The Master Race on parade. One of the infamous Nuremberg Rallies.
Hitler worked to perfect the master race. He wanted a race of tall, strong, heroically beautiful men and women. He wanted physical perfection; he wanted the ancient philosophers’ physical ideal.
The problem is, ideal perfection would mean uniform perfection. It would mean no diversity. And that isn’t perfection.
The Ideal
Consider, what does the perfect citizen look like? For Hitler, it was the perfect soldier, and the perfect soldier’s mother. Which presents a problem.
Let’s put it in terms most of us understand better. The military is historically linked to athletics; the ancient games of Olympus focused on the skills of the soldier. So what does the perfect athlete look like? Peyton Manning? Mean Joe Green? Emmitt Smith?
But that’s only football. Maybe it would be Michael Jordan. Possibly it is Hakuhō.[1]The best sumo wrestler in the world. What about Roger Federer? Or we could consider Arnold Palmer.
Perhaps it was even Nadia Comenici.
Military Diversity
This question isn’t trivial. We’ve been looking at the problem of one-size-fits-all in the military, and in the marketplace. A military unit needs different people, and different physiques. Big guys can carry and move heavy equipment, light guys can run, agile guys can fight hand-to-hand, stealthy guys can reconnoiter. If you swap those around, you quickly realize that the ideal body for one job, may be lousy for another.
But then you also need different brains, you need guys who understand electronics, or machinery, or tactics, or survival skills. You also want guys who can innovate, and come up with non-obvious solutions when the shells are screaming in. Fact of the matter is, you may need some guys who aren’t even guys. And with the advent of drones and robots, maybe some of the guys you need aren’t even people.[2]And don’t forget the military dogs and the war horses which go back millennia.
Intellectual Diversity
Because the same problem applies to identifying the perfect intellect. Hitler also wanted ideal geniuses, which if you think about it, means he wanted uniform geniuses. Hitler wanted his master race to have extraordinary minds – but without thinking for themselves. Putting it that way, we can immediately see that the concept is ridiculous.
The whole point of genius is that it goes new, unexpected places. A team of people lacking in intellectual diversity, who thinks the same way, isn’t going very far, and it’s not going there all that quickly. In the modern world, where competitiveness lasts no longer than your last innovation, teams of identical intellects fall behind.
Put it another way. Which engineer understands the Boeing 747? None of them. An engineer may understand the general overview, but many work-lives were invested in designing all the systems, articulating them, and trouble-shooting them. And many of the necessary engineers, scientists, and designers weren’t even working in the aircraft industry: what Boeing engineer knows how to make the fabric for the seats, the fuel for the jet engines, or the computers for navigation?
Cultural Diversity
Then consider how simple the 747 is when compared with an entire nation. And that brings up the main point.
Who’s the best citizen for the nation?
Today there are many who oppose cultural diversity, those who say that American citizens should not be, say, Muslims. (Or Latinos or Africans or Vietnamese or whomever. As my friend the late Eugen Weber noted, “…could it be that the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals was not mainly about Jews, any more than football is about the ball that gets kicked around?”)
Currently 10% of US doctors are Muslim; if anyone you love had a life-threatening disease or accident in the past couple of decades, chances are very good that they are still alive because of a Muslim. About 7% of US programmers are Muslim; think about that as you read this blog on-line, operate your smart phone, or use your credit card. Then consider that over 6% of teachers and business managers are Muslim, and a lot of our researchers are, as well.
Not a bad showing for a group that only makes up 2.5% of the country.
But Muslims have also been Americans a long time. A Muslim fought at Bunker Hill, and Muslims have served in our nation’s military for the past 240 years. Something to think about on this Memorial Day.
Of course, Muslims are terrorists.
Actually, they aren’t. Overwhelmingly, the acts of terrorism on US soil are committed by white Christians. The fear of Muslims is simple ignorance, intolerance, and racism.
Master Racism
That’s important, because here’s what’s really interesting about Hitler’s master race, and his master racism. As careful as the Nazis were about defining what the master race should be, the real test was what the master race should not be. Every candidate for the master race was carefully assessed, to make sure…
A child being measured for inclusion among the Lebensborn, the ‘Font of Life.’ The measurements are to insure that she has no Semitic features.
…they weren’t Jewish. In fact, much of the definition of the master race came, not from a definition of what was ‘best’, but one that excluded what they considered to be the ‘worst.’
Face it, Jews have a different religion. They have a different language. They have a different culture.
They look different.
Just like Muslims.
Oh, and the Nazis insisted that the Jews were also working to destroy Germany for religious and nationalist reasons, and were plotting for world control. They were also responsible for communism, exploitive capitalism, and anything and everything that caused the decline of Germany, and of the West.
Which sounds a bit like what people say about Muslims today.
The problem is, the Nazi racism and xenophobia that vaulted Hitler to power, was their eventual undoing.
Failure of the Ideal
The concept that there was one ‘ideal,’ and the lack of intellectual diversity in past civilizations, meant that there was little innovation for the first 10,000 years of history. Winner of 14 awards.
