Talk:Nazi racial theories/Archive 1

The latters
What is the meaning of The latters here - Jews or Gypsies and Jews? I would suggest to rewrite the sentence.Xx236 08:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moral Decay post WWI - Pendulum movement...?
The ability of Nazism and Facism to develop were in part the result of the immoral decay that ocurred in Europe especially Germany after WWI and the fall of the Monarchs and the class structure ?

In reference to Marlene Dietrich who was apart of the cultural decay scene of the times....

This is not currently part of this listing and should be included to improve the article.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Google books shows some information on the 'moral decay' post WWI

Seems this is not included.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

hierarchy
it is stated that the nazis had a 'ladder' for racial clasification. it would be good to publish the ladder, or simply post the various positions. all it says in this artcile is nordics at the top and jews and gypsies at the bottom. what of the inbetweens? surely the nazis classed the world's population in more catagories than gypsie/jew and nordic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.115.39 (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the article Racial policy of Nazi Germany,

"All white people (Europeans) were considered to be Aryan as long as they had no Jewish ancestry (Nuremberg Laws) under the definition as "Indo-European".... The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder. However, there was no systematic program for their elimination as there was for Jews and other groups.... About 10,000 Japanese nationals (mostly diplomats and military officials) residing in Germany were given "Honorary Aryan" citizenship with more privileges than any other "non-Aryan" ethnonational group."
 * So, while I wondered about nonwhites after reading "Lowest of all in the Nazi racial policy were Gypsies and Jews" it does appear that the Nazis valued blacks above Jews. The information on Asians is still unsatisfactory. In their efforts to dismantle the Soviet Union, the Nazis did create a Turkestan legion, which fit well with Pan-Turkism's well-documented ties to Nazism itself as well as to Fascist Japan's Altaicist counterpart to Aryanism. Just as it appears that Hitler was focused on the local Slavic-Jewish enemy, built alliances "fellow Aryan" Nords, and loosely exploited faraway foreigners; so Japan particularly hated and exterminated the Chinese, built alliances with "fellow Altaic" Mongols and Koreans, and tried to use the Jews. The million dollar question is how did Germany treat enemy Asians, such as the Chinese, rather than their Japanese allies or Turkic anti-Russian sycophant opportunists. Shrigley (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An intro phrase
re:  Ironically, pre-War Poland's population, deemed to be exterminated, had more citizens of Nordic race than pre-war Germany.[2]
 * The cited ref does not seem to support this statement. Also "ironically" seems to be a wikipedian's judgement, which should be avoided in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This "deemed to be exterminated" sounds ironic and pejorative. Moreover, the statement about Poland having higher number of Nordic race than Germany is absolutely false. The pre-war Poland was a mix of ethnic Poles (who at the time were around 37% Nordic, which was clearly not such a "largely dominant" type) with Jews, Tatars, many other Slavs and ethnic groups from Southeast Europe, Armenians, Gypsies etc, while the pre-war Germany was rather a racially "homogeneous" country with domination of the Nordic type. My source is Jan Czekanowski and his book "Człowiek w Czasie i Przestrzeni" ("A Human in Time and Space") written in 1934, my re-edition comes from the 1960s, page 127. Thank you. Yatzhek (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Content about how Nazis defined race
One hears so often about how Hitler wasn't blue-eyed blond-haired like a "real" Aryan, yet when you read the history it seems like the Nazis defined Aryanness as much or more along phrenological lines, i.e. shape of the skull, nose, etc. Perhaps some discussion of how race was defined under Nazism, since it does not seem to be the same as the current-day English-speaking world? Historian932 (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, Hitler *WAS* blue-eyed. By Nazi racial ideology, he just wasn't particularly Nordic but rather "Dinaric", which was supposed to be a blue-eyed, dark-haired group of Aryans that had supposedly developed in the Alps. --2003:56:6D1B:C668:D038:8B98:BD5D:B109 (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews has nothing to do with race
It should be noted that the Nazis persecuted Jews not because of their race. There were no racial tests performed on large scale and the most prominent German anthropologists of the time admitted that it was impossible to reliably distinguish Jews by the racial criteria as the majority of German Jews belonged to the same racial groups as Germans did. So accusing Jews of belonging to another race was nothing more than a popular propaganda, like accusing them of being Communists etc. It is of note that racism was very popular those times, and not only in Germany, so the Nazis just employed a popular topic to attack the Jews.--MathFacts (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

