Was Nazi ideology racist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2013, 08:29 PM
Was Nazi ideology racist?
You quoted me pointing out the different views of racist nations.....then you say the same thing, that there are different types of racism. Maybe you quoted the wrong person.

Hitler also had a hair up his ass about commies, hence going about killing much more of them than any other group he killed.

The whole idea that humans are separated into races is as scientific as the tooth fairy, and was made up by colonial powers. As history has shown with the British empire and nazi differing ideas of race, that race is a made up bullshit concept. The very categorization of humans into races is racist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:00 AM
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
(15-05-2013 08:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  You quoted me pointing out the different views of racist nations.....then you say the same thing, that there are different types of racism. Maybe you quoted the wrong person.

Hitler also had a hair up his ass about commies, hence going about killing much more of them than any other group he killed.

The whole idea that humans are separated into races is as scientific as the tooth fairy, and was made up by colonial powers. As history has shown with the British empire and nazi differing ideas of race, that race is a made up bullshit concept. The very categorization of humans into races is racist.

You just seem a little inconsistent. You frame the thread question as, "was nazi ideology racist", then say they weren't because they mostly fought other Europeans, then say they were, but were limited by opportunity, then say they were no worse than other European colonial powers, then say they were...

Though to be really pedantic, race isn't entirely nonsense. There ARE variations among human populations, which are somewhat geographically correlated. Some people have white[r] skin. Some people have black[er] skin. Some people have epicanthic folds. And so forth. To draw any conclusions beyond the immediately visible, though - that's indeed bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
(16-05-2013 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 08:29 PM)I and I Wrote:  You quoted me pointing out the different views of racist nations.....then you say the same thing, that there are different types of racism. Maybe you quoted the wrong person.

Hitler also had a hair up his ass about commies, hence going about killing much more of them than any other group he killed.

The whole idea that humans are separated into races is as scientific as the tooth fairy, and was made up by colonial powers. As history has shown with the British empire and nazi differing ideas of race, that race is a made up bullshit concept. The very categorization of humans into races is racist.

You just seem a little inconsistent. You frame the thread question as, "was nazi ideology racist", then say they weren't because they mostly fought other Europeans, then say they were, but were limited by opportunity, then say they were no worse than other European colonial powers, then say they were...

Though to be really pedantic, race isn't entirely nonsense. There ARE variations among human populations, which are somewhat geographically correlated. Some people have white[r] skin. Some people have black[er] skin. Some people have epicanthic folds. And so forth. To draw any conclusions beyond the immediately visible, though - that's indeed bullshit.

Yes, the idea of a humans being divided into races is made up bullshit.

The racism of Nazis was very different an no worse in outcome than that of the racism of the British empire. Saying both were bullshit and reprehensible doesn't diminish ones acts. The different forms of racism that they employed were in contrast to one another. One of them stated that x europeans are of a lesser race while the other state that x of darker skin peoples on other continents are of a lesser race. Both went on to be dicks to the people they thought were inferior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
Yes... But then one went and shoved 6 million people into furnaces, while the other immediately gave up virtually all of its colonies shortly after.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 04:09 PM
Was Nazi ideology racist?
(16-05-2013 12:23 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Yes... But then one went and shoved 6 million people into furnaces, while the other immediately gave up virtually all of its colonies shortly after.

