[Siberian Fox]

You need to answer the OP question, [...] explain the alliance with Japanese non-Aryans in a genocidal war against British and American semi-Aryans?

Qatzel, the ideological positions of the German and Japanese nations during World War Two were far closer together than between Germany and Britain/America. The Japanese encouraged a fanatical militarism and loyalty to the head of state in the same way as in Germany.

When Japan took over most of the Pacific region they were first welcomed as liberators, but it didn't take long for the people to realise that the Japanese were not interested in freeing them from imperial rule but in establishing their own empire where the indigenous population were frequently treated even worse.

It sounds like the "racial theories" of the Nazis were added on after the war.

History is written by the victors. American wartime propaganda against Japan was extremely racist, but you're getting hung up on the wrong point. Just because the Nazis allied to a nation populated by non-Europeans does not make them non-racist.

1) is the obvious fact that the Japanese lived in Japan, not Europe, and so they would not reduce the 'purity' of the Aryan race.

2) The reasons for the alliance were practical - they had the same enemies.

3) They were not all that different ideologically - they were all extreme nationalists that sought to expand their nations militarily (something they could do better at the same time rather than independently).

4) There was no conflict of interest since the Nazi's didn't have the slightest interest in taking over the Pacific. They didn't have the means anyway.

[QatzelOk]

There was no conflict of interest since the Nazi's didn't have the slightest interest in taking over the Pacific. They didn't have the means anyway.

So the Nazis were less ambitious than the British or Americans?

And less racist?

[Smilin' Dave]

Dave, I inherited a similar belief system as you did. My inherited beliefs are what are in question in this thread. I have argued that the Japan alliance doesn't fit in my acquired beliefs about the Nazis

I'm aware of what your stated intention in this thread in Qatz, restating it doesn't change the fact that you are deliberately misconstruing material to fit your stated agenda.

For example:

There was no conflict of interest since the Nazi's didn't have the slightest interest in taking over the Pacific. They didn't have the means anyway.

So the Nazis were less ambitious than the British or Americans?

And less racist?

The logic you present here doesn't work at all, allowing you to draw a conclusion that wasn't there. You have injected discussions of race into Fox's post about realist politics. It seems you arn't actually participating in a discussion you started.

Alfred Rosenberg believed Slavs were inferior, not Jews.

And he was apparently shocked at how many Ukrainians his SS killed while occupying the Ukraine.

This is a contradiction. On a side note it's worth noting that Rosenberg wasn't the sole author of Nazi racial theory and he certainly wasn't the final arbiter of racial policy. Thus your factual base is again found wanting.

And while you all get excited about Looter's sun worship theory, you also need to consider what the Nazis actually said their flag represented [my italics]:
"As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red, we see the social idea of the movement; in white, the nationalistic idea; in the swastika, the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work, which as such always has been and always will be anti-Semitic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Flag#Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#A ... _of_Nazism
The Swastika was picked up because it was popularised by Orientalists, not out of some magical Nazi occult conspiracy.

[Gletkin]

Would Germany and Japan have been the USSR vs. USA if they had won this war?

Most likely yes actually.

Even in this universe, the various Neo-Nazi groups seem to have forgotten the "honorary Aryan" status of the Japanese and have been bashing them as "Nips" and what not.

Likewise, for all their purported support of Arabs and Muslims today, do today's Nazi groups tolerate Arab or Muslim immigration into their countries? Would they accept them as equal party members? Allow them to intermarry with Whites and have kids with them?

The Swastika was picked up because it was popularised by Orientalists, not out of some magical Nazi occult conspiracy.

I thought it was because it was the ancient Teutonic symbol for the sun.

That's the irony about the swastika....it's been found in so many cultures throughout the world that one would think that it'd be a natural symbol for mulitculturalism. But thanks to Hitler, outside of Asia it's associated with White racism.

[Smilin' Dave]

I thought it was because it was the ancient Teutonic symbol for the sun.

While they seem to recognise the Teutonic/Aryan thing, the Nazis rarely seem to make much out of the swastika as a symbol for the sun.

[Dempsey]

Qatz, Hitler wishs to use more the Arab card doesn't mean he had any respect for them. He even called them ‘"lacquered half-monkeys."


http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3381

"We will continue to stir up unrest in the Far East and Arabia. Let us think of ourselves as masters (‘Herren') and consider these people as best as lacquered half-monkeys who need to feel the knout." (43 Klaus Gensicke, op. cit., p. 38 ("Wir werden weiterhin die Unruhe in Fernost und in Arabien schüren. Denken wir als Herren, und sehen wir in diesen Völkern bestenfalls lackierte Halbaffen, die die Knute spüren wollen.")

But it was during the war that Hitler began to show more respect for the peoples and religions of the East (Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism). "While the Germans were lured into superficial theological discussions, the teachings of Confucius, Buddha and Mohammed offered a broad spiritual base for religious minded people," he said in June 1942. By that time Haj Amin Al-Husseini, had become his ally. Hitler was favorably impressed by Al-Husseini's "blond hair and blue eyes," and believed "that in more than one case the Mufti's ancestors must have been Aryan, he probably had the best Roman blood streaming through his veins. This had also been noted in December 1937 by a writer in Rosenberg's Nazi newspaper "Völkische Beobachter." The Arabs are not pure semites, this Nazi says. Look, for example, at "the Mufti of Jerusalem, whose red beard and blue eyes reveal the dominant Circassian strain of this mother."