in the propaganda documentary "the eternal Jew" made by the Nazi party they outline physical characteristics that Jews have. and also note that they look very similar to the German people and to the untrained eye would go unnoticed. they claim physical things like "big noises" and "rough hair". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyyboyy86 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The same can be also applied to Slavs: saying Slavs are of different race than Germans is a complete nonsense, non only now but was also those days.--MathFacts (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Nazis fiercely believed in race, it wasn't just propaganda to win the masses. The smarter and more educated Nazis were pretty frustrated at the fact that the science of their day couldn't find any decisive evidence for their definitions of race and used to say that science was just not advanced enough yet, but that it soon would be. --2003:56:6D1B:C668:D038:8B98:BD5D:B109 (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nazis were harmful idiots about that issue and many other issues. (Sources: the three-volume history of the Third Reich by Evans and the Kershaw biography of Hitler, both of which going into Nazi "race" propaganda in detail.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a category
I propose the removal of the category "Subhuman: Romani, Slavs and Jews", not because of the content in the category, but because the term "subhuman" was not exclusively a racial term and the article is about Nazism and race. Plus, there was no such thing as a "subhuman hierarchy", according to the Nazis the hierarchy was essentially human vs subhuman. I think a more appropriate way of including this material into the article would be to put it in the "ideology" section.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As Nazis engaged in racist actions against Poles, Jews and Romani who they viewed as non-Aryan subhumans and aimed at their enslavement and extermination this section is necessary.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that information would be more relevant in the "propaganda and implementation of racial theories" section? Dedicating a whole section titled "Subhuman: Romani, Slavs and Jews" in the "Racialist ideology" category is ignoring the fact that the term "subhuman/untermensch" was not used as a racial term exclusively and ignores all the others such as political opponents (e.g communists) who were categorized as such by the Nazis. The terms "subhumans" and "non-Aryans" were not used interchangeably and they meant different things to the Nazis, let's make that clear too.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Jews, Poles and other victims of racist treatment need there own section. Jews and Slavs were seen as subhuman non-Aryans separate from Germans and non-Aryan, we need to make that clear too.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing what you're saying as such but rather the placement of it in the article. I said in my first message that I'm simply asking whether it's necessary to have this category under the "Racialist ideology" section when the term "subhuman" was not used as a racial term exclusively. One part of the text that is instantly obviously wrong is the words "subhuman hierarchy" - no such thing existed. The Nazis either saw you as human or subhuman, simple as that, so I do propose the removal of that sentence.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some authors write about different categories Nazis viewed those they classified as non-Aryan subhumans so I am afraid you are wrong.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some sources that state the Nazis had a "subhuman hierarchy"?--Adolphus Weber (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Code Name Żegota: Rescuing Jews in Occupied Poland, 1942-1945

Irene Tomaszewski, ‎Tecia Werbowski - 2010 and Slavs and Jews in the lowest category of Untermenschen (subhumans) The Western Heritage from 1500 to the Present Stewart Copinger Easton - 1966 - Other "races" were degenerate or mongrelized or subhuman, the Jews lowest of all and the Slavs next to the lowest The Impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and Its Legacy

Alan E. Steinweis, ‎Daniel E. Rogers - 2003 ''But to ensure their preeminence, Germans would have to be segregated from the Untermenschen, who could biologically contaminate the former and diminish their racial value. Less racially hazardous Untermenschen, such as Poles, would be allowed to live, but Jews, whom the Nazis deemed the lowest Untermenschen''

