Where did they claim Hitler and the National Socialists were not "Racist" and what definition of "racism" did they use? The word can be defined in various ways.
From their FAQ:
Wasn’t Hitler racist?
"At no point did Hitler advocate tribalism (ie. in-group/out-group double-standards). Hitler’s early rhetoric exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support. But once the NSDAP was in government, Hitler emphasized racial idealism rather than racial identity. Statements of German superiority were mostly in comparison to nearby populations (e.g. French, Russians), almost never to populations from other parts of the world. Racist Hans Guenther attempted to influence National Socialist literature to replace the open-ended term 'Aryan' (which was used by the NSDAP to describe people as diverse as Jesus, the Japanese military, numerous Native American groups and on at least one occasion even bees) with the narrow term 'Nordic', but was unsuccessful. Similarly, National Socialist Germany prohibited from publication the writings of racist Lanz von Liebenfels after annexing Austria.
In treatment of ethnic minorities, National Socialist Germany was among the fairest of all countries at the time, especially compared to Britain and America, two countries which Hitler despised specifically for their racism. Both 'black' American athletes of the 1936 Berlin Olympics and 'black' American POWs during WWII have remarked that they were treated more respectfully in National Socialist Germany than back at home where they were subject to Jim Crow laws. Moreover, a major theme of wartime anti-Allied propaganda was the racist abuse of colonial natives by the British Empire and other colonial powers, from which Germany was trying to save them.
Loyal citizens of all ethnicities were considered part of the National Socialist German folk, and the Waffen SS was the most multiethnic, non-segregated army in history, in an era when ethnic segregation was the norm among Western armies. The Nuremberg Laws – which required segregation only of tribes such as Jews and Gypsies (who themselves had chosen to maintain a separate identity from Germany as a whole), not 'black' people or any other ethnic minority - were anti-racist laws to prevent racism by tribes against the rest of the population. The attempt by racist Wilhelm Frick in 1935 to 'expand' the Nuremberg Laws to apply to other ethnic minorities resulted in his gradual removal from positions of authority from 1936 onwards. As a matter of fact, a circular was issued in 1936 to all NSDAP Gauleiters explicitly ordering employment protection of Germans of ethnic African ancestry to ensure the Nuremberg Laws would not be abused to discriminate against innocent people."
From their Glossary:
Racism (non-Aryan attitude)
Tribalism with the tribe defined as a certain ethnic group
Tribalism (non-Aryan attitude)
In-group altruism and out-group indifference; ethics based on this principle
E.g. humanism, racism
Often called “identitarianism” by those trying to make it sound respectable
Contrast with universalism
I think they are taking an exaggerated stance from the opposite perspective as the "Mainstream" opinion, which is that Hitler thought every race (especially Jews and Slavs) was biologically inferior to Whites/Aryans and that they all deserved to be exterminated because of it. As pointed out in the thread I linked to in my first reply, Hitler saw Slavs as Aryans and did not see them as inferior. The reason he was "anti-semitic" was because of the leading role of Jews in communism, as well as their tendency to be loyal to their fellow Jews over the German people.
I think it is interesting what they say here: "Hitler’s early rhetoric exaggerated German superiority in order to restore German confidence following defeat in WWI and long years of economic hardship, and thus gain political support."
That could be true. A great deal of so-called "Racism" is actually "cheerleading," boosting the morale and cohesiveness of one's own racial group, a practice that is adaptive if it is not unrealistic. As cheerleaders have long known, people who believe that their own group is "superior" to other groups, even if it is not, are more successful than people who believe their group is the pits. Greater success is an excellent reason for having a group identity and for favoring one's own group.
I think they are wrong saying that the Waffen SS was the most diverse military. The Waffen SS really only allowed Aryans (Germans + other White Europeans) and it was the Wehrmacht that had people of all races and ethnicities.
As for discrimination against German Blacks in general, as pointed out in the "Other Germans" book that I quoted, with the exception of the measures against the Rhineland Bastards (which numbered around 500, compared to the 20-25,000 other Blacks, and were called for by the public prior to Hitler's rise to power) there was no specific anti-Black legislation by the Nazi regime. Measures taken against German Blacks were "ambivalent, with often-contradictory measures implemented at the local level and usually carried out on the initiative of individual bureaucrats or community members."
They are using a very specific definition of "Racism" and it is not the same as the one found in the dictionary. So what we are experiencing here is an issue of equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name'). But, I do think that Hitler promoted tribalism. He wanted Germany to serve the German people, and he enacted laws to prevent miscegenation. If we are talking about Blacks, there just were not very many Blacks in the country, he didn't worry about them. And they did not have some separate identity like the Jews, as most of the Blacks were probably mulattoes of mixed German-African heritage (from former German colonies in Africa).
