major storm at the conference.[69] For being indiscreet enough to advance the claim to Germany's lebensraum at a time when Germany was still more or less disarmed, Hugenberg was sacked from the German cabinet by Hitler.[69]

There are, however, many historians such as Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen who dismiss this "intentionalist" approach, and argue that the concept was actually an "ideological metaphor" in the early days of Nazism.[70]

Nazi stances on the nature of Lebensraum adjusted and changed over time. Hitler in his early years as Nazi leader had claimed that he would be willing to accept friendly relations with Russia on the tactical condition that Russia agree to return to the borders established by the German-Russian peace agreement of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed by Vladimir Lenin of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic in 1918 which gave large territories held by Russia to German control in exchange for peace.[7] Hitler in 1921 had commended the Brest Litovsk treaty as opening the possibility for restoration of relations between Germany and Russia.[7] Hitler from 1921 to 1922 evoked rhetoric of both the achievement of Lebensraum involving the acceptance of a territorially reduced Russia as well as supporting Russian nationals in overthrowing the Bolshevik government and establishing a new Russian government.[7] However Hitler's attitudes changed by the end of 1922, in which he then supported an alliance of Germany with Britain to destroy Russia.[7] After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Nazi regime's stance towards an independent, territorially-reduced Russia was affected by pressure beginning in 1942 from the German Army on Hitler to endorse a Russian national liberation army led by Andrey Vlasov that officially sought to overthrow Josef Stalin and the communist regime and establish a new Russian state.[71] Initially the proposal to support an anti-communist Russian army was met with outright rejection by Hitler, however by 1944 as Germany faced mounting losses on the Eastern Front, Vlasov's forces were recognized by Germany as an ally, particularly by Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler.[72]


The practical implementation of the Lebensraum concept began in 1939 with Germany's occupation of Poland. The forcible displacement of Polish nationals from Reichsgau Wartheland was conducted from mid 1940, first across the border to the colonial district of General Government (see: Action Saybusch), and after the attack on the USSR, to Polenlager camps and other ghettoized villages. Between 1940 and 1944, around 50,000 Poles were forcibly removed from annexed territories.[73][74] In 1941, the German leadership decided that in ten to 20 years, the Polish territories under German occupation were to be cleared entirely of ethnic Poles and resettled by German-speaking colonists from Bukovina, Eastern Galicia and Volhynia.[75] Ethnic Poles were being evicted so abruptly that when colonists arrived, they found half-eaten meals on tables and unmade beds vacated by small children.[76] Ethnic Germans from the Baltic States were racially evaluated, with the highest rating being O Ost-Falle, the best classification, to be settled in the Eastern Wall.[77] Colonisation incorporated 350,000 such "ethnic Germans" and 1.7 million Poles deemed Germanizable, including between one and two hundred thousand children who had been taken from their parents, plus about 400,000 German settlers from the "Old Reich".[78]

Later, the ideology was also a major factor in Hitler's launching of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. The Nazis hoped to turn large areas of Soviet territory into German settlement areas as part of Generalplan Ost.[79] Developing these ideas, Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg proposed that the Nazi administrative organization in lands to be conquered from the Soviets be based upon the following Reichskommissariate:

Name Area
Ostland The Baltic States, Belarus and adjacent parts of Western Russia.
Ukraine The Ukraine, minus East Galicia and Romanian-controlled Transnistria, but extended eastward up to the Volga river.
Moskowien The Moscow metropolitan area and most of adjacent European Russia, with the exclusion of Karelia and the Kola peninsula, promised to Finland in 1941.
Kaukasus The Caucasus region.

The Reichskommissariat territories would extend up to the European frontier at the Urals. They were to have been early stages in the displacement and dispossession of Russian and other Slav people and their replacement with German settlers, following the Nazi Lebensraum im Osten plans. When German forces entered Soviet territory, they promptly organized occupation regimes in the first two territories—the Reichskomissariats of Ostland and Ukraine. The defeat of the Sixth Army at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, followed by defeat in the Battle of Kursk in July 1943 and the Allied landings in Sicily put an end to the plans' implementation.