Terror, Force, and States: The Path from Modernity Rosemary H. T. O'Kane - 1996 - 'Untermensch 'philosophy The categories of workers chosen for exploitation were based on Nazi racist views of superior and ... Ranked beneath the Slavs, at the lowest rung of inferiority, Jews and gypsies would be treated with even greater''
 * Those sources are referring to a racial hierarchy which is basic common knowledge and is not what I'm asking evidence for as I'm already aware that a racial hierarchy existed during the Third Reich. I'm on about specifically a subhuman hierarchy. None of those sources mention such a thing.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Less racially hazardous Untermenschen,lowest Untermenschen are clear terms used by sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Both sources mentioned are referring to the notion that the Nazis regarded people differently based on their race, not an existence of a subhuman hierarchy since no such thing existed. Some people categorized as 'Untermenschen' were treat differently to others who were categorized as 'Untermenschen' but that was based on other factors, not the fact that both were categorized as 'Untermenschen'.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read on Wikipedia Original Research.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm already aware of what constitutes as an original research and simply pointing out the fact that the Nazis had no such thing as a subhuman hierarchy can hardly be called original research. In fact, the sources you have provided so far as evidence of such a thing don't even prove that. The quotations from the sources you have used show that the Nazis treated people according to their race value which is something I've never disputed. The sources state exactly what I've been saying all along - the Nazis treated the different peoples categorized as 'Untermenschen' not because of any hierarchy within the term of 'Untermenschen' but because of their racial value and the Poles for example were treated better than say the Jews because of this reason yet both were Untermenschen according to the Nazis. Also, just because something is in a book doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Another point which I've already stressed enough is that it's entirely wrong to be having this subsection in the section of "Racialist ideology" because the term "subhuman" was not exclusively used as a racial term.


 * Also, please don't tell me what to do and for someone who is sounding rather patronizing me and telling me to read up on original research, surely you are aware that just because something is in a book doesn't mean it's necessarily the truth.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:NOR yourself? It is actually you who is trying to have something included in this article which is not supported by any reliable sources. Hopefully soon some others users can share their opinions about the subject being discussed.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of website called White-History.com
I removed a link to website called www.white-history.com.

It goes to self-published website with title March of the Titans The Complete History of the White Race which should bring about alarm bells ringing. The site seems to be by Arthur Kemp who has his own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kemp He is a former member of British National Party, we can also read that "Kemp has written and self-published several books including March of the Titans: A History of the White Race, which says that race—understood in biological terms—is the driving engine in history.[15] An article in The Guardian says that the book questions the number of Jews killed in the Second World War, and "is popular with far-right activists around the world".[6] In the Western Mail news article he is quoted as saying, "I deny outright that my book denies the Holocaust." The book itself is quoted as saying "... certainly far fewer died than what is most often claimed. Increasingly, all the evidence urges a complete revision of this aspect of the history of World War Two."[2]

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2005, some of Kemp's writings had been reproduced in National Alliance publications, and the National Alliance awarded him the "Dr. William Pierce Award for Investigative Journalism", which brought with it a $250 prize, for his article in National Vanguard, "White South Africa: What Went Wrong?".[16] That article had appeared on the internet prior to its publication in National Vanguard magazine on Kemp's blog and in a book he published called The Lie of Apartheid.[17]''

The use of such source by editor leads me to be very concerned about nature of his edits.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I never used this website or made that edit, nevertheless, it would be quite easy to cite the book without any reference to a webpage that currently has the book available to read.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreasonable explanation for removal of my edit
My edit to this article has been removed with the reason "remove most, this is not in regards to Gunter and distorts Nazi policies" - this is not true. The Nazis did regard most Slavs as racially inferior to the Germans. But, some Slavs were recognized to have Nordic traits and were considered to be suitable for Germanization. The Nazis were constantly looking throughout the Czech, Polish, Russian and other Eastern European countries for people who appeared to be Nordic. Not all Slavs were targeted the same as was the case when it came to the Jews.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Günther and Slavs
Currently the article states "Günther believed Slavic people to be of "Eastern race" separate from Germany and Nordics and warned about mixing "German blood" with Slavic one" with the source Wulf D. Hund, Racisms Made in Germany p.19. The source does not say what this sentence is saying at all, the source states that Günther warned about Slavs who belonged to the Eastern race mixing with Nordics would result in a loss of Nordics in Germany (German nation), it does not say that he opposed all mixing between people of "German blood" and Slavs.--Adolphus Weber (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Difficult section
This section is abstruse and needs to be rewritten in more lay terms. There are too many links in this paragraph which are necessary to follow to gather a base understanding.-24.130.100.115 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Philosophers and other theoreticians participated in the elaboration of Nazi ideology. The relationship between Heidegger and Nazism has remained a controversial subject in the history of philosophy, even today. According to the philosopher Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger said of Spinoza that he was "ein Fremdkörper in der Philosophie", a "foreign body in philosophy" – Faye notes that Fremdkörper was a term which belonged to the Nazi glossary, and not to classical German[2]. The jurist Carl Schmitt elaborated a philosophy of law praising the Führerprinzip and the German people, while Alfred Baeumler instrumentalized Nietzsche's thought, in particular his concept of the "Will to Power", in an attempt to justify Nazism.

