"Black Nazis" by Veronica Clark

[Marcus]

Has anyone read the books "Black Nazis II!: Ethnic Minorities and Foreigners in Hitler's Armed Forces: The Unbiased History" and "Black Nazis! A Study of Racial Ambivalence in Nazi Germany's Military Establishment: Non-German Ethnic Minority and Foreign Volunteers, Conscripts, Laborers and POWs, 1940-1945" by Veronica Clark?

The description suggest that it is an apologist work but I would like to hear your thoughts on the books.

Clark has "dared" to challenge the utterly one-sided version of the Third Reich! This book challenges current Third Reich history. Primary evidence and photos that have either been missed or ignored have finally been brought forth in this amazing, unbiased analysis of Hitler's armed forces. German and French-language eyewitness accounts, Hitler speeches and private monologues, German and foreign officer statements, interviews with several POWs (including several of the Tuskegee airmen), rare photographs and overlooked secondary works -- all included and assessed for this study. A refreshing read for anyone interested in all the facts and both sides of the story. Within just six years of war the Nazis established the most ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse military force in Western history -- only Hannibal's military rivaled this level of foreign collaboration and diversity! How and why did this happen and why are historians so loath to acknowlegde these facts? Clark answers these questions, and many more. This book is a crucial addition to any revisionist or orthodox Third Reich library. Clark has combed a wide range of source material to bring you a genuinely unbiased view of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler.

/Marcus

[J. Duncan]

Book is quite good and smashes many taboos. Facts are facts and her research is hard to dispute although I have not really scoured it for errors. I bought the book mainly as a topical piece for enjoyment and was very surprised by what I discovered. She makes a starting point for the "diversity" argument but neglects the fact that the Soviet Union was quite diverse too. The claim that Hitler's was the very first diverse army is therefore not quite true. The book has been ridiculed and often ignored by researchers. One can only assume that it's because it's not "PC".

[GermanResearcher]

As the author being discussed here, I would like to weigh in on my own behalf.

My book, Black Nazis!, is a slightly expanded version of my master's thesis. I got the book title from this 1939 Ken magazine article:

http://oldmagazinearticles.com/Nazi_eff ... n_colonies

(I own the original Ken magazine copy featuring this article and photos.)

As you can see, the Allies were disparaging the Africans being recruited by the NSDAP in Tanganyika, denouncing them as "Black Nazis". In my case, however, I am not disparaging them at all, but exploring how they were able to fight in Hitler's armies as well as why they did so. My book has been followed up by Black Nazis II and The Controversy of Black Nazis II.

Additionally, my research suggests that Fritz Delfs was actually a Standartenfuehrer named Franz Wimmer-Lamquet. His memoirs are published in English as Warwolves of the Iron Cross: Swastika & Scimitar. I wrote the introduction to this English edition and edited it.

If you have any further questions, please just ask me (PM).

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Veronica,

I have not come across your book.

Why did you choose the title "Black Nazis".

I associate the word "Nazi" as indicating membership of the NSDAP.

How many of these men were actually NSDAP members?

Germany's military establishment were not, by and large, card carrying NSDAP members, even if they were "fellow travellers". Indeed, the German resistance was most potent within the military establishment. It is also well recorded that the German Army, for example, recruited "non-Germanics" well before the NSDAP-associated Waffen-SS opened its doors to them in any numbers. Is your proposition that the German military establishment was open to non-Germanic recruitment really new?

It appears that, until 1942, Nazi ideology was an obstacle to accepting the recruitment of non-Germanic troops en masse not a facilitator. Non-Germanic Western Europeans were recruited into nation legions by the German Army, not the W-SS, and the Army initially had to recruit Eastern volunteers in secret against orders. Does this contradict your proposition?

The German Military establishment seems to have been willing to recruit non-Germanics from early on. Surely it was the Nazi establishment that represented the obstacle, at least until 1942? Are you perhaps conflating two different institutions, to the benefit of Nazis and the detriment of professional soldiers?

Cheers,

Sid.

[GermanResearcher]

Hi Sid.

I'm not surprised that you haven't come across my book. I only printed 100 copies worldwide, so it is extremely rare. There is a second edition (second printing) that I released in April 2012, but it is only available from select outlets. The reason for this is because I delisted all of my books on Amazon.com in protest against white nationalists, neo-nazis and neo-fascists promoting and using my work and research for their racist, hateful agendas. I have had fake quotes, essays, and blogs (mis)attributed to me over the years, probably because this genre attracts a lot of sociopathic and/or misogynistic types. This I cannot entirely prevent, though I should have expected it (in which case I'm at fault for not being more vigilant in fervently opposing these people and groups from the start).