Click the image for more information.
While Hitler was trying to conquer the world, and permanently defining to everyone what ‘the best’ was, he drove out and murdered some of the most important scientists, engineers, and thinkers of the 20th century.
I will mention only two of the exiles: Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard. Everyone recognizes the first name; not so many people will recognize the second. Szilard first envisioned the chain reaction.
Years later, Szilard wrote a letter to Einstein. Einstein sent it to FDR. The letter described just what a chain reaction could do in warfare.
And so Leo Szilard, exactly what the master race had declared as ‘the worst,’ was responsible for a technology that could have won the war for the Nazis. But the only way the Germans could have allowed Szilard to contribute, would have meant discarding the very reasons for the war, and everything that brought the Nazis to power.
But the Jewish Szilard was essential to ending the war that attempted to prove, once and for all, who the master race was.
The ideal warriors, the master race, lost. The most diverse and inclusive nation on the planet, the mutts, won the war. And part of that was because they were willing to include and listen to diverse voices.
The Past, The Present
We look at the Nazis of the 1930s & 1940s, and we think they are completely different from Americans of the 2010s. That is a serious mistake; intermixed among our potential leaders today are the same sociopaths and narcissists, and we are every bit as sheepish and summary in our blind allegiances, and our blind prejudices, as the Nazis were. It all comes down to which of our leaders can attract the most followers, and whether they get that power by focusing on the issues, or simply by feeding our angers in order to pit us against one another, and weaken us further.
Because a weakened people are the easiest to lead.
And the real solution is to design a society that understands the importance of diversity, and the essential function it plays as the world becomes more complex. And the only way I can see how to do that, is to reconsider how we design our schools.
Picture of Nazi Rally courtesy of Greenhill Books from their book, The Third Reich in 100 Objects.
Both Germany and Japan military leaders were confounded by the ability of the United States forces to adapt and overcome obstacles in World War II. If one of the Axis countries’ officers was killed, the units were usually rendered ineffective. If a US officer was killed, the next-in-command simply took over and the unit kept on fighting. So, “mutts” definitely made for a better fighting unit, because these men recognized that each had unique talents and made the best use of them.
Yeah, that is definitely one of the points of this blog. And the book I’m working on. We get increased effectiveness and competitiveness from many independent agents, who straddle the tensions between cooperation and autonomy. Which raises the question: If we have the capacity to do this, and it is a superior strategy, why is it only recently emerging? The answer to that is a bit disturbing.
Oh, and to the point of the master racism in this article, don’t you find it interesting that the people facing Hitler were named ‘Eisenhower’ and ‘Roosevelt’; and they won, not by genetic superiority, but cultural superiority? We listened to the same Jews they deemed as a scourge.
And a lot of other ethnic groups as well. Even with the embarrassment of the Japanese internment camps, Daniel Inouye still represent the US courageously enough to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.
That is not close to being correct. Both the Wehrmacht and the SS had well-established lines of command, with officers who were able to replace senior officers who were killed or wounded. The perception that German positions fell apart when frontline officers were out of commission is a myth propagated by chest-thumping Americans who have no grasp of facts but who have swallowed, without question, stories of American superiority on the battlefield. Typically, the Wehrmacht and the SS had much higher kill-ratios against American troops than the US Army military could claim against the German military. If there was any “superority” attributable to American forces, it was entirely on the basis of numbers, not the quality of commanders or the ability of soldiers. The battlefield of WWII underscore the following points with great clarity: (1) The ability to initiate and to maintain an offensive force is fundamental to long-term success in a “”conventional” war, as defined by WWII; (2) It is possible to overwhelm an army with better soldiers and armaments by flooding a theater of war with bodies. That happened on Western Europe after the US was able to commit millions of men to pull the asses of the miserable British out of the fire; and (2) on the Eastern Front, where the Soviet Union was able to lose nearly eight men for every German solider who died in combat.
From reading this, I gather you believe that Nazi authoritarianism is superior to American autonomy; elsewhere you have suggested you think that Communist authoritarianism is particularly hateful. I would be interested in hearing you expand those positions.
I think American intervention in WWII made the spread of communism and the enslavement for decades by the Soviet Union of much of Europe possible. In this case, American involvement in the war was little more than a basis for making the expansion of Stalin’s brand of misery under the Bear possible.
Actually, Germany was beating crap out of England and France before the US was able to pour many millions of soldiers in the war. It was not “diversity” – but of sheer numbers.
You might want to consider this before touting your diversity nonsense as the deciding factor in the war:
http://ww2-weapons.com/fighting-power-of-the-wehrmacht/
American and German losses for western Europe were basically equivalent, slightly lower for the Germans depending on the source(s) consulted: report of the German High Command and DOD figures including North Africa & Italy. Numbers can be mixed and matched from different sources but all roughly tell the same story.