File:German and Japanese spheres of influence at greatest extent World War II 1942.jpg
The greatest extension of the German and Japanese spheres of influence, in autumn 1942. The arrows indicate the planned demarcation at 70° East, which went unrealised.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan divide Asia

In December 1941, Japan proposed a territorial arrangement concerning how the Axis powers would divide the Asian continent after a complete defeat of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany: a north-south demarcation line at 70° east longitude, running southwards through the Ob River's Arctic estuary, southwards to just east of Khost in Afghanistan and heading into the Indian Ocean just west of Rajkot in India, splitting Germany's Lebensraum and Italy's spazio vitale areas to the west of it, and Japan's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere to the east of it. Hitler found this proposal acceptable and approved it in full.[80]

Fascist Italy's Spazio vitale

In Italian fascist thought, a similar concept was used to justify territorial expansion.[81] However, the spazio vitale of Mussolini was not based on the genocide of the subjugated nations, but presented the Italian race as a "custodian and bearer of superior civilization", whose mission was to export the fascist revolution and "civilize" the territories conquered.[81] The defeated nations would be subjected to Roman rule and protection, but were to keep their own languages and cultures.[81] Fascist ideologist Giuseppe Bottai likened this historic mission to the deeds of the ancient Romans, stating that the new Italians will "illuminate the world with their art, educate it with their knowledge, and give robust structure to their new territories with their administrative technique and ability".[81]

The territorial extent of the Italian spazio vitale was to cover the Mediterranean as a whole (Mare Nostrum) and Northern Africa from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean.[82] It was to be divided into piccolo spazio ("small space"), which was to be inhabited only by Italians, and grande spazio ("large space") inhabited by other nations under Italian domination.[83]

Historical retroperspective

Further information: Nazi foreign policy debate
The scale of Lebensraum

Historians of the Second World war (1939–45) disagree about Adolf Hitler's conception of Lebensraum, whether or not it was part of an ambitious program of world domination, the "globalist" approach, or part of a modest program of European domination, the "continentalist" approach that would have been satisfied with the conquest of Eastern Europe. The interpretations are not exclusive or contradictory, given the existence of the broad Stufenplan ("Plan in Stages"), which the German historians Klaus Hildebrand and Andreas Hillgruber said was behind the conquests of Nazi Germany.[84] The British historian Ian Kershaw said that such a compromise, originally conceptual and undeveloped, assumed new, practical meaning when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in summer 1941.[85] That within the régime proper, the Nazis held different definitions of Lebensraum, as indicated by Rainer Zitelmann, who distinguishes between the near-mystical fascination with an idyllic, agrarian German society, which required arable land, advocated by Richard Walther Darré and Heinrich Himmler, and the industrialised, urban state, advocated by Adolf Hitler, which required raw materials and slaves.[86] Previous, lost opportunities for territorial expansion in Europe, such as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), were important in Adolf Hitler's vision for the future; thus, his insistence upon European Lebensraum for Germany:

The acquisition of new soil for the settlement of the excess population possesses an infinite number of advantages, particularly if we turn from the present to the future . . . It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today, almost exclusively, in Europe.[87]
The substance of Lebensraum

Generally, racism is not ideologically necessary or integral to the politics of territorial expansionism, nor to the original meaning of the term Lebensraum. Yet, in the Third Reich (1933–45) headed by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi ideology established racism (specifically anti-Semitism) as elementary to the territorial expansionism of Lebensraum. The academic Karl Haushofer, an acquaintance of Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess, exerted some influence upon the ideas supporting Hitler's conception of Lebensraum; as such, “Haushofer primarily provided the academic and scientific support for the expansion of the Third Reich.”[88] Haushofer’s adaptation of Ratzel's 19th-century conception of Lebensraum comprised national expansion into heavily-populated countries, by way of Germany's right to expand and gain land from less populated countries.[88] In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the territorial needs of Germany:

In an era when the Earth is gradually being divided up among states, some of which embrace almost entire continents, we cannot speak of a world power in connection with a formation whose political mother country is limited to the absurd area of five hundred thousand square kilometers.[89] Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people, and their strength, for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present, restricted living space to new land and soil, and, hence, also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth, or of serving others as a slave nation.[90] For it is not in colonial acquisitions that we must see the solution of this problem, but exclusively in the acquisition of a territory for settlement, which will enhance the area of the mother country, and hence not only keep the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of their origin, but secure for the entire area those advantages which lie in its unified magnitude.[91]

Contemporary usages

The term "Lebensraum" has been applied to many post-war nations. The spread of global capitalism by the United States has been called an "American Lebensraum," and has been criticized as a form of economic and cultural imperialism.[92][93] Tsering Shakya has written that the People's Republic of China's policies in Tibet have also been compared with lebensraum.[94][95] In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser's Arab nationalism were linked with domestic circumstances that necessitated rulers seeking "lebensraum" beyond the Egyptian borders. Radical nationalism in Egyptian writings has been attributed to the influence of historical Germany, and Italy, with the concept of lebensraum affecting writings on Egyptian-Sudanese relations.[96][97] The term has also been linked to Israel, both in its actions during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war[98][99] and later to its settlement policies in the Palestinian territories.[100][101][102][103][104] Efraim Eitam, an Israeli government minister under Prime minister Ariel Sharon, explicitly used the concept of Lebensraum as the basis for his arguments that all Israeli Arabs and Palestinians should be persuaded or forced to leave Israel and the Palestinian Territories.[105]