As I noted in my above post, the title "Black Nazis" comes directly from Ken magazine. It was a temporary Allied publication. The link to that article is in my previous post. I have the actual magazine edition (March 1939) in which the photos and article are featured. It is an Allied term, "Black Nazis". Why not use an American (Allied) term as the title of my book? Americans were apparently quite ignorant and thought of all German collaborators as "Nazis", which this Ken article proves.

As for your questions...

"Is your proposition that the German military establishment was open to non-Germanic recruitment really new?"

My interpretation of it and revelations certainly are. I am the first and only historian to have acquired and translated Hitler's May 1944 Platterhof speech in which he openly acknowledges (and accepts) that the Germans are a mixed-race people. That may not be a big deal to us, but it was a big deal for him to admit something like that...and even expound upon it. I also had translated (and published) Franz Wimmer-Lamquet's memoirs for the first time in English. It's a fascinating collection that covers an immense amount of Third Reich activity in Tanganyika and the Middle East.

As well, my research into NS policies towards Africans as well as African attitudes towards the Third Reich has broken new ground amongst English readers. Most Americans are still shocked to learn that Africans volunteered to fight in the German armed forces. When they see a black or mulatto soldier in German uniform (including Waffen SS in at least one case), they think it's fake.

My interpretations and analyses of old evidence offer readers a new perspective that does not apologize for either side or wholly condemn either side. That's almost impossible to find. J. Lee Ready's 2-part book "The Forgotten Axis" is similar, but he has no source citations anywhere in his book. Mine is fully sourced. (It's based on my master's thesis which got an excellent grade.) His book is also biased as all get out.

You wrote, "Germany's military establishment were not, by and large, card carrying NSDAP members,..."

Were the majority of American soldiers "card carrying" liberal democrats (democrat in this case meaning 'democracy-lovers') who wanted to fight in a foreign war that had nothing to do with their national security? The only nation that threatened America was Japan, and that threat was a direct result of provocational and racist US policies. (But this is a whole 'nother matter.)

May I also ask whether the majority of US soldiers today are in support of all of these foreign wars abroad, which are actually harming rather than helping secure American lives and property? Or are they just young men, women, and/or parents of children trying to secure a paycheck and steady employment in a terrible economy? Might there have been a lot of men who served in the US armed forces back in WW2 simply to earn a paycheck as well? Did they really "believe" in their alleged "crusade" against tyranny and racism when in fact their own government and kinsmen were enslaving and killing African Americans (ref: Douglas Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name)? These are some of the issues I raise in my books to get my readers to take their critical thinking to a higher level. Too many people today are still victims of either Allied or Axis propaganda. In either case the pot is calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Your next question (re: 1942), "Does this contradict your proposition?"

No it doesn't because I deal with all of that. I cannot relate all of my points here, but what I can and will say is that my thesis states that the Nazis were forced to renege on every single racial point and policy as a direct result of the war turning against them. Their attitude change was too late, sure, but it happened. Thus to try and sustain the argument that the Nazis were the "the most lethally racist regime in history" is to sustain a non-truth. (This is a direct quote from Assistant Professor Ethan B Katz in regards to my book "Black Nazis II", which he never read.) The Jewish people and other victims of Nazism have every right to denounce the Nazis as such, but unbiased historians who are interested in genuine understanding of historical events don't.

And your last question: "Surely it was the Nazi establishment that represented the obstacle, at least until 1942? Are you perhaps conflating two different institutions, to the benefit of Nazis and the detriment of professional soldiers?"

Are we honestly to supposed to believe that the SS, SD and Gestapo were all ignorant of the fact that foreign as well as Jewish and part-Jewish soldiers (ref: Bryan Rigg, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers) were serving in the armed forces from the beginning? How did all three of these Nazi institutions miss this? A Lebanese man who went by the name "Dory" claimed to be a card carrying NSDAP member (ref: Antonio Munoz, The East Came West). Erich von Manstein was Jewish (via his matrilineal line). There are many other exceptions that cause one to step back and wonder why the Nazis made ANY exceptions. Why do it at all? Who were they answering to other than themselves? Why did they care? What was the Nazis' motivation/impetus for making racial exceptions before the war started?