What happened in Russia, as you mention was pure horror for both nations. Hitler was remarkably ignorant to invade Russia and that fact goes directly to the lack of diversity at the very top of the German hierarchy, which is to say there was none. What Hitler wanted, Hitler got because diverse opinions were not considered, construed as being unpatriotic or even subversive.
The RAF, vastly outnumbered by the Luftwaffe, was able to hold them off in a military miracle every bit the equivalent of Marathon, so the notion that throwing overwhelming numbers against the Germans is solely what defeated them isn’t an adequate perspective. The “Battle of Britain” concluded before American entry into the war and England was the clear winner. German plans for the invasion of England by sea also were abandoned before American entry into the war.
Meanwhile, Roosevelt and Eisenhower were listening to every reasonable opinion and considering every strategy. Whether that’s just better management or “diversity” or both is something I don’t think we can fully know.
Hitler’s generals advised against the invasion of Russia if he intended to fight a war on the Western Front. The objections became louder after Hitler had to divert troops to Greece. That delayed the deployment of the Wehrmacht to Russia and meant that the infantry and armored divisions would not reach primary targets in Russia until after the onset of winter. With regard to the Battle of Britain, that series of air battles was fought over England … not in the skies over France or Germany or Belgium or the Netherlands. Air battles are not nearly the same as battles on land. On land, the Wehrmacht and the SS were brutal adversaries.
About the Eastern Front – the best account of that bloodletting I’ve ever found is Bloodlands:
http://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin/dp/0465031471
Highly recommended. That front was nothing but a killing field.
This photo of Stalingrad always tells the story for me, although I have read a great bit about Russia, it’s in the past. PTG, the Romanovs, Catherine, The Revolution and WWII. I recently had my DNA analyzed and it showed a hit from the area roughly around St. Petersburg so maybe that’ll rekindle my interest.
Otherwise, for all they went through in WWII I’m surprised they’re as relatively peaceful as they are. If anyone has a “right” to be paranoid about their place in the world and their military then it must be them.
http://imgur.com/gallery/U3Y2OEl
When I was a little kid, not even yet in 1st grade, my mother would take me to visit my grandmother who had every LIFE and LOOK magazine ever published. I’d sit for hours in the front room looking at photos of WWII in Russia and China in those pages. I’m sure if I was “discovered” do that nowadays I’d be sent for counseling and therapy and that mom and grandma would’ve been arrested for child endangerment. LOL.
Having spent MUCH time in Germany … a good bit of it behind what was the Berlin Wall (die Berliner Mauer) and in other areas of East Germany (Ost Deustchland), I learned to hate anything that looks like the Soviet Union. My opinion has not changed after many years. Communism sucked then and it sucks today.
i think that nearly all of the problems in Europe in 2016 are traceable to the outcome of WWII. The defeat of Germany opened the floodgate for the destabilization of the European Continent, most recently via the invasion of Muslims. It makes me sick to see European culture(s) under assault by millions upon millions of Muslim thugs who are better fit for life in pre-Middle Age society than in the modern world.
Do you think that all Muslims are thugs?
Most.
That’s interesting. Can you substantiate it?
Been there lately, Joe?
Bruce,
“Been there lately?” isn’t really an answer.
Please, I’m curious to hear what evidence you have.
I’ve dealt with their [censored] face to face …. over there. I guess the trail of bodies around the world and the millions of lives compelled to live under a dictatorial regime that makes the middle ages look enlightened is not enough?
While it’s true that ISIS has killed many Muslims (and far fewer non-Muslims) let’s not forgot that there are currently about 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet right now. Most of them, I wager, want what we want: to live peacefully on this planet. As far as “living under a dictatorial regime,” that’s certainly not true for all Muslim countries, some of which have had elected women prime ministers. The problem with your statement is it’s a sweeping generalization, and like all generalizations, a kernel of truth or a limited experience is then broadly applied to every person in a specific group. Muslims have spoken out against terrorism committed in the name of their religion. But as long as people persist in painting them all with the same brush, there will never be peace between us.
Kelley, there are currently about 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet today. ISIS, which has killed many more Muslims than it has non-Muslims, has been widely denounced by Muslims for committing terrorism in the name of Islam. As for “living under a dictatorial regime” there are secular Muslim countries, including Indonesia, which is democratic and secular. It is home to 12.7% of the world’s Muslims, followed by Pakistan (11.0%- 182 million), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). Only 20% are in Arab countries. There are about 255 million people in the Indonesia. Eight Muslim countries, including Turkey and Senegal, have had elected women leaders. I believe that most Muslims want what we want, to live peacefully on this planet.
A fundamental concept of our government is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty; and a fundamental concept of Christianity is, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
I am curious to hear why you reject those two ideas.
Misery has followed Islam like stink has followed [censored].
Kelley, read this: it’s from a person who is from Senegal, a Muslim nation that elected a Christian leader in the past , and which is a secular country. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-democratic-secular-country-with-a-Muslim-majority-If-not-then-why
Maslow’s Hierarchy of GeoPolitical Needs:
Oil.