If nazis were racist then why did they let gooks, arabs and indians in joining the Wehrmacht?

If nazis were racist then why did they let gooks, arabs and indians in joining the Wehrmacht?
makes you really think.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion#Perceptions_as_collaborators
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because the victors write history

because their aryan dudes died out and they really needed the manpower
the gook was captured 3 times and he choosed to fight for his new masters 3 times

beaches in normandy were unironically defended by slavs

stupid worst korean proxy

>beaches in normandy were unironically defended by slavs
I thought they were defended by burnt out fighters from the eastern front?

Oh man, I remember that movie. I'll never forget that heartwarming scene on the beach- slavs, arabs, balts, asians, people of all races and creeds, having fun together and playing soccer... as members of the Waffen SS.

>I'll never forget that heartwarming scene on the beach- slavs, arabs, balts, asians, people of all races and creeds, having fun together and playing soccer... as members of the Waffen SS.

sounds like the plot to the next DICE Battlefield game.

What movie?

I thought it was a comedy, when i watched it first time. And only by the end i realized it was a drama.

>If nazis were racist then why did they let gooks, arabs and indians in joining the Wehrmacht?

Because they lacked manpower and were desperate. They would have accepted jews in their SS at the end of the war.

/thread

>Muh bad guys win
Fuck off.

Herro! My name is Victor and i didnt wrote any history yet, sorry

>what is cannon fodder?

Let's not forget that among another non-whites there were Finns in the Waffen SS.

Finns are the strongest race. They infiltrate every nation.

>>Muh bad guys win
>Fuck off.

Who said bad guys always win?

I just said that whoever wins writes the history book.

It's very obvious and you'd have to be retarded to deny this. Do you think someone who won the war is going to write how much of an asshole they were?

The allies won, so of course they will omit acts where they acted wrongly and highlight, fabricate or exaggerate ones where their enemy did wrong.

The waffen ss was multi-ethnic but the wehrmacht was strictly german.

Bazis where racists.
They believed in different races and that people developed differently after the different enviroment they lived in for a very long time.
A race performes the best when it is in its home enviroment that it is used too.


Slavs were raiding mongols occopying germanic lands.
Jews were the cancer of the world that needs to be removed.

Turks and Japs (included Koreans here) were honorary Aryan.

Americans where a degenerated half nigger version of Europe that lost their former qualities because they lost their natural homes and did racemixing.

Germans are a social construct. Adolf Hitler (aka Nepomuk) was Czech and so was his bodyguard.

KHAN'D

>The allies won, so of course they will omit acts where they acted wrongly and highlight, fabricate or exaggerate ones where their enemy did wrong.

Except history books are full of those, even wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II

The winner do writes history, but only up to a point and that is why it is commonly accepted that it is only after 25 years that an even can be considered as part of "history". The more time passes, and the more objectively it can be treated.

The French narrative about what happened in France is a clear exemple of that.
>All citizens were in the resistance
>Some were, others were collaborators and some did nothing
>Some were, others were collaborators and the majority did nothing and tried to survive.

And it took us 25-30 years to get there.

Because the dumbass Nazis ran out of their ubermensch in the Eastern Front and had to force supposed subhumans to fight for them

>I hate niggers but I don't hate Asians, therefore I'm not racist!

hmmm....

Best answer ITT.

should have recruited filipino

the strongest race

god what a shit movie. stick to hardboiled detective thrillers, korea

because they were desperate

dat soundtrack tho

so hitler was right about literally everything then?

They were quiet inconsistent in their beliefs.
There was nothing worse then the mongol far eastern russian, asiatic hellspawn and born primitive raider, but then made a really interesting and respectful movie about the Tibetans, praising their religion and culture in imaginative language, describing their struggle against keeping themselves sovereign from the british imperial influence.

Poles were a brotherpeople as it seemed likely to cuck them out of sea acess and bring them into the sphere of influence, then subhuman slavs again, inheritently inferiour, who needed to be driven back after they allied with the english.

Basically the propaganda turned were it was useful.

Nah, they also financed all kinds of uprisings in other countries colonys, elevating other peoples as legit allys as long as it hurt the brits.
Basic proxy warring as it is done today.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Legion#Perceptions_as_collaborators

Hitler even tried riling up the Welsh to get them to rebel. They should have tried the Scots in stead.

no they were defended by kids and old men + a few SS divisions but the SS divisions didn't come in play until after the Allies got a foothold on the beaches

You sound inconsistent in your beliefs. Fuck off back to Sup Forums.

the only thing inconsistent here is your grasp of the english language

Why waste resources when you could recruit more soldiers when the war is going badly? The Nazis were opportunists.

kek
So don't be lazy and write it.
I want some story about big and strong poland

The winners of WWII were the people who chose to burn hundreds of thousands of women and children alive in an attempt to get their enemies to surrender. That's not even mentioning the Russians, who were even worse (Russians are always worse, it's kind of their thing). You can't possibly argue that these are not bad guys.