If we believe that the German military did all of this without any Nazi institutional knowledge, then we must believe and argue that there were literally two states operating in parallel in the Third Reich (the Nazis and the army). Possibly, but I've found plenty of evidence that contradicts this. Furthermore, accepting this line means that the supposedly "totalitarian" and thoroughly "race-obsessed" Nazis were ignorant, knowing little or nothing of the affairs of the nation that they were supposedly running like clockwork. Do you see how these theses do not mesh? And why did Hitler and the SS recruiters discharge and/or not accept tens of thousands of potential recruits well into the war if manpower was their one and only motive for accepting foreigners and non-German minorities into their armed forces? Might they not have been bending just a little on their initially staunch racial views and policies?

Again, these are just a sampling of the issues I explore. If you have any further questions or wish to challenge anything I've presented here, please do.

[GermanResearcher]

J Duncan,

I got your PM, but it says, "You are not authorised to send private messages." Thus I cannot answer your questions.

[Marcus]

I got your PM, but it says, "You are not authorised to send private messages." Thus I cannot answer your questions.

It should work now.

Also, thanks for the answers to my original question.

/Marcus

[LMA-17]

I found this book is only a re-run of mainly Munoz and B.M. Rigg books. Nothing new, including pictures (some of them seem taken from this forum). The only interesting part of this book is Hitler's May 1944 Platterhof speech. But I doubt he gave a sincere speech and believe it is only for propaganda consumption. After all, Reich need extra resources for almost dying Wehrmacht.

But, even although the book seem weird for my taste, I give a salute for her stand.

[GermanResearcher]

LMA-17,

I appreciate your feedback.

And yes, I drew a lot from Munoz's work because he was just about the only non-nazi author at the time I started researching my thesis who had any in-depth information on this topic (it was originally a master's thesis, not a book). Landwehr and most others are far too pro-Axis to get a true view of this phenomenon. But my book is more analytical than Munoz's. He covers more detail and less dynamics, historiography, etc. My book is more focused on historiography, not history.

My second edition (second printing) has many more new photos that have never been posted here on Axis History, so you must be referring to the first edition released in 2009 (which is long out of print and already dated). Also, Munoz did not talk about Franz Wimmer-Lamquet at all nor did he discuss Afro-Germans and their experience. In fact, I translated a book recently detailing the life of a mulatto family in the Third Reich, which I incorporated into my latest release.

Anyway thank you for the constructive feedback. It is most welcome.

[LWD]

... You wrote, "Germany's military establishment were not, by and large, card carrying NSDAP members,..."

Were the majority of American soldiers "card carrying" liberal democrats (democrat in this case meaning 'democracy-lovers') who wanted to fight in a foreign war that had nothing to do with their national security?

That's hardly an appropriate analogy though is it. The US had two major political parties at the time and a fair number of smaller ones, there was not however a party called "liberal democrats" especially with your qualifier so there is no way they could be card carrying members. Furthermore you assumption that they were engaged in a "fight in a foreign war that had nothing to do with their national security" is at best unsupported and actualy quite questionable. For instance Tooze in Wages of Destruction makes a very good case for it being in the interest of US national secufity. So have other authors using different critieria, data, and rationals. The fact that you continue with this:

The only nation that threatened America was Japan, and that threat was a direct result of provocational and racist US policies.

Which again is unsuported and again qestionable rather points to a bias on your part. As an asside I do agree that the US provoceted Japan and was at the time rather racist but it was Japan's activities in China and elsewhere that pushed the US into the war and indeed these activities predated the US provocations and Japan was hardly without a strong element of racism either. Indeed their activities in China in this regard were particularly reprehensable and responsable to a considerable degree for the US's reaction.

May I also ask whether the majority of US soldiers today are in support of all of these foreign wars abroad, which are actually harming rather than helping secure American lives and property?

I think you will find that the moderators rather discourage modern political discussions on this forum.

Might there have been a lot of men who served in the US armed forces back in WW2 simply to earn a paycheck as well?

What do you mean by "a lot"? Surely there were some but civilian pay was higher and safer.

Did they really "believe" in their alleged "crusade" against tyranny and racism when in fact their own government and kinsmen were enslaving and killing African Americans (ref: Douglas Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name)?

Any evidence that the majority at the time considered it so or even were aware of it?

These are some of the issues I raise in my books to get my readers to take their critical thinking to a higher level.

On the basis of what I've seen so far this doesn't look to be the case.