In the section 'Origins', the paragraph which gives an account of the prevailing views concerning race relations in both American and Britain in the early 20th century is irrelevant and thereby removed. It decidedly gives a brief account on some views regarding race, mainly in America, but fails to correlate any substantial relationship or link with Nazism and race. It would better serve readers if it were appropriately placed in Wiki pages concerning American and British eugenics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.165.92 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The section is abstruse because the content is nonsense; the hit piece on Heidegger by Farris does not even make these claims. That Heidegger may have gone along with the Nazis fails to show that he had any influence on reigning Nazi ideology, which is an obvious falsehood which no one, even the most ad-hominem detractors of Heidegger like Farris believes. The Nazis did not read Heidegger or like him, and he was only in the University Rector position for one year in 1933 and then resigned. There is already an entire article on Heidegger’s association with Nazism. That article is bad enough, let’s not ruin this article too with ill-digested innuendo about Heidegger and vague suggestions that he influenced the “origins of Nazism”- claims which NO ONE believes. Even the insufferable academic hack Farris doesn’t claim what this paragraph purports to say, namely, that heidegger had some kind of influence on the intellectual origins of Nazism. Drug Addict (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Struck as sockpuppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Heidegger is a fine example of philospohers' engagements with Nazi racial ideas. So are the other philosophers mentioned. And it is sourced, which the version you inserted was not. Your handwaving is not an argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it is not about the origins of Nazi racial ideology, but only about philosophers' engagements with the ideology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I certainly find it more acceptable to mention the usual academic gossip about Heidegger in this article as long as it isnt in a section called “origins”, as if Heidegger somehow influenced or is responsible for or came up with the idea. That being said, it is indisputable that none of Heidegger’s books or texts or lectures contain anything about Nazism or race. Clearly there is nothing in Being and Time or anything else in the main works that speaks to these issues. To the limited extent that any lectures contain anything that might be construed as a comment on Nazism or racial ideology, they suggest a negative viewpoint on it, as in the Nietzsche lectures. The sole evidence against Heidegger from any of his writings derives from the “Black notebooks.” So far as I know there aren’t even any full English translations of these and the evidence is equivocal at best and they weren’t published until a few years ago even in German. So the argument that heidegger developed Nazi themes in his work is quite dubious and is being extremely undue weight. It is controversial within Philosophy that Heidegger did not resist or condemn Nazism and was briefly University Rector under their regime simply because Heidegger is an enormous figure in the field; likely with Wittgenstein, one of two philosophers who will be read from the 20th century hundreds of years from now. That doesn’t mean he did anything to “elaborate” Nazism in his work. It doesn’t really make a lot of sense to be listing Heidegger with extensive commentary here, while Schmitt gets one line, and Wagner, and the 19th century thinkers who were actually arguably influential are unmentioned. I just don’t see how there is anything in Heidegger’s work showing he developed Nazism in any way. As for Faye, I don’t know of any academics who take him or his book seriously. Drug Addict (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Struck as sock puppet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of published sources for antisemitism in the Black Notebooks and in private correspondence. Most recent is perhaps Wolin's 2016 "The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin Heidegger", Farin & Malpas 2016 "reading the black notebooks", Rojcewicz translations of the Black Notebooks, Mitchell & Trawny's 2017 edited volume on Heidegger and antisemitism in light of the Black NOtebooks, etc. So it is certainly a topic that has received attention by reputable scholars - not all of whom are as quick to dismiss any involvement with Nazi ideology as you appear to be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * We might also include Heideggers own words from Ûberlegungen und Winke that "National Socialism is a barbarous principle. That is its essence and its potential for greatness".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nazism and race. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070417023514/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/einsatzopenpros.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/einsatzopenpros.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817233423/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS1.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031203151512/http://fundamentalbass.home.mindspring.com/c9052.htm to http://fundamentalbass.home.mindspring.com/c9052.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Separate sections for Slavs and Poles
Is it really necessary to have separate sections for Slavs and Poles? Poles are classified as Slavs (West Slavs), so why is there a need to have an extra section? By the same argument, there should be a separate for other Slavic nations e.g Russians that also suffered from Nazi persecution. The section also says "Subhuman: Poles", some readers may interpret that as Poles being different from other Slavs which is simply not true. Would it not make more sense to remove the word "Subhuman" from the title of the section and have separate sections for Jews, Romani and Sinti (Gypsies) and Slavs? The latter category could have subsections such as "Poles" and "Russians" with extra information about how those Slavic ethnic groups were targeted more than other Slavic ethnic groups.--92.18.69.191 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One reason is that Hitler had a specific animus against the Poles -- not so much at the beginning, but certainly after the Poles refused to make the kind of territorial concessions he had gotten from Czechoslovakia. Polish society and culture was to be annihilated, with the intelligentia and any leaders killed.  Poles were to be reduced to being, literally, slaves, with a minimal education, enough to allow them to read signs or understand their orders. It was Poland -- and later the Soviet Union -- which was to provide the lebensraum Hitler wanted for Germany.  While Slavs in general were considered Untermenschen, it was the Poles the bore the brunt of that status, so having them in a separate section seems like a reasonable thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The information is not the issue, the way the sections are separated is my problem. This is why I propose altering the names of the titles and sections to the same as the article Holocaust_victims. What do you think? Logically, a user could then expand information on those most heavily persecuted such as the Jews, Gypsies and certain Slavic ethnic groups.--92.18.69.191 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any problem with me making this adjustment? I would like the proposed format style so I could also create a section about the Nazis treatment of Soviet POWs and Russians.--92.18.69.191 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the current version of the article, change is not necessary. Hitler treated Slavs generally as sub-humans, there were also other branches of the Nazi party who would consider a kind of level of collaboration with them, and treatment also varied regarding necessity or other reasons, and Beyond My Ken has right that especially for the Poles a special animus was applied generally by the Nazis. Moreover, Poles are not separated from the other Slavs, read the relevant section, they just have a subsection, while the other don't have right now. If you wish to write details of the i.e. the Russians, make a similar subsection under the Poles.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC))