>Watch Saving Private Ryan
>Those two Wehrmact guys who surrendered with their hands up get murked by American soldiers after Normandy beach is taken
>Wehrmacht soldiers were speaking in unsubtitled German and the Americans didnt know or care what they were saying

Apparently they were saying they were just Czech conscripts..

And the nazis did equally bad things, so I don't understand what you'r getting at.

Nazis weren't racist, they were nationalists.

They thought they were ubermensch. Pretty much the definition of racism desu.

Sorry about your empire and shit.

It's not racism, its nationalism. They thought they were ubermensch yet slavs were untermensch.

Both are part of the same race so it's not based on race, is it? Not unless you use the word in the context of ethnicity which is hardly ever used nowdays.

they joined the waffen SS

>the brits are far by the ugliest
top pottery.

>Nazi's literally pioneer bombing of urban centres
>deport and kill millions across ocuppied Europe
>they get hit back


Fast forward to 2016 neo-nazis
>MUH DRESDEN WORST CRIME EVER

>Both are part of the same race so it's not based on race, is it?
It is, because even though they were part of the same race, the nazis believed they were two seperate races and their race was the superior one.

>They thought they were ubermensch yet slavs were untermensch.
Exactly, this is racism.
>Both are part of the same race
This seems to contradict the above statement.

WWII is usually portrayed as a war where the good guys beat the bad guys. Such was not the case. It was a war where one set of bad guys beat another set of bad guys and the winners could claim to be the good guys.

They did it in italy in germany and in japan of course, but that's war , if you want to win you can't be fair.

oh look its a country that stayed neutral during ww2.

>Fuck off back to Sup Forums

huh?
What Sup Forumslish thing did I say in particular?

>the nazis are coming

Kind of. It's more complex than a simple good/bad vision anyway.

>Nazi's literally pioneer bombing of urban centres
Both sides claimed the other side started it. The winner got to decide that it was the loser who started it.

>deport and kill millions across ocuppied Europe
Are you saying the Russians did no such thing?

That's right, one of the good guys.

>swedecuck nazi apologist

>The winners of WWII were the people who chose to burn hundreds of thousands of women and children alive in an attempt to get their enemies to surrender.

You seem to be under the impression that Germans were people.

You seem to be under the impression that you were any better.

The allies were better. They won the war, if anything the western allies didn't let the Russians fuck the Germans enough

I know this might be hard for a Russian, but if you don't want to be called worse than Hitler, don't be worse than Hitler.

Still, I wonder where you'r getting at. What is your point ? That the IIIrd reich wasn't that bad after all ? That war crimes should be ignored because, hey, everybody does it ?

What are you trying to say ?

> Russians
> worse than Hitler
the Russians just paid the Germans back for what they did.

he's calling you a gayboy

They didn't though, they had entire plans set out on how to best assimilate Slavs, especially Czechs. They didn't invade because of recial motivations but purely our of nationalist ones.

Not really, they are the same race, you could argue that Nazis believed they were a different race but they were incosistent with it, at best. Thus Fins were mongols but by 1941 they became Aryans and Czechs were under a process of assimilated.
>Guy threatens to hit you in the face
>You try to talk him out of it
>You make a deal with him giving him some shit in exchange for him not hitting you in the face
>Guy promises not to hit you our your friends in the face
>Guys hits your friend in the face anyway
>You hit the guy back
>BOTH WERE THE BAD GUYS
This is essentially how the pre-war went.

>Both sides claimed the other side started it. The winner got to decide that it was the loser who started it.
Yes, please provide which German cities were bombed before 1937 Guernica. Please provide German cities that were bombed before Rotterdam (1940) or a number of cities in Poland in 1939.

Pic related is Rotterdam in 1940.

Oh, yeah, the winner "decided" about it.

>Are you saying the Russians did no such thing?
No, they did not. There was no Russia to begin with.

>I mean, the Nazis did indulge in the mechanized slaughter of millions of people and wanted to genocide some of their neighbours to help propagate their masterrace but some of their cities got bombed really badly guys, why so mean :^(

Thing is, even if the other one started it, was it necessary to bomb urban centers back?
Poland was taken so quickly that I do believe they could have left warsaw standing by just encircling it, like it happened in Paris, were as far as I know only a vehicle factory was targeted.