Too many people today are still victims of either Allied or Axis propaganda. In either case the pot is calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Not from what you've stated so far.

No it doesn't because I deal with all of that. I cannot relate all of my points here, but what I can and will say is that my thesis states that the Nazis were forced to renege on every single racial point and policy as a direct result of the war turning against them.

Really? And that's why the camps were still going full bore when liberated?

... Thus to try and sustain the argument that the Nazis were the "the most lethally racist regime in history" is to sustain a non-truth. (This is a direct quote from Assistant Professor Ethan B Katz in regards to my book "Black Nazis II", which he never read.) The Jewish people and other victims of Nazism have every right to denounce the Nazis as such, but unbiased historians who are interested in genuine understanding of historical events don't.

Again your proposition as stated here is without support and on it's surface deeply flawed.

And your last question: "Surely it was the Nazi establishment that represented the obstacle, at least until 1942? Are you perhaps conflating two different institutions, to the benefit of Nazis and the detriment of professional soldiers?"

Are we honestly to supposed to believe that the SS, SD and Gestapo were all ignorant of the fact that foreign as well as Jewish and part-Jewish soldiers (ref: Bryan Rigg, Hitler's Jewish Soldiers) were serving in the armed forces from the beginning? How did all three of these Nazi institutions miss this? A Lebanese man who went by the name "Dory" claimed to be a card carrying NSDAP member (ref: Antonio Munoz, The East Came West). Erich von Manstein was Jewish (via his matrilineal line). There are many other exceptions that cause one to step back and wonder why the Nazis made ANY exceptions. Why do it at all? Who were they answering to other than themselves? Why did they care? What was the Nazis' motivation/impetus for making racial exceptions before the war started?

That looks to me like a neat side step of the question.

[GermanResearcher]

Hi LWD. I'm VKC.

It's nice to meet you!

You wrote, "That's hardly an appropriate analogy though is it. The US had two major political parties at the time and a fair number of smaller ones, there was not however a party called "liberal democrats" especially with your qualifier so there is no way they could be card carrying members. Furthermore you assumption that they were engaged in a "fight in a foreign war that had nothing to do with their national security" is at best unsupported and actualy quite questionable. For instance Tooze in Wages of Destruction makes a very good case for it being in the interest of US national secufity. So have other authors using different critieria, data, and rationals."

Two major parties (and smaller ones that never had a chance of making it into power) is not a lot of choice, is it now? Either or...how about neither nor? I disagree with you regarding my qualifier, but you have a different view of politics than I do, so this we must agree to disagree on. Tooze is just one man and I have read and own his book. I would never base a thesis on one source. Plus Tooze is biased. He relies on several biased and/or questionable sources, especially on Nuremberg (like most Americanist historians). Please list some of these "other authors". (I am well read in this area and I disagree with you that America's national security was ever threatened by Germany prior to the official declaration of war. Roosevelt instigated/commenced the unofficial American-German naval war in 1937.)

You wrote, "Which again is unsuported and again qestionable rather points to a bias on your part. As an asside I do agree that the US provoceted Japan and was at the time rather racist but it was Japan's activities in China and elsewhere that pushed the US into the war and indeed these activities predated the US provocations and Japan was hardly without a strong element of racism either. Indeed their activities in China in this regard were particularly reprehensable and responsable to a considerable degree for the US's reaction."

I disagree that this is not sourced. Gerald Horne's largely ignored Race War! gets into the details here. And what did the US have to do with China? How did the regional Sino-Japanese war threaten/involve America? What "elsewhere" areas? You mean the Philippines, which the US blasted into submission in the early 1900s? Brian Lynn wrote all about this colonial power grab. So did Max Boot (The Savage Wars of Peace).

Japan's activities that predated America's provocations? Which precisely? As for Japanese racism, Commodore Perry and the Anglo-Saxons "opened" Japan, not vice versa. Japan's racism against Anglo-Saxons (namely the British and American whites) was reactionary racism, not supremacist racism. Again, consult Gerald Horne on this.

You wrote, "I think you will find that the moderators rather discourage modern political discussions on this forum."

Politics is history and history is politics. War is the continuation of politics by other means. But, we'll drop it. Obviously our 'politics' clash.

You wrote, "What do you mean by "a lot"? Surely there were some but civilian pay was higher and safer."