In a different context, the idea of living space has been invoked by the architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner when analysing Baroque architecture. In a BBC radio talk in 1973 ("Is there an English Baroque?") Pevsner spoke of "mighty forms which don’t allow each other enough living space" at St John's, Smith Square, in Westminster, and of "King Charles’s Block at Greenwich, with giant pilasters rising right from the ground and windows deprived of living space by the pilasters".[106]

See also


  1. ^ "Utopia: The 'Greater Germanic Reich of the German Nation'". München - Berlin: Institut für Zeitgeschichte. 1999. 
  2. ^ a b c Stephen J. Lee. Europe, 1890-1945. P. 237.
  3. ^ a b Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics against Human Dignity, by André Mineau, (Rodopi, 2004) page 180
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Shelley Baranowski. Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P. 141.
  5. ^
  6. ^ Mark Mazower. Hitler's Empire: Nazi rule in occupied Europe. Allen Lane, 2008. P. 63.
  7. ^ a b c d e Peter D. Stachura. The Shaping of the Nazi State. P. 31.
  8. ^ Stutthof. Zeszyty Muzeum, 3. PL ISSN 0137-5377. Mirosław Gliński Geneza obozu koncentracyjnego Stutthof na tle hitlerowskich przygotowan w Gdansku do wojny z Polsk
  9. ^ John Stoessinger. Why Nations Go to War. Cengage Learning, 2010. P38.
  10. ^ Richard Weikart. Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. P167.
  11. ^ Richard Weikart. Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. P168.
  12. ^ Gerhard L. Weinberg. Hitler's Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II. Enigma Books, 2013. P152.
  13. ^ The Third Reich: Charisma and Community Martin Kitchen page 296
  14. ^ The French Yellow Book No. 124 : M. Coulondre, French Ambassador in Berlin, to M. Georges Bonnet, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Berlin, May 7, 1939.
  15. ^ Shelley Baranowski. Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. P. 141.
  16. ^ a b The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition. (1993) pp. 2282–83
  17. ^ Smith, Woodruff D. “Friedrich Ratzel and the Origins of Lebensraum”, German Studies Review, vol. 3, No. 1 (February 1980), pp. 51–68 in JSTOR
  18. ^ Wanklyn, Harriet. Friedrich Ratzel: A Biographical Memoir and Bibliography. London: Cambridge University Press. (1961) pp. 36–40. ASIN B000KT4J8K
  19. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 9, p. 955.
  20. ^ a b Encyclopædia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 6, p. 901.
  21. ^ a b Stephen J. Lee. Europe, 1890–1945. P. 237.
  22. ^ Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich (2004) p. 35. ISBN 1-59420-004-1.
  23. ^ The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, Graham Evans & Jeffrey Newnham, Editors. (1998) p. 301.
  24. ^ Stachura, Peter D. The Shaping of the Nazi State. p. 31.
  25. ^ Stutthof. Zeszyty Muzeum, 3. PL ISSN 0137-5377. Mirosław Gliński Geneza obozu koncentracyjnego Stutthof na tle hitlerowskich przygotowan w Gdansku do wojny z Polsk
  26. ^ Stoessinger, John. Why Nations Go to War. Cengage Learning. 2010. p. 38.
  27. ^ Weikart, Richard. Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. p. 167.
  28. ^ Weikart, Richard. Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. p. 168.
  29. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard L. Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933–1939: The Road to World War II. Enigma Books. 2013. p. 152.
  30. ^ Kitchen, Martin. The Third Reich: Charisma and Community. p. 296
  31. ^ The French Yellow Book, No. 124. M. Coulondre, French Ambassador in Berlin, to M. Georges Bonnet, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Berlin, 7 May 1939.
  32. ^ Benjamin Madley, "From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe," European History Quarterly 2005 35(3): 429-464
  33. ^ A Companion to World War I (Blackwell Companions to World History) von John Horne von John Wiley & Son page 436
  34. ^ Carsten, F.L Review of Griff nach der Weltmacht pages 751-753 from English Historical Review, Volume 78, Issue #309, October 1963 of pages 752-753
  35. ^ Moses, John "The Fischer Controversy" pages 328-329 from Modern Germany An Encyclopedia of History, People and Culture, 1871-1990, Volume 1, edited by Dieter Buse and Juergen Doerr, Garland Publishing: New York, 1998 page 328
  36. ^ See Raffael Scheck, Germany 1871-1945: A Concise History (2008)