Finno-Ugric racial classification
Given that Finns, Karelians, Sami, Hungarians, etc. are, to my understanding, neither Germanic nor Slavic, how did the Nazis classify them? Finland was de facto an Axis power during the Winter War, or so I'm told, so the Nazis must have dealt with Finns at one point, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franxz (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler and some of his handpicked researchers in the Ahnenerbe were fascinated by Finnish culture. I don't know any sources for their standing in the Nazi racial hierarchy but it does seem probable they were considered Aryans of some type (Nazi racial science was never too bothered with things like evidence after all). 97.115.195.164 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A lot said in the article is contradicting the racial map.
Propaganda? Hitler seems to have not even believed in the concept of "Slavs" as an ethnic group. Why do you continue pushing this propaganda? I have images of Poles in the SS and Wehrmacht, Serbs being regarded as Aryans and the such. Didn't the SS requirements for joining include being of pure Aryan blood? How come 1,5 million Russians collaborated with Nazi Germany if they wanted to genocide all of them? How come Hitler spoke positively of the Poles? How come that, after viewing the history of the edits, Tomislav's edits were removed even after he had given proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truehistory14 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * How do you recognize the Poles in German forms? The length od their noses, colour of hair?
 * Poles in annected lands were drafted, objectors were send to concentration camps.
 * Slavic units were organized by pragmatic German officers.Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is almost always the case that editors who put "true" or "truth" in their screenname are pushing a point of view, and are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The very first image in the article is photoshopped
The very first image in the article showing Hans F. K. Günther's map that goes by the name 'Rassenkarte von Europa.jpg' is photoshopped. You can find the original just by googling the current one.