Thousands or perhaps tens of thousands. I'd like to see a source that asserts that the majority of Black Americans wanted to serve in a European (white) foreign war when they were discriminated against and often randomly murdered at home by whites. The Tuskegee airmen I interviewed said they served primarily to prove that they were equal to white Americans. They volunteered in behalf of their own interests, those of Black Americans. Civilian pay was higher and safer...for whom? What is your source for this assumption? In a Depression?

You wrote, "Any evidence that the majority at the time considered it so or even were aware of it?"

We may safely assume that American propaganda affected many in this vein, as well as Hollywood propaganda. Otherwise why did the Americans bother with propaganda? Even Disney was involved. You ought to know the content of that propaganda; it was a crusade against evil, tyranny and racism. You could read Union Now and Union Now with Britain. Those two books give a good overview of the crusade (stopping Hitler from world conquest), its aims (basically the UN) and enemies (Hitler and Nazis). Plus you can listen to or read testimonials by American veterans, which I did for my thesis, and hear this from their own mouths.

You wrote, "On the basis of what I've seen so far this doesn't look to be the case."

Well then, there's no need for you to buy any of my books, is there? That settles that. (Mind you, I did not start this thread. I've never posted anything until now.)

You wrote, "Not from what you've stated so far."

I cannot condense an entire book, let alone all of my books, into one post to please a person who is already set in his/her worldview. I would never try. Nor do I wish to convince anyone that I'm right and they're wrong. I'm only interested in opening or broadening perspectives with facts, which are really just interpretations (as Nietzsche said).

You wrote, "Really? And that's why the camps were still going full bore when liberated?"

They were? "Full bore"? Which ones (there were upwards of 15,000)?

One example: Bryan Rigg detailed how OT camps were literally set free; Jewish occupants were abandoned and left to defend themselves. Another: Himmler was bargaining with the Allies with Jewish people (ref: LeBor's Hitler's Secret Bankers). One more: Vlasov was 'let loose' to do whatever he wished with his Russian Liberation force by Himmler in 1945 (too late, but it still happened; ref: Thorwald, The Illusion; also see Dallin, German Rule in Russia). If these examples were not policy changes at some level, then what were they? Why weren't all Jews transferred east and exterminated if everything was still operating "full bore"? Why save any at all? Who were the Nazis answering to? Why not just massacre Vlasov and his army? They were "subhumans" according to the Nazis, right? Why let them live and cut them loose? And didn't a significant amount of the infrastructural system collapse as a result of Allied bombing? I don't see how this supports the "full bore" argument. The Nazis had a difficult time even finding enough petrol to burn Hitler's and Eva's bodies, but the camps (all 15,000-plus) were operating at "full bore"?

You wrote, "Again your proposition as stated here is without support and on it's surface deeply flawed."

"Deeply" flawed or just "flawed"? Maybe my thesis needs more qualifiers, a wider range of sources, and perhaps more clarification...or is it "deeply flawed" and just cannot be redeemed no matter what? And how do you know if you have never read any of my books?

Anyway, how so...because I disagree. You need to prove that there was never a more racist regime in history than the Nazis. This is a wild gesture. (Not to mention subjective.) Just ask the Zunghar Mongols about the Qing Chinese (if there are still any left in the world). Or you might want to recreate certain Amerindian ethnic strains from preserved DNA (Jurassic Park-style) and ask them if Anglo-Saxon American colonists were less racist than the Nazis. Genocide is the complete and total destruction of all life...right? Gene-ocide? Murder of the genes? Aren't racism and genocide interrelated at least a tad? You do have the Kaiserreich which wiped out the Herero and Namaqua. According to the 1985 UN Whitaker Report on Genocide, "80,000 Herero [were] reduced to 15,000 'starving refugees' between 1904 and 1907." Can 15,000 people genetically recover? I don't know because I am not a gene scientist, but that is a tiny gene pool for one ethnic group. There were still 1,092,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors alive in 2003 (ref: the Della Pergola Report). So is this apples and oranges in your opinion? If so, why/how? Why and how is one considered "more lethally racist" than the other? Is this not perhaps a matter of opinion from the victim perspective (what I suggested in my previous post)?

You wrote, "That looks to me like a neat side step of the question."

How so? I am getting to the bottom of his question with my own questions. In my view they clarify what he's asking. So you need to show me where this side step is.

I suspect from the way you asked your questions and what you asked that you assume I am pro-Axis and/or a Nazi apologist. I am an apolitical (meaning I never vote), paleoliberal feminist who questions just about everything and takes on challenges that others usually balk from. (Just so you know where I'm coming from). Though I will confess...I am no fan of Americanism or Britishism.

