4 ms·

The sarcasm falls flat when you realize that a lot of what he is talking about really is wrong. That is not what happened, that is a collection of misconceptio

The sarcasm falls flat when you realize that a lot of what he is talking about really is wrong. That is not what happened, that is a collection of misconceptions people gathered which are only loosely based on actual history. Germany was not simply racist, they had declared jews to be their enemies. Not "people who aren't white". The German military was the most racially and religiously diverse military force involved in WW2. There were plenty of Wehrmacht soldiers with brown skin, wearing turbans, or carrying copies of the Quran given to them by Hitler as gifts. A shocking number of people are under the impression that the US joined the war because Germany attacked France and was killing jews. It is no wonder that people have a comic book view of WW2 given how little actual history they've been taught.

foldr 12y ago
Although Nazi Germany did co-operate with various (for want of a better term) brown people, Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes towards them. It would be misleading to suggest that the Nazis were "only" racists with regard to Jews. (Of course virtually everyone on the allied side was also racist.)
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Even in the eyes of racist Europeans, the Japanese held a privileged place, having defeated the Russians -- a "white" race -- in a war in 1905. (Later, South African apartheid would also make a special exemption for the Japanese.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes towards them Why is that certain? I'm not aware of anything that would support that claim. High ranking nazis and even Hitler himself made positive statements towards plenty of other ethnic and cultural groups. A belief that ethnic groups should have pride in their culture and stay "pure" by only breeding with other members of the same ethnic group may not be popular now, but it is not racist.
  - foldr 12y ago
    I hate to cite Wikipedia, but the following helpful article has some quotes from Speer's memoir which are relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_... >A belief that ethnic groups should have pride in their culture and stay "pure" by only breeding with other members of the same ethnic group may not be popular now, but it is not racist. Actually it is racist.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      That wikipedia article supports what I said. And I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when speaking with others you do need to use the actual definitions of words. If you pretend words mean things they do not mean, then communication is impossible. Racism requires the belief that one or more races are inferior or superior to others. Not merely an acknowledgement that races exist.
      - foldr 12y ago
        The Wikipedia article shows Speer making reference to the fact that Hitler considered Arabs racially inferior. I am not going to argue the semantics of racism with you. You know as well as I do that there are no examples of non-racists opposed to interracial marriage. Such people could conceivably exist in principle, but do not in practice. I am not sure what your motivations are for trying to defend these hypothetical non-racist anti-miscegenationists, but this has nothing to do with the Nazis in any case.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        It also shows Hitler saying otherwise. Hearsay vs first hand, what a tough call. Why are your responses so consistently dishonest?
        foldr 12y ago
        Where on the page does it show Hitler saying that Arabs are not racially inferior to "Aryans"? The page has multiple well-sourced instances of Hitler making explicitly racist comments about Arabs. E.g. "Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples [in the Far East and Arabia] at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash". And as far as hearsay is concerned, the article notes that similar statements are made in Mein Kampf (which, to state the obvious, was written by Hitler personally).
callum85 12y ago
It's a bit of fun
- DanBC 12y ago
  It would have been funner if it had been more truthy. What actually happened fits very well with that bit of fun narrative. Using a bunch of incorrect stuff detracts from the funness. my example: the storm troopers didn't wear black. The SS did. But they didn't just wear black, they had runic emblems and skulls and shit. This minor detail is important because remembering details about genocide is probably a good thing. See Mitchel and Web for a better example. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The SA wore brown. I only know this because my grandmother totally freaked out at me when I once wore a brown shirt (totally oblivious of the historic significance). I stopped wearing brown shirts out of deference for older people's sensibilities.
wwweston 12y ago
> That is not what happened, that is a collection of misconceptions people gathered which are only loosely based on actual history. The fact that the folk history many people think they know may be distant from our best substantiated histories doesn't really detract from the point that folk history of WWII may be kindof incredible. Plus, there's certainly enough incredible but apparently accurate stuff in our best histories. Also... "actual history?" By which we mean "what actually happened" or by which we mean "the best substantiated narratives we have"? Because as far as I can tell, "what actually happened" is pretty elusive. Some histories are better substantiated from recorded observation and evidence than others, but all of them are interpolations of one degree or another from a set of evidence that's always more limited than the larger picture we try to paint.
Tloewald 12y ago
Let's see: 1) the US contemplated using its mythical superweapon (a) against the Russians after WWII, (b) against the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean war. By the time the Vietnam war was going badly, the Russians and Chinese had their own superweapons. 2) The Germans allied with the Russians with betrayal in mind. 3) When the Germans attacked the Russians, they didn't have a second front (unless you consider North Africa a second front). There had been an abortive landing at Dieppe, which if anything had bolstered German confidence that their western front was secure. Bear in mind that the US had not entered the war and England's collapse seemed inevitable (and if Rommel had taken the Suez that would have been it for Britain). 4) Every one of Hitler's major offensives had been thought insane by Hitler's own high command (e.g. the British and French outnumbered the Germans in both men and tanks at the outset of the invasion of France), so their very reasonable objections to the Barbarossa campaign fell on deaf ears. Is there anything more plausible than hubris? My favorite example of implausible actions in WWII was Hitler's declaration of war on the US after it declared war on Japan. That never made sense to me until I read A World At Arms -- a history of WWII that emphasizes politics, diplomacy, and intelligence over battles. The Germans relied desperately on Japan for rubber (even synthetic rubber required a certain amount of real rubber as an ingredient). A fleet of u-boats was dedicated to transporting rubber from Japan to Germany, and Germany needed Japan on side or it was in deep trouble (fighting the Russians with no rubber).

foldr 12y ago

Although Nazi Germany did co-operate with various (for want of a better term) brown people, Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes towards them. It would be misleading to suggest that the Nazis were "only" racists with regard to Jews. (Of course virtually everyone on the allied side was also racist.)