[Siberian Fox]

So the Nazis were less ambitious than the British or Americans?

How ambitions the Nazis were isn't really relevant to the discussion. However, WRT the Pacific, as I already indicated, Germany did not have the means to conduct a military campaign there anyway.

And less racist?

I don't see any evidence that they were less racist. Perhaps you would like to present some.

Britain and America may have had racist people in their populations and in power and America certainly used racist propaganda to daemonise Japan because it was convenient (I don't know about Britain). But the fundamental difference is that those countries were already on the path of liberalisation that would eventually outlaw discrimination based on those prejudices. The Nazis acted upon prejudice with extreme discrimination, forced labour and death.

Racial prejudice and racial discrimination are two different things. Both the Axis and the Allies contained people who were racially prejudiced and the allied powers still had some discriminatory laws, but the Axis, and especially the Nazis made it a matter of policy to increase discrimination to the point of denying some people the right to life.

[QatzelOk]

But the fundamental difference is that those countries were already on the path of liberalisation that would eventually outlaw discrimination based on those prejudices.

So when the US dropped a million tons of napalm and agent orange on "gooks," racism had already been outlawed?

Likewise, the War on Arabia that the US and friends are fighting against "enemy combatants" on "no fly lists" from "the Axis of Evil" is being fought against a backdrop of racial equality?

I still don't understand, Siberian Fox, what made us any better than the Nazis. If the former Allies are able to dehumanize Iraqis and Asians (and Latinos) in the 21st Century, how bad were they (we) in the 30s and 40s?

I suspect terrible. You can't really situate the racism of Hitler and the Nazis in our time. You'd have to compare it to the British Empire (and Pax Americana/Monroe Doctrine) of the same period of history.

I think it would have been impossible to convince the British or Americans to share the earth with an Asian country. The Pacific Islands were only Japanese between when they were British and when they were (are) American. For the Great White Nations of Euro-America, these delicate island cultures with their hybrid Asian stock were simply human material to conquer and exploit.

[Smilin' Dave]

So when the US dropped a million tons of napalm and agent orange on "gooks," racism had already been outlawed?

Incendiaries had been used in Europe you know. Had defoliant been seen as useful and available I imagine it would have found its way into the world wars too.

Likewise, the War on Arabia ... "no fly lists"..."the Axis of Evil"

Another contradiction. The no fly list supposedly has a bunch of 'white guys' on it, legitimately or not. The Axis of Evil had in broad racial terms an Arab state, a Persian state and an Asian one. Hardly a war on Arabia (a title you made up, rather than something factual) and surpisingly racially diverse. The official war on terror actually encompasses forces in Africa and the Phillipines if memory serves.

So having failed to prove racism, you made it up.

I still don't understand, Siberian Fox, what made us any better than the Nazis.

We didn't kill millions in purpose built death camps on the basis of their race.

When it comes to Nazi racism, you just ignore it.

You can't really situate the racism of Hitler and the Nazis in our time.

Sure, let's situate Hitler in his mileau, other Fascists... seem fair? Mussolini thought Hitler's racial policies to be over the top, and in early meetings described his actions as crazy. Only two other autocratics groups criticised Hitler for not being racist enough, Ante Pavelic as leader of the Croatian Ustase and the Romanian Iron Guard.

By the standards of his own time, Hitler's Germany seems to have been considered quite racist.

I think it would have been impossible to convince the British or Americans to share the earth with an Asian country.

Like China, which was in the founding United Nations? Or how about Japan, who remained an ally of the US and Britain after the Russo-Japanese war? Japan, an ally of the Entente in WWI, even while occupying German colonies?

How did you intend to situate Nazi Germany in its historic period, when you clearly know nothing about it Qatz? Or let us put it another way, how can you criticise the 'text' you didn't bother to read?

[Smilin' Dave]

We all "know" this text by heart.

Yet you clearly don't know it very well.

And it's post-war propaganda that you are using to "prove" that the bad guys were the bad guys

Evidence? No, really, you can reinterpret if you show logic, which you don't. You can question, if you have a fact which counters it, which you don't. Whenever you have been drawn into a serious discussion on your own topic this is clearly apparent.

You argument is hollow, and the only reason this thread shouldn't be deleted is that an interesting discussion came out of in spite of your efforts.

[Manuel]

Qatz, you're the only person I will ever meet, and thank God for that, that will criticise American racism while absolving the Nazis of any racism whatsoever.

[Siberian Fox]

So when the US dropped a million tons of napalm and agent orange on "gooks," racism had already been outlawed?

If the people of Vietnam had been white communists I'm sure that the Americans would have been just as ready to burn them, the USA was desperate to stop communism, but you're going off-topic to avoid the issue.

I still don't understand, Siberian Fox, what made us any better than the Nazis.

Well since you confess to not understand let me give you an example.

