During World War II, many Arabs supported the Nazis (against the Jews) and several prominent leaders escaped to Berlin to spend time with Hitler and the other Nazis (e.g. the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini).
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
During World War II, many Arabs supported the Nazis (against the Jews) and several prominent leaders escaped to Berlin to spend time with Hitler and the other Nazis (e.g. the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini).
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
Let's say Hitler had better supported Rommel's Afrika Korps such that Rommel was able to win the war in North Africa. Let's say the Nazis then invaded and conquered the Mideast.*
I take it the Nazis would have started to exterminate the Jews in the Mideast. I take it the Arabs would've supported the Nazis since they would've shared a common hatred for the Jews.
But after the Jews were dead, what would be next? Arabs are non-Aryans. As such, wouldn't Hitler and the Nazis have considered the Arabs inferior? If so, then, at best, the Arabs would've been treated as second class citizens if the Nazis had won in the Mideast. So why such support among Arabs for the Nazis then and (it frequently appears) now? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
By the way, if the Nazis had treated the Arabs as second class citizens, it would've been ironic given most Arabs are Muslim and sharia law sanctions the treatment of non-Muslims as second class citizens.
* As I understand it, this was a viable option at the time. It's arguable Hitler could have won the entire war if he had invaded the Mideast in lieu of invading Russia or at least prior to invading Russia.
For one thing, the British received something like 80% of their total oil supply from their Mideast colonies. If the Germans took over these lands, then they would've cut off the vast majority of the British oil supply and effectively caused the British military to grind to a halt.
For another thing, it almost certainly wouldn't have taken the 4 million German soldiers it took Hitler to invade Russia. Hitler could have arguably conquered North Africa and the Mideast with a quarter of that amount if not less. Not only would he have committed far less troops which could've been used elsewhere and for other purposes, but he arguably would've sustained a lot less losses in a North Africa/Mideast campaign than what he lost on the Eastern Front against Russia. Four out every five German soldiers killed in the whole of the Second World War were killed by the Russians. The German military was bled dry by the Russians.
Hitler could've then invaded Russia from the Mideast. If successful, which he arguably would've have been, Hitler would've achieved two key objectives: cutting Russia off from oil for use by the Soviet military and given the Nazi Wehrmacht access to Stalin's vast and rich oil fields in the Caucasus. In fact, this was a large reason why Hitler pushed so much to win the Battle of Stalingrad, which he eventually lost.
By the way, it's staggering to think the Germans lost approximately 850,000 soldiers in a single battle, the Battle of Stalingrad, and the Russians over 1.1 million, whereas the US and the UK lost approximately 900,000 combined in the entire Second World War. Of course, this shouldn't be taken to imply the US and UK did far less "work" in winning WWII than the Russians did, like so many World War II historians appear to think these days. For instance, Russia never had to supply the US or UK like the US and UK supplied Russia throughout the war. Russia never fought a multiple front war like the UK and particularly the US did. In fact, the US did the bulk of the fighting which contributed to the Japanese loss. And it probably speaks well of the strategic and tactical savvy of the US and UK in contrast to Russia and/or poorly of the strategic and tactical savvy of the Russians in contrast to the US and UK.
(Although arguably the best Allied general of the entire war was not Patton or Monty or Eisenhower, but William Slim in Burma and India. It's arguable the fighting in Burma kept the Japanese from conquering China. However the Pacific War was more renowned for its naval engagements and Chester Nimitz probably takes the cake as the best admiral among all forces. It's arguable Nimitz's plan to bypass the Philippines and take Taiwan was better from a strategic perspective than MacArthur's plan to invade the Philippines. For better or for worse, we went with MacArthur's plan. Georgy Zhukov was arguably the best general out of all the generals in World War II. Ahead of Patton, Monty, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein. But Zhukov was ruthless and brutal too.)
Of course, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 because he placed Nazi ideology ahead of military strategy. He considered Germans a superior Aryan race (e.g. he made ridiculous comments like German soldiers were far more physically durable than Russians and therefore didn't need to wear heavy winter clothing for the Russian winter which in many places where the Germans fought would've lower than -100 degrees Fahrenheit with wind chill factor). He hated the Jews most of all but only hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks slightly less. He wanted lebensraum or living space for his Aryan race. I should add, from what I've read, Hitler considered the British "Aryan cousins" and so felt war with them was unfortunate. He would've preferred the UK sit out of the war. Of course, this doesn't exonerate Hitler in the slightest. But if true I think it would explain at least in part Hitler's appallingly bad grasp of military strategy (e.g. the miracle of Dunkirk). His racist ideology helped bring him to power, but it also contributed to his downfall.