The British empire was around killing and enslaving people for a long time. 6 million? You have a low figure, hitler killed about 4 times that many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 06:45 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 07:24 AM by viking.)
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
Oy Vey. I and I you are not very liked. Since I respect all of you I will lay bare the facts as I understand them- and I don't claim to understand them correctly. First, don't forget, Hitler let 300,000 Allied troops escape Dunkirk. I don't think he wanted to fight Britain and that this was a peace overture, as compared to Hess's flight to Scotland. I think Hitler wanted to co-rule or co-dominate the west or the world in general with Britain keeping her empire and the seas, but this is my speculation. Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, but I believe it was a pre-emptive strike against them, as they were investing heavily in arms, in Tanks only suited to the good German roads, and thousands of paratroopers amassed on the border. I think at least that Hitler feared and expected a Soviet invasion- whether that would have happened or not. In any case, the Nazis wanted to expand eastward- Drang nach Osten, to reunite with their people living in ceded territories, includes Danzig and Sudetenland. They definitely wanted to create a pan germanic state. This is well enunciated in MK from the beginning. So let's now look at racism. What is racism anyways? Don't people usually just define it in their own way when they want to accuse somebody? Isn't it's meaning usually subjective, or at least imprecise?

It is asserted the Germans had the concept and ideology of their being the Master Race. I'm not aware they had any word for this other than Herrenvolk, and since I speak some german, if Herrenvolk means Master Race, I'm a monkey's uncle. Volk means Folk means people, not race, and Herren can mean many things. They don't even call it Herrenrasse

As to talk of extermination of six million jews and 5 million others, please, make it legal to debate and discuss this in every land. Only those who fear truth make laws prohibiting free speech, in my opinion, whatever their official excuses. Do not turn historic revisionists into martyrs. Do not burn their houses down, do not arrest and deport them without just cause, do not beat them and smash their faces. Do not fine them or defame and slander them or picket outside their houses. Until there is freedom of debate, I refuse to believe religiously in anything that morally bankrupt authorities or cowards who refuse to debate have to say. The holocaust definitely alters people's perception of the war, of the German Volk and of the justness of waging war, and allying with the murderous rapist soviet regime. I'd love to talk about race in general in other threads, but I'll stick to the topic of WWII here. You all make good points, you must also put events and people and attitudes into their historic contexts, and also compare to what other nation's leaders believed. For example, America sanctions and pressures south africa for apartheid when it only decades earlier ended segregation? It angers me when people claim moral supremacy in anything, if you haven't guessed, and people who make casual but hurtful accusations against others also angers me. Perhaps racial tension is part of biology and unless we all mix into one mass, or segregate, we will have to deal with. One Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychology professor, claims the Nazi policies of eugenics, racial exclusiveness and taking care of their own folk, in many ways mirrored the jewish policy towards themselves, of resisting assimilation and intermarriage.

Strong evidence for me that the nazis were racially conscious and racially motivated, is that they prohibited intermarriage between races, or between Germans and jews. I'm not an expert on anything but I like to study history. Critical historical scholarship is almost a spiritual pursuit for me. It's worth observing what the NSDAP was able to accomplish in such a short span of time, that it took almost the whole western world (you are right, other white countries) to defeat them, with a completely restored economy, national and racial pride, and security against communism. It's also worth noting how world war two, as it's popularly understood, is used to advance modern day political agendas.

I know the Nazis apparently had occult origins (Thule society). I haven't really looked into that, but I don't give it much credence. Hitler himself cared little for this. It strikes me as being more about hollywood fantasy or fringe group interests, like that lunatic who said most of the nazis were homosexuals. The fact that certain things need to be debated and proven may say a lot about the quality and quantity of one's evidence. I don't think the Nurmeberg Trials were at all fair and balanced. It is also worth noting that the NSDAP were only a regime for 12 years and at war for about five or six of them. Hitler and the nazis didn't have time really to accomplish their long term vision, if they had one. That would be a very interesting topic for discussion- about his/their long term vision, and how it would have occurred in reality if war was avoided or if the Germans won the war. Regarding that we can only speculate or infer.

I hope I helped shed some light and contain some heat.

ps the Indo-Europeans spread from the Black sea area. From Erin to Iran to the Aryans of India and Persia, they reached and conquered. From the Celts to the Gauls to the Goths to maybe also the Gutians. The Rigveda was written in Sanskrit, an indo european language. Not all whites were Indo-europeans, but all Indo-Europeans originally were "caucasians" as we would consider them today and spoke related languaegs. Perhaps this is what Hitler was thinking-- I don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
Viking said:
"One Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychology professor, claims the Nazi policies of eugenics, racial exclusiveness and taking care of their own folk, in many ways mirrored the jewish policy towards themselves, of resisting assimilation and intermarriage."