For some reason in the current variant someone made russians more nordic. I wonder who and why did this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddutkovich (talk • contribs) 16:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I googled it and found nothing. Please post a link — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Understandable, as it is the last image on the list when you google it. But anyway, here you have this for example. — Ddutkovich (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know that this image is fake? Perhaps the ones you are finding on Twitter and Reddit are the ones that are altered. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just open the Wikipedia image and the 'Twitter or Reddit' image in each own tab and start clicking on one after another. You can clearly see that the one used in Wikipedia is fake due to added bars that are copied from the right side of the Moscow. If you can't see that you either have something wrong with your brain or you are trying to push an agenda. Thanks for proving once again that your site is not a reliable source of information. — Ddutkovich (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah! Insulting the people you need to help you, a time-honored system.  Does it work well for you in real life? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What about the northern Italians?
This article does not say anything on how the Nazis regarded northern Italians. Because the article says that central/southern Italians were regarded as Mediterranean aryans, but what about the northern Italians?79.50.181.132 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no distinction, Italians were regarded on the whole Mediterranean Aryans.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC))

Study racial theorist in bed with Nazism and Fascism, Julius Evola. The official Fascist Racial Manifesto blessed by Mussolini states the original ethnic nuclei of the Romanic-Italian people was Nordic - not Germanic, but NORDIC - and leading Nazi racial thinkers generally were identical to Evola here - Italian mixture with non-"Aryans" was noted, but considered redeemable via eugenic re-purification; the Sicilian population, its history with Afro-Arabian contacts, was conceded but Sicilians in the end, all parties allowed as at least minimally Mediterranean idiovariations of the more racially-preserved Northern-Italian type, primordially a sub-variety of the greater Nordic subspecies. Evola involves mystical Hyperborean theories here, but it amounts to the same thing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:5C4E:8E8:22DA:76FE (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainians
I believe that Ukrainians deserve mentioning. Western Ukrainians were treated relatively well, the Eastern ones were Ostarbeiter. I don't know ideology behind the discrimination. Xx236 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the recent edits regarding the extention of the quote
Guys,

for accuracy I have to tell that in Hitler's final political testament in 1945 he reinforced in written that eventually not necessarily a fundemental (= hating just per se of being existent without any reason) racial hatred lead him, but mainly behavioral and cultural patterns of the respective people.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC))
 * It really doesn't matter what apologetics he wrote at the end, or what he said in public at the beginning to make himself seem less extreme, the long history of his words and actions point to a virulent hatred of Jews and, to a lesser extent, Slavs. No reputable historian says otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What I have written has zero connection to any apologetics or make himself seem less extreme, since these he did not say in front of wide public, but on almost closed circles, just mentioned as a fact, indicating that I have no problem if the quote is extended, it is a quote, to judge that quote is a totally another issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC))

Indians
I think this section is missing views on Indians. The only part relating is about the Romanis (gypsies). I know Nazis respected Aryan/high-caste Indians. Some of their ideology came from the caste system. They probably did not respect Dravidians. I do not have enough information to add but request somebody does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.160.68 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
123Uncle,

please discuss before any further changes here and gain consensus first. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rassenkarte von Europa.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deutsches Historisches Museum Der Stürmerplakat.jpg