Still they decided to flatten the city, which was an exceptionally brutish act.

The opposite. The third reich was that bad, but so were the allies and their war crimes should not be ignored because the Germans also did bad things. The allies should not be allowed to steal the moral high ground just because they won the war. They were no better than the Nazis.

mai wei

Yeah, man all those allied death camps and roving allied death squads that would line up entire villages. They were brutal

The Russians went back in time to genocide the Ukrainians in order to pay back the Germans? That sounds awfully strange.

Yes, they were.

Germans was stupid.
They should fuck Englanf, not us.

Anything the Russians did doesn't count because the Germans had already made up their minds that the Russians were Sub-humans and were going in with the intention of fighting a war of annihilation. The Russians are forgiven

>allys

I think you shouldnt generalize both axis and allys if you dont wanna generalize in good and bad from the beginning on.

The soviets were a society just as horrible and totalitarian as the nazis, but the americans were -at least from the european point of ethics- the better and morally superiour power.
60s westgermany>30s germany imo

Both "bad" allys and "good" allys were part of the same faction because it was convenient after hitler himself decided to make the first move against the soviets.

On the Axis side, we were the baddys in comparison to the italians for example who were the less cruel faction but doomed to tag along, comparable to the america of the allys.

>sell ore to nazis
>good.

What is being a good or bad guy anyway. Its not like people do stuff because they are evil

>this serb nazi

sold to everyone lad

But they were. The main differences is in the way the massacres and war crimes were insititutionalized or not. Nazi Germany allowed a ludicrous amount of ressources, infrastructures and manpower to the extermation of designed groups. The Blitz, that led to the death of nearly 50.000 civilians (more than Dresde) was conceived to kill those civilians.

Not to mention the nazis started wars of aggression and were not defeding themselves.

The Allies warcrimes were the results of individuals or small groups led by a figure that wasn't on top the hierarchy, while the Nazis warcrimes were ingeneered by the state and its top leaders.

>war of annihilation
Nah, it would have been more like forcing them into serfdom as an agrar slavestate.
There were russians fighting on the naziside too after all and they did not do it because they were eager on getting deathcamped after winning.

>inb4 muh Himmler
Himmler was a sperg with considerable power but so were other guys like Goebbels (russiaboo in his youth) who had a more favorable view of the eastern populations.
Who of the generals and Hitler's clique in general would have ended up getting a say about the russians fate is debatable.

>anything the russians did doesnt count

Do you have invented some weird Karmapoint system of ethical misconduct were cruelty can be weighted against each other accurately in order to nullifie atrocities?

gosh, OP I guess you are right
It seems like in truth, nazis were very tolerant and multicultural people

Have you watched the pianist, they used jews to make police work and put corpses of jews from gas chambers to mass graves, and killed them once they were not needed,

>They didn't invade because of recial motivations but purely our of nationalist ones.

As Stalin pointed out:
>Can the Hitlerites be regarded as nationalists? No, they cannot. Actually, the Hitlerites are now not nationalists but imperialists. As long as the Hitlerites were engaged in assembling the German lands and reuniting the Rhine district, Austria, etc., there might have been some ground for calling them nationalists. But after they seized foreign territories and enslaved European nations -- the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Norwegians, Danes, Netherlanders, Belgians, the French, Serbs, Greeks, Ukrainians, Belorussians, the inhabitants of the Baltic countries etc. -- and began to reach out for world domination, the Hitlerite party ceased to be a nationalist partly for from that moment it became an imperialist, predatory, oppressor party.
>Can the Hitlerites be regarded as socialists? No, they cannot... the Hitlerites denounce the internal regime of England and America as a plutocratic regime. But in England and the United States there are elementary democratic liberties, there are trade unions of workers and salaried employees, there are workers' parties, there are parliaments; whereas in Germany, under the Hitler regime, all these institutions have been destroyed.

Not a fan of stalin but this seems like legit reasoning.

>The third reich was that bad, but so were the allies
>They were no better than the Nazis.
This is what nazi apologists boil down to. Mass systematic murder, ethnic cleansing, deportations, etc organised at the highest level of government are the same as getting bombed (in retaliation) by the allies after you bombed everyone else.

This >muh holodmore
Yeah, let's just ignore all the non-ukrainians that died. Belorussians, Russians, Khazaks, etc. Just a coincidence. Ukraine was just hit the hardest.

