History is told from an exclusionary perspective, as it is lived, by such regimes. First the dominant controlling regime excludes the main “difference” or “threat” which is prevalent by numbers and thus largely visible. In the American South, that meant exclusion of black Americans, in Germany Jews, and in Israel today Palestinians. Then take care of secondary visible differences—ethnicities or races—since they don’t pose as big a “threat” to the sovereignty of the King-Autocrat. In Germany that meant Romany, blacks. It’s not that Hitler and the Reich didn’t hate blacks, it’s just that there weren’t many. There was only one native born black German, who was killed, and some other black German’s who had lived there a long time who were killed. The Romany and other “ethnicities” were also killed.
A few decades ago, while working in the stacks at the university library on a work study program, I ran across a book called “The Pink Triangle.” I took it home as it was small but fascinating read. Everyone was classified by the Reich by triangles. The yellow triangle for Jews, the pink triangle for gays, etc. Gays were the biggest threat since they were not detectable and could be “hiding” anywhere. The accusation of being gay (a man in particular) was weaponized internally within the party and used against rivals. An accusation of being gay meant death to an SS officer or ranking officer in the army. A person could be accused by winking. These were the first to go, more than Jews if proven. Why? Loyalty. Today we have “RINOs” and all those Trump got rid of for “insufficient loyalty.” Same thing, just a different manifestation of the underlying system of authoritarianism or autocracy where single man rule means loyalty of those that look like me.
It’s not that the Reich didn’t hate blacks; it’s just that there were hardly any and not enough to kill. They just couldn’t be weaponized to be seen as a “threat.” Or I should say internal threat. Aryan autocracy gets rid of the numerically largest threat first, and weaponizing that difference internally meant greater and more militaristic internal group cohesion of the ruling party.
No surprise as the threat continue, the core group gets more loyal, not less so. Trump and Bibi Netanyahu are actually doing better, not worse. Bibi’s polling support rose after being accused of war crimes, not fell. Jews in the party adhering to Zionism or the idea of the Jewish Homeland felt themselves under attack by the outside world, there is no friction between the great leader and his followers because “friction” (internal group cohesion based on a primary single ethnic trait, like whiteness) has been constantly eliminate. That constant elimination of differences by the leader and his core followers puts greater focus on the core trait (Jewishness, whiteness), causing a sense of being under attack.
Interestingly, blacks on the outside, not internal to Germany, were not under attack. The Germans kept black Americans and black French in a couple prison of war concentration camps and followed the international rule of law, leaving them alone. They were released at the end of the war, bored but unharmed, one a jazz man and one an artist who drew pictures throughout that are very memorable. They were not part of the internal threat and internal system of group cohesion that is constantly warning of internal differences and internal threats as part of the system that gives rise to the autocrat-King. And when the war is done, Hitler wanted to restore Germany on the world stage and thus could claim he followed international law.
Thanks again. Very interesting discussion as not much is known about those black Germans and their persecutions.