Atlantis needs to be included to promote enlightenment
The Nazi use of Atlantis to promote racial propaganda is very interesting.2601:447:4080:10:D0B4:F8AB:2EE2:B2A4 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Issues in the article
has reverted my addition of templates to the article. I do not think a consensus is strictly needed to add them, but it's worth setting out the issues with the article here anyway. The bottom line is that there are a number of very serious issues with this article which are only compounded by the fact that it addresses sensitive issues which we should be particularly careful to get right. Does this provide some justification for the tags? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. The subject of this article is one which has been covered in huge detail in reliable sources. However, we rely heavily on blockquotes and primary sources - notably books by Hans F. K. Günther and Alfred Rosenberg, even Hitler's writings. There are also a handful of contemporary newspaper articles and document compendiums from the Nuremberg trials. Clearly, we should be using reliable sources.
 * Non-WP:RS. There are a number of references to amateur historical websites and forums some of which are of dubious independence - feldgrau.com, thevintagenews.com, warhistoryonline.com etc. Again, these have no place on Wikipedia and are especially unhelpful here.
 * WP:UNDUE/Lack of focus. The article currently devotes more space to Nazi views on Iranians than "Romani, Jews, and Slavs". Clearly, the latter is historically far more important and this should be reflected in the focus of the article.
 * Tagging editors involved in this field for views, and . —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not that a consensus is needed to add tags, it's that adding a tag or tags to an article is an edit just like any other, and is subject o WP:BRD. When disputed, it must be discussed, and not simply restored. I would suggest that if you perceive problems with the article, WP:JUSTFIXIT.  Tagging solves nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "tagging solves nothing": it warns the reader beforehand about issues in the article they are about to read. I have neither the expertise nor the time to re-write this article but that doesn't mean that there are no issues. I may be able to strip out some of the non-RS used in the article but that's pretty much it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But that does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, if there indeed is one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. But nor does pretending it doesn't exist! That's why we have tags in the first place. As for the last part of your comment, do you disagree with the points I raised above? If so, why? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it's you who wishes to make substantial changes, why don't you tell us what it is you specifically intend to do? Then we can look at those specific suggestions and evaluate whether there is a consensus to alter the article in that fashion. Start off with a few of the most important items, let them be discussed, then go on to your next concerns, i.e. don't overwhelm with a long list of things. WP:There is no deadline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article needs work in line with what you are suggesting. But putting tags on an article is not necessarily an effective way to improve it, and this article isn't in significantly worse shape than the average wikiarticle. Also, tags placed locally next to the problem, specifically identifying an unreliable source or problematic section for example, are better than slapping on a banner at the top of the article.  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this in general but I think these issues (especially #1 and #3) run throughout the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Aryans: Iranians
Beginning in 1933, the Nazi leadership in Germany made efforts to increase their influence in Iran, and they financed and managed a racist journal, Iran-e Bastan, co-edited by a pro-Nazi Iranian, Sheikh Abdul-Rahman Seif. This and other chauvinistic publications in the 1930s were popular among Iranian elites; they "highlighted the past and the pre-Islamic glories of the Persian nation and blamed the supposedly 'savage Arabs and Turks' for the backwardness of Iran."[29] In Iran:

The Nazis found a favorable climate amongst the Iranian elite to spread fascistic and racist propaganda. The Nazi propaganda machine advocated the (supposedly) common Aryan ancestry of "the two Nations." In order to further cultivate racist tendencies, in 1936 the Reich Cabinet issued a special decree exempting Iranians from the restrictions of the Nuremberg Racial Laws on the grounds that they were 'pure-blooded' Aryans ... In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn among Reza Shah, Hitler, and Mussolini to emphasize the charismatic resemblance among these leaders."[29] Nazi ideology was most common among Persian officials, elites, and intellectuals, but "even some members of non-Persian groups were eager to identify themselves with the Nazis" and a supposed Aryan race.[29] Hitler declared Iran to be an "Aryan state"; the changing of Persia's international name to Iran in 1935 was done by the Shah at the suggestion of the German ambassador to Iran as an act of "Aryan solidarity."[30]

I think that this paragraph should be deleted because there is no source on it, and the article appears to be an opinion and not a fact Sarazxs123 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Lithuanians and Latvians
I can't find out how the Nazi theories classified and treated the Baltic Lithuanians and Latvians; the only remark I could find was in : "Germans immediately initiated anti-Jewish persecution by deploying its mobile death squads, the Einsatzgruppen. The remainder of the Baltic peoples were deemed by the Nazis to be "a dying race" that needed to be "replaced by a more dynamic people", meaning Germans." --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over photo


Is it time to have a conversation about the photo being repeatedly deleted and reinserted?