• Japanese prisoners were not worked to death.
• Japan worked allied prisoners to death.
  
• German prisoners were not worked to death.
• Germany worked Russian prisoners to death, but not Anglo-Americans.

Here in this simple example we see the allies not treating either Axis power as sub-human, whereas the Nazis make a clear distinction that Slavs were in their view inferior.

You can't really situate the racism of Hitler and the Nazis in our time. You'd have to compare it to the British Empire (and Pax Americana/Monroe Doctrine) of the same period of history.

Jumping time periods just takes things off topic and distracts and dodges the issue rather than helping provide any meaningful analysis.

Do you actually have any evidence to support your wild suggestion that the Nazis were less racist than the Allies or are you just wasting time trolling now?

I think it would have been impossible to convince the British or Americans to share the earth with an Asian country.

I think it would have been impossible to convince the Japanese and Chinese to have shared the earth with each other. The Europeans were not much into sharing with each other either, hence two world wars. What's your point? Again, how does this support your notion that the Nazis were less racist? Or was that just daft?

[pikachu]

German prisoners were not worked to death.

I've heard that a large number of German POWs was forced to do harsh work for USSR after the war, frequently meeting death in process. (and not only Germans but all Axis POWs including Hungarians, Japanese, Chinese, etc)

[ThereBeDragons]

About a third of prisoners in Soviet hands and a third of Western Allied prisoners in Japanese hands died. I haven't read anything about Japanese camps for Chinese POWs but I suspect the survival rate was zero. I'm not sure if the Chinese were ever in any position to take POWs. Few Western prisoners died in German hands, but well over half of Soviet prisoners perished. The death rate for prisoners in the hands of the Americans or the British (once they were out of the hands of soldiers and in camps) was a few percent.

[amanamuse]

How did the Nazis explain their alliance with Japan?

You know what a fascist dictatorship is, right?

Likewise, the US dropped the experimental A-bomb on Asian cities, rather than European ones.

Uhhh, yeah...the European cities were filled with US soldiers by the time the atomic bomb was ready. It's ok. High school history classes don't always delve into the real gritty details like dates.

You have access to wikipedia.org, right?

[Smilin' Dave]

Likewise, your grouping of "Europeans" into one large group with agency doesn't stand up. Only the rich have the power and agency to declare wars, and the poor just die in them.

How would you respond to the fact that most Western European Socialist parties voted in favour of their particular nation going to war? Italy's Socialists were an exception to this, but promptly split over the decision.

At least that's what I get from Hannah Arendt and Daniel Chirot.

Given what you 'got from' this thread, I don't find your claimed sources very comforting.

[Siberian Fox]

I've heard that a large number of German POWs was forced to do harsh work for USSR after the war, frequently meeting death in process. (and not only Germans but all Axis POWs including Hungarians, Japanese, Chinese, etc)

About a third of prisoners in Soviet hands [...] died

I should have written Britain and America rather than "Allies" since I wasn't referring to the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. let lots of prisoners freeze to death or generally die of neglect, but not singling out groups for bad treatment because of their ethnicity - the U.S.S.R. itself was a multi-national, multi-racial state (and with no discriminatory laws that I am aware of).

[I'm going to delete QatzelOk's last two posts since they are off topic. This thread is not about capitalism or Jews.]

[QatzelOk]

^ how many were exterminated, intentional or otherwise?

Thunder, it's interesting you would ask this about the genodices in the USSR. It's interesting because virtually all the casualties in 20th Century wars were "exterminated like cockroaches," whether it was by poison gas, machine-gun fire, or saturation bombing.

All of these technologies kill massive numbers of people with very little labor expended. The process of killing is mechanical and systematic. There is no room for strategy or thought, bravery or courage. Just machines and killing targeted groups of people, whether they are Jews, German soldiers, French civilians or little Bavarian school-girls hiding in a water cooler on top of an office building. All are killed simply because they are part of a targetted group.

----

Was the alliance with Japan "justified" in Nazi propaganda by a notion that the Japanese were the "master race" of Japan? Is this what was used to justify the killing of 30 million people in Asia - that their lives weren't worth as much as those high-end Japanese?

[Smilin' Dave]

Qatz

Was the alliance with Japan "justified" in Nazi propaganda by a notion that the Japanese were the "master race" of Japan? Is this what was used to justify the killing of 30 million people in Asia

If you mean is this how the Nazis justified the millions of Asians killed, I don't know. Although I don't think it got a lot of press coverage in Nazi Germany. The Japanese newspapers of the time did however carry a current of racial supremacist justification when reporting on Japanese atrocities.

Transplanted from a now different thread.

[FullMetalJacket]

That's actually not true. Rosenberg viewed Slavs as less than Germans, but they were still considered Aryan by him (this was not the case with other Nazi leaders). How exactly do you determine he didn't view Jews as inferior, Qatz?

Rosenberg's views on the Jews:

"I didn't say that the Jews are inferior. I didn't even maintain they are a race. I merely saw that the mixture of different cultures didn't work."
January 12, 1946. Quoted in "Nuremberg Diary" - Page 120 - by G. M. Gilbert - History - 1995