I am not endorsing these beliefs, but I accept the fact (as in, I do not deny) that most Western people in the 1930s had beliefs which today would be labelled "racist". Personally I don't believe in such thing as an "inferior" or "superior" race, because that does not make sense from a biological standpoint. The various races have different proclivities for certain genetically-influenced traits. It is not a coincidence that West African Blacks overwhelmingly dominate sprinting competitions in the Olympic Games, but Whites and East Asians out-compete them in swimming. It has been suggested Blacks do not swim as well as Eurasians due to higher bone density, which is why Blacks are also less likely to be affected by osteoporosis. There is a concept in economics called TANSTAAFL ("There ain't no such thing as a free lunch") and the concept can also apply to evolution. Being better at one thing may make you worse at another. Another example is dark skin protecting you from the sun, but also causing lower vitamin D synthesis.
Alright. I just wanted to be sure because to me your rhetoric was bordering on the tolerance of 1930s racism. Do you oppose racism only
because it doesn't make sense, or because it is morally objectionable?
The definitions of "Racism" I use, which are consistent with the dictionary:
1 - Belief that some races are superior or inferior to others
2 - Hatred or prejudice* of an individual or group based on their race or ethnicity
* prejudice = an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge of the facts
Quite often, in practice, the word "Racism" is thrown around by a person whose feelings are hurt, regardless of whether or not the definition applies. Like I said, I find people who apply to #1 to be wrong and their beliefs unscientific. I do not consider them "immoral" unless they take some negative action based on them.
As for #2, I would say that it is also wrong, but only immoral if someone would act on these beliefs. Sometimes it is not a conscious decision. I am not about to control what other people are allowed to think if they just keep their thoughts to themselves and don't harm anyone, I have not walked in their shoes.
And besides, I am of the belief that there is only one HUMAN race on this planet and the various ethnicities of Earth are subdivisions of the race. Truth be told, I have not done much research into the concept of race.
I believe that the major human races: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid, Americanoid, Capoid... are analogous to separate subspecies and "Human" is the species.
But a "Race" is also defined as a large, extended family that is partly inbred. So there can be a "Human race", a Caucasian race, a European/White/"Aryan" race, a German race, even a Bavarian race. So one person can belong to all of those "races" which are just subsets of the former. So in that sense, the word "Race" has two major definitions.
Anyway, this "Racial bigotry" you speak of is not something specific to Hitler or Germany. During World War II, White Americans were polled and it was found that: "90 percent of the American people state that they would rather loose [sic] the war than give full equality to the American Negroes" https://books.google.com/books?id=zswoV
Segregation was legal in America. The infamous 1935 "Nuremberg Laws" were heavily influenced by America's "anti-miscegenation" laws, which banned marriage between a white and a non-white in 30 states. Virginia was home to the infamous Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This Act designated people as non-white by the "one-drop rule," This was significantly more hardcore than the Nuremberg Laws - "too racist" for the Nazis to copy.
And just what is this "one-drop rule"? Are you informing me that the Nazis did
take inspiration from the United States when dealing with race? I came to the conclusion that was just a myth!
One drop rule = if a person has even "one drop" of Black ancestry, they are Black and prevented from mixing with Whites. The Nazis did not use this, and allowed people with 1/4 Jewish ancestry to mix with full blooded Germans.
When Hitler was talking about the 'bastards of the Rhineland' he specifically meant the children of German mothers and soldiers of French colonial troops, of which some were black, that were stationed in the Rhineland after World War I. Miscegenation was, of course, considered a disgrace but this was not specific to Black-German mixes, it also included people who were German mixed with other races. Occupation troops are rarely welcomed regardless of race.
Aryanism.net has some things to say about the "Rhineland Bastards". They go as far as to say the term was introduced in the Weimar Republic and the forced sterilization program was carried out without the NSDAP's knowledge by the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.
That may be so. If you can find any sources confirming whether Hitler himself ordered their sterilization, or it just happened without his knowledge, please post it. Often times anything that happened in Germany during the 1930s is blamed on Hitler, whether or not he had anything to do with it.
I don't think Hitler had any problem with Blacks who were not living in Germany, which was the only home for the German people and one that had shrunk considerably after World War I due to the Versailles treaty.
That may be, but the problem is that Hitler had a problem with blacks inside
Germany. Just look at Hans Massaquoi.
What did Hitler do to Massaquoi? I just read a bit about him. He claims some discrimination against him, and then also mentions certain Germans going out of their way to be nice to him. As we just acknowledged above, Hitler is not responsible for every German person's behavior.