Here's my Amazon videos/page: http://www.amazon.com/Veronica-Clark/e/B00310I4S6

[GermanResearcher]

I got your PM, but it says, "You are not authorised to send private messages." Thus I cannot answer your questions.

It should work now.

Also, thanks for the answers to my original question.

/Marcus

Thank you for fixing that and you're welcome. Though, I would advise you not to read any of my books. You would not find them worthwhile IMO.

[Sid Guttridge]

Thank you for your detailed reply.

I understand the source of your title, and I understand the pressure to make it eye-catching. However, above all, the title of a non-fiction work should accurately reflect the content of the book. I am not at all sure from your reply that the “Blacks” concerned were actually “Nazis”. With the possible exception of an apparently unsubstantiated “claim” in a secondary source by a Lebanese man to have been an NSDAP member, you offer no examples of non-Germanic, card-carrying Nazis, let alone of Black Nazis.

Nor do I find reasonable the proposition that, because one minor, short-lived, pre-war US magazine published an article with this title, “Black Nazis” is to be regarded as either an American or an Allied term. A unilateral decision by one obscure magazine headline sub-editor on one occasion cannot reasonably be extrapolated into a wider Allied, or even, American phenomenon, unless it enters the popular vernacular.

If you publish a new edition, I would suggest adding a question mark to the title: Black Nazis?, because the proposition appears debateable (at least on the evidence you have given here).

You may have specific justifications, but there is no inherent merit “not (to) apologize for either side or wholly condemn either side.” An old Catholic jibe at the Church of England was that it was so concerned to achieve a balanced view that it tended to take up a middle position – half way between good and evil!

Your US analogy is both a red herring and inaccurate. In the US armed forces one cannot make a decision as to which service to join based on its political affiliation, because they have none. However, in the German military one could because the Waffen-SS existed to carry the Nazi standard. Do you know of any “Black Nazis” who served in the Reich-raised W-SS divisions?

I can't argue with your statement “that the Nazis were forced to renege on every single racial point and policy as a direct result of the war turning against them” through lack of information. However, I would disagree that this represented an “attitude change”, as these were pragmatic, not ideological, concessions and the reason why they came so impossibly late (i.e. recognizing puppet governments in Estonia and Latvia in 1945!) was ideological inflexibility.

I would also suggest that this statement assumes that the Nazis had a consistent racial policy in the first place. One only has to look at the different approaches taken by Gauleiters Forster (Danzig-West Preussen) and Greiser (Wartheland) in neighbouring areas of occupied Poland to see that this was not the case. The two were at each other’s throats because Forster was much more assimilationist in his approach to the occupied population of his Gau than Greiser. Yet both were supposedly implementing the same policies.

No one supposes that Nazi organs were unaware of the presence of Jewish and part Jewish soldiers in the Army. But they weren’t there because the Nazis made “racial exceptions before the war started”. They were there because they had always been there and the Army retained a high degree of institutional autonomy that allowed it to resist undue interference by the Nazi Party in its normal internal workings until 1943-44. If one wants to test the Nazis’ real attitudes, one has to look at the recruitment policy of the one armed service they did fully control – the Waffen-SS.

The German Army, not a Nazi Party organization, proved itself more open earlier than its Nazi clone, the Waffen-SS, to accepting non-Germanic recruits. This was because Nazi ideology was an obstruction until 1942. It seems to me that you may be misrepresenting service in the wider German armed forces as “Nazi”. (Again, without reading your book, I cannot be sure).

Anyway, without reading your book, I can’t really comment with any authority on its contents or conclusions.

Cheers,

Sid.

[GermanResearcher]

Sid,

Thank you for the thorough and excellent reply.

You are entitled to your beliefs about the title Black Nazis (which is not the title by the way; it is Black Nazis! A Study Of Racial Ambivalence In Nazi Germany's Military Establishment: Non German Ethnic Minority And Foreign Volunteers, Conscripts, Laborers And PoWs, 1940 1945), but it has already been published as is. But thank you for the suggestion.

As for the rest of your post, we shall agree to disagree.

Cheers,
VKC
http://spadeofaces.wordpress.com/

[Marcus]

I wonder if the author is the same Veronica Clark discussed at http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... clark.html ? The article "Adolf Hitler’s Armed Forces: A Triumph for Diversity?" mentioned there covers similar ground as the books mentioned above.

/Marcus