And then, the Germans, liberated them but it was again a total coincidence that Ukraine and Belaruse (that were completely occupied by Germany) had the highest death toll in % of population in the entire Soviet Union during world war 2.

Lmao.

>Italians
>Less cruel faction
Not really, maybe on the scale of things, but they were just as bad often enough. Their war-crimes were mostly forgotten after world war 2 though and Italian war criminals were never tried as many of them ended up being instrumental in keeping Italy a western, democratic (non-commie) state.

I mean for fucks sake they dropped gas on the Ethiopians.

He was right in what he said though, they told what was politically needed.

Killing gypsies and jews for their race is racist though.

>Hitler referred to the war in the east, in unique terms calling it a "war of annihilation" which was both an ideological and racial war. According to a plan calledGeneralplan Ost, the

Gas all nazis and Hitler sympathisers.

They shouted and screamed murder all the time when they wanted to whip up the masses with their primitive drivel.

As I said, the Generalplan was mostly Himmlers doing and while the post-war policies would have been most certainly devastating for the russian people and their identity I doubt that it would have been achievable and that everybody out of hitlers unstable warband would have tagged along with it as there were often disagreements.
Fact is you dont just depopulate a region of thirty million+ people and plant .... what amount of germans in it? The war was straining german demographics too after all, which was why the east-german refugees could be sheltered without overpopulating the coreland after the war.
Holomodoring them might have been an option though, its just that I dont believe any extend anymore since I got told about the jewsoap which turned out to be discredited as 50s propaganda by israeli historians too by now.

Anyway, I dont wanna haggle about reducing their evilness I was reacting to your justification concerning complete forgiveness mainly.
What kind of karmasystem do you use?
Can it be applied to modern conflicts too?

>gas
Im rather ignorant about the ethiopian war, looked it up and it certainly makes a point about italians being quiet scummy in that regard, (albeit not more as the french towards the algerians I guess.).
Doesnt manage to top german atrocities, but to achieve that you need amounts of edginess few posses.
Was there any ww2 related motivation to it besides retarded irredentism? For a short time Mussolini was kinda respected on the worldstage before he hopped completely on the nazitrain as far as I remember.

*dont believe all accounts

>Doesnt manage to top german atrocities,
Not by numbers, yes, but they did pretty much everything the nazis did. Deportations, mass executions, ethnic cleansing, hostage shootings, etc just on a lower scale. Granted they never had gas chambers or anything of the sort but they did have concentration camps whose death toll in % of the incarcarated population can be easily compared.

Rab had a higher death toll than Buchenwald in the % of inamtes that died for example. Interestingly the Italians treated Jews with special care and a lot better than Slavic inmates.

To TL;DR you, the place I live in was occupied by Italy until 1943 they deported roughly 10% of the population and another 10% did not survive the war. Above average numbers for Yugoslavia.

>Was there any ww2 related motivation to it besides retarded irredentism?
Nope, pretty much irredentism.

>Mass systematic murder, ethnic cleansing, deportations, etc organised at the highest level of government
Was what the allies did.

One of the ones labelled as a swede on here is actually Norwegian. I don't know why I care but it always bothers me

>Nazi Germany allowed a ludicrous amount of ressources, infrastructures and manpower to the extermation of designed groups.
As did the allies.

>The Blitz, that led to the death of nearly 50.000 civilians (more than Dresde) was conceived to kill those civilians.
As was the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which led to the death of 200.000 civilians.

>Not to mention the nazis started wars of aggression
As did the allies.

>The Allies warcrimes were the results of individuals or small groups led by a figure that wasn't on top the hierarchy, while the Nazis warcrimes were ingeneered by the state and its top leaders.
The fire-bombing campaigns in Germany were approved by the British cabinet, the nuking of civilian targets was signed off on by the president of the United States and gulags did not pop up spontaneously to the horror of the saint Stalin. The allied war crimes were no different in nature from the axis war crimes.

The only thing the allies did to "exterminate designed groups" was churchill being a turd and not helping during the bengali famine, and that was due to willful omission not a policy of genocide.

Big difference between hating the Jew (the universal poisoner of all nations) and hating other races.

The allies consisted of more than just the brits.

>TL;DR
I see, thanks.
Safe for bits about romania and the croats I dont know much about what happened in the balkans during that time.

>irredentism
Damnit.
Ruins so many attempts to better a society.
Noooo it doenst suffice to have control about an area consistent with your initial agendas plans were people still approve of you, it doesnt suffice to try to better it and see if your ideas are worth a crap, you need to to create GreaterX and cover your domestic failings by expanding and fucking someone up.

That Swede