User talk:Bigbreh

Disruptive editing[edit]

Hello, despite certain contents at Honorary Aryan being sourced, you removed it. I reverted this unconstructive edit, and you chose to remove said contents again - without an edit summary no less - thus engaging in an edit war. Please note that you could be permanently blocked from editing if you continue to make such disruptive edits.

Why do you keep removing information despite them being fully sourced? Please respond in a timely manner. Thanks. Omnibenevolence (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the sources you have cited? They clearly state the Turks are considered European (and therefore considered Aryan), but you keep insisting they are honorary aryans, even when this is well known fiction.

I provided a summary, mayhaps you are blind. Bigbreh (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turks were not considered Aryan by Hitler but honorary Aryans, as I have cited with Stefan Ihrig and Dilip Hiro's works. They were considered a 'pure European Volk' by the Nazis, but not Aryan. There's a difference between these two. If they were considered fully Aryan, cases such as Johannes Ruppert in 1935, who had to leave the Hitler Youth due to being half-Turkish (which I outlined in the article) would not exist. Omnibenevolence (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, have you checked the sources you have cited? You cite page 128-129 of Stefan Ihrig's "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination, and yet nowhere within those two pages is there any mention of "Honorary aryan", also within Dilip Hiro's "Iran under the Ayatollahs" at page 296, it does not even allude to Turkey, but clearly is about the relationship between the Pahlavi Monarchy and National Socialist Germany, and the latter's influence over the former.

Johannes Ruppert being hurled out the Hitlerjugend was in 1935, before any official consensus on the race of the Turks, Egyptians or Iranians was forged. This incident is literally what sparked the debate about the Turks being racially kindred or not.

Provide citation for the Turks being considered a "pure european volk". Bigbreh (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ihrig's "Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination"

p. 129:

"A press directive by the Propaganda Ministry two months after the circular, in June 1936, reminded the German press that the Hungarians, the Finns, and the Turks were considered “racially related".

p. 186:

"The New Turkey was presented as something of a role model in the sphere of religious politics. Although this was never explicitly stated in this context, it was implicit in almost all of the texts describing the separation of “church and state” in this völkisch revolution. One very long essay in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten made this clearer than most others. It also conferred on the Turks the title “carriers of culture” (Kulturträger), which was almost synonymous with “Aryan. - i.e. honorary Aryan if it's almost synonymous, but not exactly.

Marc David Baer's "Mistaken for Jews: Turkish PhD Students in Nazi Germany"

pp. 2–3

"In 1936, various Nazi ministries “determined” through racial “science” that Turks were a racially pure European Volk related to the Finns and Hungarians. The Nazis thus labelled Turks a “kindred” people" - do you see the Nazis considering non-Aryans as kindred? Only the honorary Aryans. Omnibenevolence (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Herf’s Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (2009) p. 18

On February 2, 1936, Walter Gross, the director of the Rassenpolitisches Amt, wrote to I. A. Richards, in the Foreign Ministry, and observed that the language of the Nuremberg race laws of September 15, 1935, no longer distinguished “between Aryans and non-Aryans, but rather between persons of German and kindred [artverwandt] blood.

The term "Kindred Volk" is also used for all non-Germanic peoples of Europe:

Rainer Mackensen's Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts "Bevölkerung" vor, im und nach dem "Dritten Reich" (2009) p. 353

Die rassenpolitische Lösung wird in der Weise gefunden, dass der Begriff „artverwandt“ aufgeteilt wird in „deutsches und stammesgleiches (= germanisches) Blut“ und „artverwandtes — nicht stammesgleiches Blut“. Zu letzterem: gehört das Blut aller nichtgermanischen europäischen Völker, soweit nicht einzelne Menschen bzw. Sippen dieser Völker als stammesgleich anzusprechen sind, also alle slawischen, romanischen, keltischen und baltischen Völker.

Turks being classified as racially-kindred (artverwandt) means they are a European people but not part of the Germanic race. Danes, Brits and Poles were also considered racially-kindred according to Hans F. K. Günther's Keine Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes. Bigbreh (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one said Turks are part of the Germanic race. The Japanese were also honorary Aryans and viewed as kindred, but they were not viewed as Germanic.

You seem to skip over how they were considered almost synonymous with Aryans but not exactly Aryan - the only way to describe this is honorary Aryan. The Germans also didn't refer to Danes, Brits, Poles, etc as a racially pure Volk related to Finns and Hungarians (viewed as Aryans by Nazis) like they did with Turks. Omnibenevolence (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore you have no proof that the Turks were honorary aryans, all sources you have listed and all sources I have listed do not confirm that the Turks were honorary aryans. If the Turks were honorary aryans then that knowledge would be everywhere, but instead you operate on assumptions about how the racial laws operated. Bigbreh (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the Nazis viewed Turks as a pure European Volk related to Finns and Hungarians (viewed as fully Aryan by the Nazis), but the Nazis didn't consider them to be fully Aryan, then they would be considered honorary Aryans.

Turks were also considered "carriers of culture” (Kulturträger), which was almost synonymous with Aryan. - i.e. honorary Aryan if it's almost synonymous, but not exactly. Omnibenevolence (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"but not exactly". Turks were not Honorary Aryans because you want them to be, it does not state anywhere in any of the cited secondary sources that they were Honorary Aryans.

If the National Socialists thought the Turks were a "Pure European Volk" then why would they be honorary aryans? Bigbreh (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By 'but not exactly' , I meant that they were not viewed as fully Aryan, which is true. They were viewed almost as synonymous as Aryan, as I sourced earlier. An informed person would understand that if they were not viewed as fully Aryan, but almost synonymous, then they would be around the status of honorary Aryans in the eyes of the Nazis. How do you interpret this?? Omnibenevolence (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, although being called a "Pure European Volk" and a kindred volk literally makes you Aryan, that is the literal definition of Aryan at that point

Neues Volk Volume 9 (1941) on Google Books

"The Turks are mix of Near Eastern-Oriental races with Mongolid racial components."

"Die Türken sind ein Gemilch aus vorderasiatisch-orientalischen Rassen mit mongolischen Rassenbestandteilen."

This contradicts the previous statement about them being a "Pure European Volk".

Honestly, you could add the Turks back to the Honorary Aryans wiki page but you should edit it down to the Kulturträger section and make it clear that Kulturträger is almost synonymous with Honorary Aryanship. Bigbreh (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to a mutual understanding. I will amend what I previously wrote accordingly. Omnibenevolence (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]