  37. ^ Immanuel Geiss Tzw. polski pas graniczny 1914-1918. Warszawa (1964).
  38. ^ Taylor, A.J.P. The Origins of the Second World War, London: Hamish Hamiltion, 1976 page 23.
  39. ^ Hillgruber, Andreas Germany and the Two World Wars, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981 pages 41-47
  40. ^ Spartacus Educational: Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
  41. ^ Hillgruber, Andreas Germany and the Two World Wars, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981 pages 46-47.
  42. ^ Lisa Pine (2010). Education in Nazi Germany. Berg. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-84520-265-1. 
  43. ^ Paul Weindling (1993). Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945. Cambridge University Press. p. 343. ISBN 978-0-521-42397-7. 
  44. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe 1933–1936, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pages 166–168
  45. ^ Trevor-Roper, Hugh "Hitler's War Aims" pages 235-250 from Aspects of the Third Reich edited by H.W. Koch, Macmillan Press: London, United Kingdom, 1985 pages 242-245
  46. ^ Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p. 646. ISBN 978-0-395-07801-3.
  47. ^ Andrew Roberts The Storm of War, p 144 ISBN 978-0-06-122859-9
  48. ^ Robert Cecil, The Myth of the Master Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology p69 ISBN 0-396-06577-5
  49. ^ Shelley Baranowski. Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press, 2011. P151.
  50. ^ Messerschmidt, Manfred “Foreign Policy and Preparation for War” from Germany and the Second World War, Volume I, Clarendon Press: Oxford, United Kingdom, 1990 pages 551–554
  51. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pages 26–27
  52. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pages 12-13
  53. ^ Richard Bessel, Nazism and War, p 36 ISBN 0-679-64094-0
  54. ^ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement, Chapter II: The State
  56. ^ Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, p 543 ISBN 0-393-02030-4
  57. ^ Poprzeczny, J. (2004), Odilo Globocnik, Hitler's man in the East, pp. 42–43, McFarland, ISBN 0-7864-1625-4
  58. ^ Karel C. Berkhoff, Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine Under Nazi Rule p 35-36 ISBN 0-674-01313-1
  59. ^ Edwin P. Hoyt, Hitler's War p 187 ISBN 0-07-030622-2
  60. ^ Richard Bessel, Nazism and War, p 60 ISBN 0-679-64094-0
  61. ^ a b Karel C. Berkhoff, Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine Under Nazi Rule p 45 ISBN 0-674-01313-1
  62. ^ Robert Cecil, The Myth of the Master Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology p 190 ISBN 0-396-06577-5
  63. ^ Lynn H. Nicholas, Cruel World: The Children of Europe in the Nazi Web p 263 ISBN 0-679-77663-X
  64. ^ Gerhard L. Weinberg, Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders p 11 ISBN 0-521-85254-4
  65. ^ Gerhard L. Weinberg, Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders p 11 ISBN 0-521-85254-4
  66. ^ Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pages 6–7
  67. ^ Jäckel, Eberhard Hitler's World View A Blueprint for Power Harvard University Press: Cambridge, United States of America, 1981 pages 34–35
  68. ^ Jäckel, Eberhard Hitler's World View, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, United States of America, 1981 pages 94–95
  69. ^ a b Hildebrand, Klaus The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich London: Batsford 1973 pages 31–32.
  70. ^ See, for instance, Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems & Perspectives of Interpretation, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 76–79. ISBN 0-340-76028-1.
  71. ^ Geoffrey A. Hosking. Rulers And Victims: The Russians in the Soviet Union. Harvard University Press, 2006 P. 213.
  72. ^ Catherine Andreyev. Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Emigré Theories. First paperback edition. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Pp. 53, 61.
  73. ^ Anna Machcewicz (16 February 2010). "Mama wzięła ino chleb". Historia. Tygodnik Powszechny. Retrieved May 5, 2012. 
  74. ^ Mirosław Sikora (20 September 2011). "Saybusch Aktion - jak Hitler budował raj dla swoich chłopów". OBEP Institute of National Remembrance, Katowice (in Polish). Redakcja Retrieved May 5, 2012. 
  75. ^ Volker R. Berghahn "Germans and Poles 1871–1945" in "Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences", Rodopi 1999
  76. ^ Lynn H. Nicholas, Cruel World: The Children of Europe in the Nazi Web p. 213-4 ISBN 0-679-77663-X