Tloewald 12y ago
Even in the eyes of racist Europeans, the Japanese held a privileged place, having defeated the Russians -- a "white" race -- in a war in 1905. (Later, South African apartheid would also make a special exemption for the Japanese.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_whites
imanaccount247 12y ago
>Hitler and the rest of the Nazis certainly held racist attitudes towards them Why is that certain? I'm not aware of anything that would support that claim. High ranking nazis and even Hitler himself made positive statements towards plenty of other ethnic and cultural groups. A belief that ethnic groups should have pride in their culture and stay "pure" by only breeding with other members of the same ethnic group may not be popular now, but it is not racist.
- foldr 12y ago
  I hate to cite Wikipedia, but the following helpful article has some quotes from Speer's memoir which are relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_... >A belief that ethnic groups should have pride in their culture and stay "pure" by only breeding with other members of the same ethnic group may not be popular now, but it is not racist. Actually it is racist.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    That wikipedia article supports what I said. And I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when speaking with others you do need to use the actual definitions of words. If you pretend words mean things they do not mean, then communication is impossible. Racism requires the belief that one or more races are inferior or superior to others. Not merely an acknowledgement that races exist.
    - foldr 12y ago
      The Wikipedia article shows Speer making reference to the fact that Hitler considered Arabs racially inferior. I am not going to argue the semantics of racism with you. You know as well as I do that there are no examples of non-racists opposed to interracial marriage. Such people could conceivably exist in principle, but do not in practice. I am not sure what your motivations are for trying to defend these hypothetical non-racist anti-miscegenationists, but this has nothing to do with the Nazis in any case.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        It also shows Hitler saying otherwise. Hearsay vs first hand, what a tough call. Why are your responses so consistently dishonest?
        foldr 12y ago
        Where on the page does it show Hitler saying that Arabs are not racially inferior to "Aryans"? The page has multiple well-sourced instances of Hitler making explicitly racist comments about Arabs. E.g. "Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples [in the Far East and Arabia] at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash". And as far as hearsay is concerned, the article notes that similar statements are made in Mein Kampf (which, to state the obvious, was written by Hitler personally).

callum85 12y ago

It's a bit of fun

DanBC 12y ago
It would have been funner if it had been more truthy. What actually happened fits very well with that bit of fun narrative. Using a bunch of incorrect stuff detracts from the funness. my example: the storm troopers didn't wear black. The SS did. But they didn't just wear black, they had runic emblems and skulls and shit. This minor detail is important because remembering details about genocide is probably a good thing. See Mitchel and Web for a better example. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY
- jacquesm 12y ago
  The SA wore brown. I only know this because my grandmother totally freaked out at me when I once wore a brown shirt (totally oblivious of the historic significance). I stopped wearing brown shirts out of deference for older people's sensibilities.

wwweston 12y ago

> That is not what happened, that is a collection of misconceptions people gathered which are only loosely based on actual history. The fact that the folk history many people think they know may be distant from our best substantiated histories doesn't really detract from the point that folk history of WWII may be kindof incredible. Plus, there's certainly enough incredible but apparently accurate stuff in our best histories. Also... "actual history?" By which we mean "what actually happened" or by which we mean "the best substantiated narratives we have"? Because as far as I can tell, "what actually happened" is pretty elusive. Some histories are better substantiated from recorded observation and evidence than others, but all of them are interpolations of one degree or another from a set of evidence that's always more limited than the larger picture we try to paint.

Tloewald 12y ago

Let's see: 1) the US contemplated using its mythical superweapon (a) against the Russians after WWII, (b) against the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean war. By the time the Vietnam war was going badly, the Russians and Chinese had their own superweapons. 2) The Germans allied with the Russians with betrayal in mind. 3) When the Germans attacked the Russians, they didn't have a second front (unless you consider North Africa a second front). There had been an abortive landing at Dieppe, which if anything had bolstered German confidence that their western front was secure. Bear in mind that the US had not entered the war and England's collapse seemed inevitable (and if Rommel had taken the Suez that would have been it for Britain). 4) Every one of Hitler's major offensives had been thought insane by Hitler's own high command (e.g. the British and French outnumbered the Germans in both men and tanks at the outset of the invasion of France), so their very reasonable objections to the Barbarossa campaign fell on deaf ears. Is there anything more plausible than hubris? My favorite example of implausible actions in WWII was Hitler's declaration of war on the US after it declared war on Japan. That never made sense to me until I read A World At Arms -- a history of WWII that emphasizes politics, diplomacy, and intelligence over battles. The Germans relied desperately on Japan for rubber (even synthetic rubber required a certain amount of real rubber as an ingredient). A fleet of u-boats was dedicated to transporting rubber from Japan to Germany, and Germany needed Japan on side or it was in deep trouble (fighting the Russians with no rubber).