The Mismeasure of Man documents the history of research like that depicted in this photo and used to "prove" that whites in the US were genetically superior to Negros. He does not discuss the Nazis. There are doubtless other work that discuss how scientific research like that in this image were used by Hitler and his supporters to justify the Holocaust and other mistreatment of anyone not meeting their definition of healthy Aryan.

The text may need to be modified, but I think the photo belongs here. Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's too bad that there's been edit warring over this. We need to be especially careful to avoid assumptions of bad faith when dealing with Nazi-related topics in particular. So thanks, DavidMCEddy, for starting this discussion. I removed the photo in the first place because it did not illustrate anything in the text it accompanied. Per MOS:IMAGES, photos should illustrate the concepts being presented rather than simply decorate the article. If someone wants to add material about Nazi uses of cranial measurements of East Asian peoples, I can see how this image might be appropriate. Generalrelative (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it doesn't relate to the quotation it purports to support. Hitler is talking about Chinese and Japanese people, and the woman in the photo is Tibetan.  — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 19:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Basques?
What about Basques? Una esvástica sobre el Bidasoa mentions the documentary Im Lande der Basken that shows the interest of Herbert Brieger about the Basques, but the impression I got is that this interest was limited to a small faction of the Nazis. Did the racial theorists judge the Basques? --Error (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No Serbs in Rosenberg's book
"To just Lebensraum (living space) for Germans, the Nazis later described Slavs, mainly the Poles, Serbs and Russians, along with Jews and Romani (Gypsies) as “subhumans”."

I think that's supposed to be "To justify". Anyway, this sentence cites Rosenberg's Mythus p. 234. I didn't find anything on page 234, and using ctrl+f I didn't find anything about Serbs in the whole book. Also, the sentence sounds like it's talking about Nazis in power justifying an ongoing or planned policy, so citing a 1930 ideological work seems misleading. HonestManBad (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Racial hierarchy
It talks about "The text seems to address the European races in descending orders in the Nazi racial hierarchy: the Nordic race (including the Phalic sub-race)". Phalic sub-race? ~ Rafstr (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Nazis saw English as Nordic
The standard view - still seen as valid by non-racist experts - was that they were an offshoot from German and Scandinavian populations.

A valid description of the wider view was also removed.

I've called it Good Faith, but it could be someone trying to cover up the degree to which similar ideas flourished in England. GwydionM (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent additions in "Spaniards" and "Arabs"
Recent mass additions by adds WP:UNDUE amount of material about a subjects such as "Arabs" and "Spaniards" subtopics into the article and violates WP:PROPORTION. Some of those material relies on WP:OLDSOURCES or predatory journals (such as drafts, undue reliance on local newspapers, etc.). Such low-quality sources should not be used in contentious topics like these. I suggest the involved editor to have them fixed; otherwise, it is best to revert the article back to a stable revision.

It is also generally advised to not add a very large amount of material in a single edit (it is cumbersome to review). -- Wiki Linuz  { talk } 16:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on the WP:UNDUE – we don't need a separate section for every single ethnic group Hitler once spouted some ill-informed opinion about (presented as a blockquote), at least without further coverage by RSs.–Ich (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

3kb
@Czello Hi, about this -- It seems that the source is okay, but I agree that relying on one source for this is not great. I haven't read the whole cited book chapter, but it seems like the claims are supported. I have formatted the reference and did some copyedits. I think that the way forward would be to find another supporting source. Do you still support removing? —Alalch E. 09:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's looking much better now, so no worries. Thanks for the ping. — Czello (music) 12:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

British section
Why put this in the article:

"unlike mid 19th century English race theorists, who believed they were superior to the Catholic Irish and tried to claim that Celts were less evolved as subhuman nonwhite others"

Ignoring the juvenile prose, exactly what do "mid 19th Century race theorists" have to do with Nazi racial views? And who are these "English race theorists"? English "race theorists" held a range of views although it is certainly true that the "Anglo-Saxonists" thought the Celts were inferior. But "Celts" were not just Irish -they were Welsh, Cornish, Highland Scottish. And it is one thing to say "English race theorists" thought Celts were "inferior", but to leap to "non-white" is theoretical overreach.

How about sticking to what Hitler and the Nazis thought about Celts and leave "mid 19th Century English race theorists" out of it? Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)