  77. ^ Nicholas, p. 213.
  78. ^ Pierre Aycoberry, The Social History of the Third Reich, 1933-1945, p 228, ISBN 1-56584-549-8
  79. ^ Madajczyk, Czesław. "Die Besatzungssysteme der Achsenmächte. Versuch einer komparatistischen Analyse." Studia Historiae Oeconomicae vol. 14 (1980): pp. 105-122, quoted in Uerbesch, Gerd R. and Rolf-Dieter Müller, Hitler's War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment Berghahn Books, 2008 (review ed.). ISBN 1-84545-501-0.
  80. ^ Norman, Rich (1973). Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion. W.W. Norton & Company Inc. p. 235. 
  81. ^ a b c d *Rodogno, Davide (2006). Fascism's European Empire: Italian Occupation During the Second World War. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-0521845151. 
  82. ^ Rodogno (2006), p.47
  83. ^ Rodogno (2006), p.48
  84. ^ Kershaw, pp. 134–137.
  85. ^ Kershaw, pp. 154–155.
  86. ^ Kershaw, pp. 244–245.
  87. ^ Hitler, p. 138.
  88. ^ a b Rosenberg, Matt. "Geopolitics." 2008. 1 November 2008 <>.
  89. ^ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf; Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971, page 644
  90. ^ Hitler, p. 646.
  91. ^ Hitler, p. 653.
  92. ^ Neil Smith (19 March 2003). American Empire: Roosevelt's Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization. University of California Press. p. 426. ISBN 978-0-520-23027-9. Retrieved 23 October 2012. 
  93. ^ Murray Low; Kevin R Cox; Jennifer Robinson (27 December 2007). The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography. SAGE. pp. 462–463. ISBN 978-0-7619-4327-3. Retrieved 23 October 2012. 
  94. ^ Ian G. Cook; Geoffrey Murray (2001). China's Third Revolution: Tensions in the Transition Towards a Post-Communist China. Psychology Press. p. 140. ISBN 9780700713073. 
  95. ^ Orville Schell; David L. Shambaugh (1999). The China Reader: The Reform Era. Random House Digital, Inc. pp. 607–8. ISBN 9780307766229. 
  96. ^ Gabriel R. Warburg, Uri M. Kupferschmidt (1983). "ISLAM, NATIONALISM, AND RADICALISM IN EGYPT AND THE SUDAN". Praeger. p. 217. 
  97. ^ John Marlowe (1961). "Arab Nationalism and British Imperialism". Praeger. p. 78. 
  98. ^ Krämer, Gudrun (2011). A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel. Princeton University Press (22 Feb 2011). p. 322. ISBN 0691150079. 
  99. ^ Finkelstein, Norman (1995). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso Books. pp. xxix. ISBN 1859844421. 
  100. ^ Kapitan, Tomis (1997). Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. M.E. Sharpe. p. 29. ISBN 1563248786. 
  101. ^ Yossi Sarid (26 August 2012). "Lebensraum as a justification for Israeli settlements". Haaretz. Retrieved 27 October 2012. 
  102. ^ Nafaa, Hassan (9–15 May 2002). "Sharon's own lebensraum". Al-Ahram. Retrieved 2012-10-29. 
  103. ^ Bidwell (1998). Dictionary Of Modern Arab History. Routledge. p. 441. ISBN 0710305052. The Israeli government began to expropriate more Arab land as Lebensraum for Jewish agricultural rather than strategic settlements and to take water traditionally used by local farmers. A particularly unjust example led to the Land Day Riots of March 1976 but in 1977 Agriculture Minister Ariel Sharon stated that there was a long term plan to settle 2 million Jews in the occupied Territories by 2000: this was an ideological pursuit of Greater Israel. 
  104. ^ El-Din El-Din Haseeb, Khair (2012). The Future of the Arab Nation: Challenges and Options: Volume 2. Routledge. p. 226. ISBN 9781136251856. In light of Israel's international relations and its broad regional concept of Lebensraum, it will retain and even improve the degree of its military superiority. 
  105. ^ Graham, Stephen (2004). Cities, War and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics (Studies in Urban and Social Change). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 204. ISBN 1405115750. Eitam argues that, ultimately, Israel should strive to force or 'persuade' all Arabs and Palestinians to leave Israel and the occupied territories -- to be accommodated in Jordan and the Sinai (Egypt).....Eitam has even explicitly used the German concept of Lebensraum (living space) – a cornerstone of the Holocaust -- to − underpin his arguments. 
  106. ^ 'Is there an English Baroque?', BBC Radio Three, Friday 9 February 1973, 8.40–9.00 pm, Producer: Leonie Cohn. See Pevsner, Nikolaus (2014). Pevsner: the Complete Broadcast Talks. Ashgate. 

External links