[The American Lion]

Bosnjak and Thunderhawk;

About the non Germans wearing German uniforms. Those men are allies to Germany or being trained in Germany.

The Arabs:

An Coup in Iraq shortly overthrown the loyal British government with a national pro-Arab government. Germany sent aid too Iraq to fight off the British.

The Indians:

There was big Indian nationalist movement. The Indian National Army was created to fight the British off the India. They join the Axis to help the Axis remove the British off of India.

Nationalist China:

Before WWII, Germany was giving military training to Nationalist China until Germany signed an alliance with Japan.

Chiang Wei-kuo


He is wearing a military uniform of Germany because he was serving and training on tank tactics in Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Wei-kuo

[Political Interest]

To all those who attack the Mufti, remember that the majority of Muslims opposed Hitler. Do any of you know about Umar Al Mukhtar, the anti-Fascist who made military Jihad against the Axis in Libya?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mukhtar

On a side note, how would non-Aryan minorities such as the Chinese, Indians and Arabs been treated in Germany, further yet in the German forces?

[Dempsey]

Benjamin Schwartz, literary editor of The Atlantic, writes in the May issue on Hitler, The Germans, and the Final Solution by Ian Kershaw (Yale, 400 pp, $35). This is Kershaw's first time to deal with Hitler's obsession with the Jews

The Atlantic.
Hitler’s Co-Conspirators
by Benjamin Schwarz

The past two years have seen a flood of major works on Nazi Germany, books that include Life and Death in the Third Reich, Peter Fritzsche’s analysis of everyday life; Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, a collection of essays focusing on social history, by Ian Kershaw, the author of the definitive biography of Hitler; Germany and the Second World War: German Wartime Society, the multiauthored, 1,000-plus-page English translation of the ninth volume of the gargantuan, quasi-official chronicle of the war issued by Germany’s Research Institute for Military History; and, just published in March, The Third Reich at War, by Richard J. Evans, the third and concluding volume of a work that will almost certainly be for a generation the authoritative general history of Nazi Germany in English.

The Final Solution is at the heart of all these books. This focus may seem obvious now, but 30 years ago, study of the extermination of the Jews hadn’t yet entered the mainstream of scholarship on Nazi Germany. In fact, the standard single-volume history, Karl Bracher’s analytical The German Dictatorship, devoted a mere 13 of its 580 pages to the subject. Also all but ignored 30 years ago were the attitudes and opinions of Germans toward the Jews and toward the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi regime, an issue that today’s historians consider central.

Germans responded to this knowledge in various but all-too-predictable ways. True, Nazi rule had penetrated and altered popular attitudes, so by 1939 most Germans believed that Jews should be segregated or removed from the “folk community.” But the anti-Semitism of most Germans stopped far short of genocide—only a small minority overtly approved of the Nazis’ war against the Jews.

Retrospective condemnation is easy—this was a largely anti-Semitic population that had embraced the psychological and material benefits bestowed by a homicidal regime, and that remained inert in the face of what we now call genocide. But Kershaw’s analysis of a still-obscure study done by Michael Müller-Claudius, a German psychologist, at the very time the Final Solution was being implemented is illuminating. Müller-Claudius prompted 61 longtime Nazi Party members (all had joined the party or the Hitler Youth before the Nazi seizure of power) to discuss anonymously their views of the regime’s anti-Jewish policies. Five percent applauded the notion of exterminating the Jews—but the same percentage fully rejected anti-Semitism. Twenty-one percent displayed a degree of moral sensibility (advocating, for example, a future Jewish state). The remainder, 69 percent, showed what Müller-Claudius called “indifference of conscience”—an attitude that could contain some sympathy for the Jews but was at best resigned and at worst callously uninterested. Many of the respondents in this group linked their indifference to the risks inherent in adopting another, more sympathetic, view: “The Gestapo is very sensitive about it. Talk about the subject is not wanted.” If even longtime party members—people presumably unusually committed to Nazi ideology and well-insulated from the regime’s suspicions—were so cowed, one can imagine the constraints the general population felt.

Full article

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/nazi-germany

[Tailz]

On a side note, how would non-Aryan minorities such as the Chinese, Indians and Arabs been treated in Germany, further yet in the German forces?

In europe the non-Aryans were considered as inferior to the Aryan, in Europe that is. But there is a strange paradox that takes places when the Nazi's looked at other regions outside Europe, for example: Asia. Because of their political alliance with Japan they agreed that where the Aryan is the superian European, the Japanese was the superior Asian. Curiously this is partialy the same direction the leader of the Sten Gang wanted to direct Nazi considerations towards Jews in Palastine. Although the Nazi leadership never seems to have made a comment about who they thought was the superior race in the Middle-East, they prefuered the Arab to their despised hated for the Jews.