posted
I've been reading up on WW2 recently, and does it seem weird to anyone else that Hitler's flawed idea of racial purity did not include the Slavic people? He refered to them as being inferior but they possess the same traits that "Aryans" look up to: fair skin, blond hair, blue eyes.
Can anyone explain Hitler's reasoning for considering the Slavs as being racially inferior? Clearly, the obvious answer is Hitler is an idiot going off flawed eugenic and racial theories, or also that at the time the Slavs were all mainly Communists under the Soivet banner, which Hitler also dispised, so he used the "inferior" label as a propoganda tool (as he did with any other ethnicity or race he dubbed inferior), but I was just curious if anyone else could shed light on some theories I haven't considered.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavs often have that slightly Asian-looking epicanthal fold, don'tcha know.
Really? I don't know that much real thinking went on other than coming up with ways to justify genocide against traditionally despised or different groups. The Slavs were not German, so...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having the "Aryan look" could be taken as a sign that your race had interbred with Aryans in the past, which was even worse than being purely of an inferior race - Hitler was even more down on miscegenation than on other races. It's a bit difficult to make sense of this, the theory isn't all that coherent, but apparently he believed that hybrids were bound to get the worst traits of both sides. So the hierarchy would be
Pure Aryan > Pure Other > Mixed Aryan and Other
But really, it all comes down to the Lebensraum and needing some targets.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I, with my German-derived last name, brown eyes, brown hair, and vaguely Asian features, would have been an abomination to Hitler, eh? Interesting. I can see where that follows logically from the belief in a master race, I suppose.
Except Hitler definitely got it wrong about the hybrids getting the worst traits. Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Russians were big enemies of the Nazi's, fighting them in the Spanish Civil War just previous to WWII (most consider that a Communist VS Fascist war.)
They were also more rural than the German people, and both were competing for the same lands.
So when the Nazi's started their invasions of places that had Slavic groups--Austria, ChecoSLAVakia, etc, they did the usual propagandist maneuver of calling them un-human.
As the Soviets began fighting back, and turned as viscous as the Nazi's they were fighting, the Nazi's began really getting angry at the Slav's.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They also practised the filthy habits of pluralising with apostrophes and confusing 'vicious' (cruel, brutal, ferocious) with 'viscous' (thick, slow-flowing).
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm understanding Godwin's Law correctly, likening the opponent to Hitler/nazis doesn't mean you LOSE the argument, it just means that you have nothing further of value to ADD to the argument.
It just happens that, once you admit that you've played all of your cards, the opposition will generally trounce you.
Posts: 636 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's my understanding that it means you lose the argument because if you're resorting to that one, you don't have any good ones.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Firstly, Godwin's law as originally stated just says that if a thread goes on long enough, someone will bring out the Nazis. Secondly, when my atheist storm troopers finally subdue the last remaining guerrilla opposition in the Rockies and return to the shattered cities to drag the enslaved theists off to re-education camps, their belt buckles will be emblazoned "Godwin mit uns", in tribute to the guy who made it impossible to warn anyone of what was coming.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whatever state he had his greedy eyes on conveniently had an inferior population. And whatever state had a good pouplation, well, then they needed to be part of the Third Empire as well!
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if there ever was a Xenophobe is was Hitler. In short, his position can be summed up as 'anyone who is not me, is bad'. Slav's aren't German, so automatically they are bad.
True the Jews were different, even if they were German Jews. But I could never understand histories continued rejection of the Jews. It seem a rejection of the idea that anyone who works hard, has a strong sense of community, and is successful is automatically inferior.
In the far east, out side of China, the Chinese are the Jew, despised for their hard work and success.
Back to the Slavs, as I implied, I don't think Hitler really had anything against them, other they the fact that they weren't Germans. He didn't want them, but he did want their land for the New Great German Empire.
One could just as easily ask what Hitler had against the Polish people? Well, again nothing other than the fact that he was delusional and they weren't German.
Regarding the Arian-look, Hitler was the least Arian looking person I have every seen from the Western Hemisphere. Again, irrational and delusional.
posted
The movie/dramatized autobiography "Hitler: Rise of Evil" I think is one of the best movies that attempted to peer inside his mind.
However I would like to correct something the Nazi's didn't particularly hate those who were different but rather who were A) enemies of the state, and b) felt were inferior and taking up good space.
for example, the germans seemed to have put alot of effort into picking and choosing which ethnic groups were "ayrian" and who weren't. The Japanese for example were seen as "Ayrian".
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