Bada Boom

Drinking Beverage

Bada Bing

Zionists and Nazis got along in the beginning because both group saw it as an opportunity to get european jews out of europe and to "where they belong"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Was Nazi ideology racist?
(28-05-2013 06:45 AM)viking Wrote:  First, don't forget, Hitler let 300,000 Allied troops escape Dunkirk. I don't think he wanted to fight Britain and that this was a peace overture, as compared to Hess's flight to Scotland. I think Hitler wanted to co-rule or co-dominate the west or the world in general with Britain keeping her empire and the seas, but this is my speculation.

The specific case of Dunkirk, not so much. That was inter-service politicking.

It's very true, however, that of all the Western nations, Hitler figured the British would be most on-side. Hadn't they invaded Russia themselves just a few years back, to try to stop the revolution? Didn't they still rule over hundreds of millions of inferior peoples, across the world? Didn't they maintain that empire through a variety of unpleasant means (cf Winston "gas the natives" Churchill)? Weren't they mostly of the same good old Germanic stock?

Quote:Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, but I believe it was a pre-emptive strike against them, as they were investing heavily in arms, in Tanks only suited to the good German roads, and thousands of paratroopers amassed on the border. I think at least that Hitler feared and expected a Soviet invasion- whether that would have happened or not. In any case, the Nazis wanted to expand eastward- Drang nach Osten, to reunite with their people living in ceded territories, includes Danzig and Sudetenland. They definitely wanted to create a pan germanic state. This is well enunciated in MK from the beginning.

Attacking the Soviet Union was always on the cards. The Nazi leadership saw themselves in a final battle for civilization between the new powers of fascism and communism, with themselves standard bearers for the former and the Soviet Union for the latter. The democracies (as they saw it) were tired, decrepit, and spent. Hadn't the democratic trend of the last thirty years had only led to the gainless bloodshed of WWI and the political instability and economic collapse which followed?

"The Soviets were planning to attack first" is a tired old cold war myth that refuses to die (C&C Red Alert was a great game, though!). Battle-ready Red Army forces on the border would have seen a VERY different opening round of Barbarossa. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was so much cynical stalling for time; of course, one good effect it had was that a lot of True Believers (in fascism or communism) elsewhere in the world realized both states (despite official ideology) were no less blatantly self-interested than any other. Soviet annexations in Finland, the Baltics, Poland, and Bessarabia (a bad thing, I shouldn't need to stress) were supposed to create a buffer zone between their heartland and their most probable enemy (ie, the one whose official, stated ideology was that perpetual slavery was their just and deserved fate if they were lucky). Russian history was dominated (especially in their minds!) by repelling successive invaders - the Mongols, the Lithuanians, the Teutons, the Poles, the Swedes, the Prussians, the French, the British, the Germans, the Allies... Stalin was a very, very paranoid man who did not want that to happen again.

Quote:So let's now look at racism. What is racism anyways? Don't people usually just define it in their own way when they want to accuse somebody? Isn't it's meaning usually subjective, or at least imprecise?
Sure, I'll give it a shot. Racism: prejudicial or unequal treatment based on (perceived) race. I say perceived because there are no clearly defined human 'races', but a racist applying their own definition of race is still racist, regardless of the validity of the categories they've created in their head...

Quote:As to talk of extermination of six million jews and 5 million others, please, make it legal to debate and discuss this in every land.
Check yourself before you wreck yourself, viking. There's no "debate"; it happened. I'd agree insofar as I don't think holocaust denial should be a specific criminal offense, but hate speech is, and I've yet to see the two anything but inexorably bound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: