Jump to content

Talk:Honorary Aryan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 08:42, 15 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Japan}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hungarians and others

I believe that the Hungarians were granted Honorary Aryan status en masse, but I'm not sure of this and lack citation. It was almost certainly extended to Mussolini, Tojo, and Hirohito; again, I lack citation. I know that it was a running joke in the United States to refer to the Japanese collectively as Honorary Aryans; I don't know if the Nazis ever actually granted them that status. A good citation one way or the other would be in order.

It would also be interesting to have a list of ethnically Jewish people who accepted Honorary Aryan status; I just know of these two famous stories of it being turned down. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism]
Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (paperback ISBN 0700613587, cloth ISBN 0700611789) by Bryan Mark Rigg is a good source on this topic. The term was also used, by Hitler, to describe the Japanese. —Morning star 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[End copied comment]

The Nazis never considered mediterraneans non-Aryans, Hitler said the Italians (Bith northern and Southern) were "Aryans".Arnie Gov 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnically Jewish?

Judaism is a religion, not a race. How can Emmerich Kálmán be ethnically Jewish? --The Dark Side 22:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Behause it is also an ethnicity. Paul B 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"non-Aryan" Slavs

What on earth is a "non-Aryan Slav"? Slavic is an Aryan (IE) language. Paul B 08:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavs and other ethnic groups were considered to be Aryans. Eg. in occupied Poland, an official name for the parts of the cities inhabited by Poles was "the Aryan part" whereas Jewish parts were called "ghettos". The main ideologist Alfred Rosenberg classified Slavs as Aryans, but Slavs, Finns, or Italians... there were no ethnic group equal to Germans, who were the most Aryan nation in Europe. As for the Slavs, "non-Aryan Slavs - according to German ideologists" is a total fiction and this statement should be deleted. author: MAX (i dont have much time for signing in, making my own account)
The Nazi's hated Slavs and thought of them as sub-human, it's only modern neo nazi groups in Russia that ironically that wish to link themselves with Nazi Germany. To the above poster, Finns were considered part of the Aryan race, it's your comments that are baseless. Slavs, although are Aryans according to modern scholars, the Germans thought of them as an inferior race.
Hitler's aim in the East was very clear: acquiring Lebensraum in the East up to the Ural Mountains. These lands were occupied by groups that Hitler and Nazism despised: Bolsheviks, Slavs and Jews. Under the New Order, these peoples would either become slaves under German overlords or would be exterminated. He was to state in 1942: "If we do not complete the conquest of the East utterly and irrevocably, each successive generation will have war on its hands". For him the war in Russia was a racial conflict, in which the racially superior German Aryan race was locked in a struggle with the "sub-human" Slavs. This made retreat in the face of "inferior" peoples unimaginable, for the Führer could not conceive of the racially inferior Slavs being able to defeat a superior race - [1][2] Information on Slavs Anon - August 2007
You are the one who is confused. Believing Slavs to be inferior is not the same a believing them to be non-Aryan. You don't understand the term Aryan. The source you quote is non-academic. Paul B 11:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what poster is trying to say is that Hitler didn't like Slavs, regardless if they are Aryan and speakers of the Aryan/Indo-European language - believing they were non-aryan/as racial concept.

Alleged Jewish 'Honorary Aryans'

For example, this status was offered to (and declined by) composer Emmerich Kálmán, who was a Hungarian national, but ethnically Jewish.[1] Film director Fritz Lang recalled that Joseph Goebbels had made a similar offer to him, saying, "Mr. Lang, we decide who is Jewish and who is not," and prompting his departure for Paris; at least one biographer views the story as apocryphal.[2]

  1. ^ Emmerich Kálmán on the site of Lyric Opera San Diego, October 2005, accessed 16 January 2006. The site appears generally accurate on Kalman, although it does misspell the name of Miklós Horthy as "Nicolas Harthy".
  2. ^ Review of Lang's Metropolis on moviediva.com, accessed 16 January 2006.

I have removed the above passages, which are supported by one footnote that is inaccessible and one that is a review on a 'moviediva' website. As for Lang, he is said to have claimed that Goebbels offered him a role in the German film industry, though the "we decide" line is usually attributed to Goering with reference to Milsch. It's not clear whether Goebbels even knew at the time that Lang was Jewish, but the story is unlikely to be true (see the Fritz Lang page). I know nothing about Kalman, but it seems to derive from a story told by his daughter about an unnamed German general who was supposed to have guaranteed Kalman's safety in Austria after the Anschluss. Again, there is no extant documentation to suggest that this was an actual official offer as far as I can see. Paul B 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese to Korean?

I have reverted multiple changes of Japanese people to Korean people. Please discuss the change here and get back to the change. Just trying to see if there is a good justificaition for this. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah this korean editor is apparently trying to make himself seem aryan... keep dreaming and oh i have gotten rid of his changes....ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Poetic

It's despicable how you can just barge in and so arrogantly and crudely alter the referenced quotes to fit your own personal opinions, predispositions and biases. Firstly, you take out "Chinese" from Hitler's quote, to make it look like he was only speaking of the Japanese, then you change the order of East Asian languages that Karl Haushofer learned of in the final quote--putting Japanese first and before Korean, to make it seem more important than the others.

To change or omit the words of another contributor is one thing, but to change or omit the words of a referenced quote--especially in the manner that you did--is just dishonest, indecent and lowbrow. If you are going to mutate the quotes, then you might as well take them out completely. You can go and find the quotes yourself (check the references) to see that that is what the quotes actually say.

It seems obvious to me that you are Japanese, and by your actions, you have only made Japanese people look bad.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -Thomas Jefferson- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.76.236 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No primary sources

I do not understand why there is no reference to any actual source of Nazis using the term "Ehrenarier". There is one to Hitler's testament which does not include the term. Surely there must be documents, articles and even books published in Germany before the end of the war? Some of the other references range from shaky (a website??) to bizarre (a book on the occult). There is also no German version of this article. The way it is right now it looks almost made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.49.68 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Good observation. Probably the reason why no primary source using the term "Honorary Aryan" is shown is that the whole concept is a figment of Anglo-American propaganda, for the purpose of making Hitler and National-Socialism look silly.

That so-called "testament" is a well known fraud written by François Genoud. Its inclusion shows the generally excessive credulity of the article's compilers.

Any article on Wikipedia titled "Honorary Aryan" should really be about the propaganda-hoax that claims that there was such a thing. Your Buddy Fred Lewis (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Native Americans

According to New Order (Nazism)#Hitler's plans for North America, the Sioux, and by extension other Native Americans, were considered Aryan by Hitler too, influenced by his love for Karl May's books and native hostility to white Americans, rendering them potentially useful as allies. Just adds to the absurdly arbitrary application of Nazi racial politics and the blatantly opportunistic nature of their application. No doubt if it had suited them, such as in the fight against the USA, the Nazis would have declared some or all American "Negroes" Aryans too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that the American Jews, most of whom are of Central European origin and of Ashkenazi/Yiddish heritage, and many of whom still spoke Yiddish and also German back then, actually tended to be reluctant to enter the war against Germany and this was a factor that significantly contributed to the hesitation of the USA prior to Pearl Harbor and the increasing suffering endured by the remaining European Jews. This would contribute an additional layer of irony: Hitler would have had the American Jews' back, even after the Nuremberg Laws, had he not repelled them with the atrocities and eventually genocide that was the Holocaust! His assessment of them, influenced by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was completely backwards. They were his potential allies – not least because the Soviets were the main enemy at the time – and by treating them as his greatest enemies instead, he ended up sealing his doom and that of Nazi Germany. In some twisted sense, that makes me almost madder at him for recklessly gambling away the chance at victory, instead of for establishing a totalitarian empire, committing (or ordering) all kinds of atrocities and provoking the war in the first place. It just serves to demonstrate that Nazis have always been stupid. His bumbling and undermining of his own stated goals makes me inclined to believe the "vastly extended suicide" interpretation indeed, i. e., that on some level, he always wanted to lose and go out in the biggest cataclysm ever. A destructive megalomaniac if there was ever one.
Another historical accident has led to the indigenous peoples of the Americas being associated with the name of the Indians (since Columbus believed himself to have reached East Asia, the southern part of which was included in Greater India, which could even include parts of southern China), at about the same time when Europeans travelling to India encountered the Sanskrit language for the first time along with the name of the ancient Aryans. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honorary Aryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article as it stands is a quasi-hoax

The Nazis tended to invent strained justifications to ignore or creatively apply their own racial policy when practical imperatives intervened. This tendency was no doubt magnified by the well-known internal chaos of the Nazi regime, which brought together everyone from the hard-core racialist-mystic ideologues to the pragmatic national technocrats with no clear lines of authority and no consistent means of resolving disagreements. Hence the resort to these kinds of kluges and subterfuges.

However, this article since its earliest version has conformed to a completely different and ahistorical view, namely that somehow there was a specific policy of "Honorary Aryan"-ness, perhaps associated with the NSDAP Office of Racial Policy (which in reality was a tiny and basically powerless internal policy shop.) And it's been continually expanded with new examples by duffers who think that every offhand derisory reference to "honorary Aryans" in some secondary historical work must refer to this specific, mythical, "Honorary Aryan" policy.

This should probably be merged or just redirected into Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and if it is to stand as its own article, it needs to be extensively rewritten by the use of studies specifically about exceptions, exemptions, and contradictions in the Nazi recognition of "Aryans", not by use of scores of random studies on other topics that happen to say "...x was given honorary Aryan status" without going into any detail or explaining what specifically this meant. Because it certainly didn't refer to some kind of official stamp of Honorary Aryan Status assigned by the Office of Racial Policy. That did not exist. TiC (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I tried to do, with this source : Steiner, John; Freiherr von Cornberg, Jobst (1998). Willkür in der Willkür : Befreiungen von den antisemitischen Nürnberger Gesetzen [Arbitrariness in arbitrariness:Exemptions from the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws] (pdf) (in German). Institut fûr Zeitgeschichte. Den Begriff „Ehrenarier" gab es offiziell nicht, nur in der Umgangssprache. Er bedeutete wohl, daß ein jüdischer Mischling auf Grund seiner Stellung und Verdienste im Reich wie ein Arier angesehen wurde und keinerlei Anstalten machen mußte, eine Besserstellung oder Gleichstellung durch Hitler zu erreichen. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). but it has been roll-back. Although such an official status did not exist. --Pa2chant. (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I decide who is a Jew"

I removed from the article the claim that Goering said re: the incident with Erhard Milch, "I decide who is a Jew", for these reasons:

  • Of the dozen or so books of quotations I own, only the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations contains the quote -- in the form "I determine who is a Jew" -- and it attributes it to Karl Lueger, the mayor of Vienna and head of the Christian Socialist Party there when Hitler lived in Vienna.
  • The CDQ cites Alan Bullock's book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, where it appears (as "I decide who is a Jew") in Chapter 1, section 4. Bullock gives no source.
  • In our article Karl Lueger, the quote is supported by a reference to Elon, Amos (2002) The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. New York: Picador. p.224. ISBN 0312422814
  • In Wikiquote, it is tagged as misattributed to Goering:
    • "Göring is stated to have said this in Non-Germans Under the Third Reich: The Nazi Judicial and Administrative System in Germany (2003) by Diemut Majer, p. 60, and in other works, but he might have merely been repeating or paraphrasing the statement, Wer a Jud is, bestimm i (Only I will decide who is a Jew) which in Strangers at Home and Abroad: Recollections of Austrian Jews Who Escaped Hitler (2000) by Adi Wimmer, p. 6, is said to have originated with Vienna mayor Karl Lueger in response to the observation that despite his anti-semitic speeches he still dined with Jews." [3]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal

[4] - Quick check shows that some parts of the text are completely unsourced and others are sourced to something questionable on the internet. There are a couple of probably good RS, however they support something else, rather than claims about "Honorary Aryans". My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Hitler quote was previously removed by User:Volunteer Marek because of "primary":[5]

"In saying this, I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred. It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race—and that does not imply contempt for other races—is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilisations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilisation to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."

Does this belong in the article? It was previously removed and was recently added back by a previously blocked IP sockpuppet.

Also, a recently added content by Shalom11111 has nothing to do with Hitler's "honorary Aryan" designation and is completely off-topic with this subject. EtherealGate (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, I !voted against deleting this article at AfD, but I have come to think that the best thing for it would be to eliminate every single statement which is not directly supported by a citation from a reliable source AND which does not directly say that such-and-such race, ethnicity, or nationality are considered to be "Honorary Aryans". The lack of focus of the article is much, much too broad, making it rather worthless. I say let's strip it down to the bare sourced facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)For the first quote, WP:PRIMARY is an appropriate reason to remove this quote. A reliable source would be needed to even start to assess the significance of this quote. If and only if this has such a source, it's also not clear how this specifically applies to the topic of 'Honorary Aryan'. With a source, this seems like a more obvious addition to Nazism and race, Political views of Adolf Hitler, or similar. We would use the context provided by the source to decide where it belongs, or if it belongs. Hitler was a gasbag who said a lot of nonsense. Figuring out what quotes were significant and what were not is best left to the experts.
For the second, it does have a reliable, secondary source which is providing context for the quote. At a glance, however, it's not clear that this source supports a direct connection to honorary Aryans as a concept. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honorary Aryan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Maurice

Hi. Wanted to see if we are in agreement or disagreement that Emil Maurice was informally declared a honorary aryan. TantraYum (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, even your own source from "Hoffmann 2000, pp. 50, 51." specifically said that Emil Maurice was INFORMALLY declared "honorary aryans" and NEVER FORMALLY declared an "honorary aryan." I challenge you to find any historical record that specifically lists Emil Maurice as an "honorary aryan"...but you and I both know that you will not find any documents pertaining to this. Simply because Emil Maurice was just INFORMALLY granted "honorary aryan" status but NOT official FORMAL recognition as an "honorary aryan"...there is a major difference between INFORMAL and FORMAL recognition. And the only reason he was granted INFORMAL "honorary aryan" status was because Emil Maurice had been a personal friend of Adolf Hitler prior to anyone knowing about his partial Jewish ancestry, and despite Himmler's attempt to remove him from the SS since all SS officers needed to prove racial purity with no Jewish ancestry, Adolf Hitler wrote a letter and ordered Himmler to overlook his status and grant him INFORMAL "honorary aryan" status but NOT OFFICIAL FORMAL recognition, hence you will never find any documents to support your idea that Jews were "honorary aryans" which they were absolutely not. Hitler had a tremendous disrespect towards Jews and regarded them as "inferior subhumans". Do not forget millions of Jews died in the holocaust genocide at the dirty hands of the Nazi Germans, where was their "honorary aryan" status??? NEVER FORGET THE HOLOCAUST! History must never repeat itself! This Honorary Aryan page is only for those people who were officially recognized as "Honorary Aryans" and not informally recognized. Although I am open to the possibility of a mentioning some informally recognized people, just don't portray the Jews as if they were officially recognized as Honorary Aryans. Thank you! 124.215.138.169 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, you posted this here as well.
Thanks so much for taking the time to reply and your openess to dialogue.
So it sounds like we are in agreement that Emil Maurice was informally declared an honorary aryan.
Is there any part of the section below which you believe is innacurate?
Despite the application of the standards for being Aryan (not having a Jewish ancestor after 1750) by Himmler, Hitler granted an informal status of "honorary Aryan" to Emil Maurice on 31 August 1935.[1] Maurice was a participant of the Beer Hall Putsch, who was jailed with Hitler and helped him to redact Mein Kampf; he was awarded with the Blood Order, was a founder of the SS and later the bodyguard and chauffeur of Hitler.
One way to clarify that this was very rare (if not the only example) maybe we could put the subheader "One Jewish Exception?" How does that sound? TantraYum (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hoffmann 2000, pp. 50, 51.
Maurice being declared an "Honorary Aryan", whether formally or informally, does not justify a whole section on Jews. One man, only partly Jewish by blood (unless you subscribe to a "one drop" theory), and not in any way Jewish by culture, religion or practice, is not sufficient for there to be a section on "Jews". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, no, "One Jewish Exception" doesn't cut it either for the same reason: Maurice was not a Jew, he simply had some Jewish ancestry. Even the Nazi race laws didn't recognize him as a Jew, only the much more strict SS regulations. By no reasonable definition can Maurice be called a Jew, so he was not a "Jewish Exception".
Face it, this material is not going into the article unless there is a very strong consensus to do so.Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should add another section about Jewish individuals and partial Jews like Emil Maurice being granted informal status of "honorary aryan" to my extensive knowledge I know that Hitler gave his personal Jewish doctor, who had treated his sick mother, with an exemption from the Holocaust and gave him an unrestricted travel pass to leave Nazi Germany without being sent to concentration camps like the other Jews. His exemption, granted by Hitler himself, can be considered an informal status approaching that of "honorary aryan" since by Nazi law only Aryans were allowed free passage throughout WW2 Germany. Emil Maurice had Jewish ancestry: Charles Maurice Schwartzenberger (1805–1896), the founder of the Thalia Theater in Hamburg, was his great-grandfather24.21.43.23 (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler indeed helped the doctor, or tried to, but there's no indication that he was given "Honorary Aryan" status. No one should be mentioned in this article unless there is a source that explicitly says they were accorded that status -- not just had the rules bent for them. Anything else should be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

I removed material from this article that was sourced to a number of unreliable sources. Most of them were blogs (see WP:SPS for why we don't allow blogs to be used as sources) another was

published by Weiser Books, which specializes in books on "occultism, astrology, esoteric subjects, Eastern religions, Wicca and related topics." According to our article on the book "The book was written based on the papers of the Austrian anthroposophist Walter Stein given to Ravenscroft by his widow. Ravenscroft originally claimed to have met Stein, but later only claimed contact through a medium with Walter Stein's spirit."

There is no possible way that this book is an acceptable source for historical fact. Ravenscroft is not an historian, and the publisher has no reputation for publishing accurate history.

Any material which is restored to the article based on these unreliable sources will continue to be removed, per WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I regard The Spear of Destiny as utterly unreliable on two counts, one admittedly anecdotal. (A) The author does not cite sources for specific statements. (B) A friend who claimed close acquaintance with him while he was writing The Spear told me c1972-73, approvingly, that Ravenscroft had consulted the Akashic records for much of his material. 92.19.26.167 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Indeed, according to the judgment in Ravenscroft's copyright case, he "had researched the history of the spear by orthodox methods and by using mystical meditation".[6] 92.19.26.167 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material moved

Material in this article should concern only those people or groups which were explicitly named as "Honorary Aryans", and each instance needs to be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source saying that was the case, not that they were "Honorary Aryans" in the opinion of the writer, but with the writer reporting the official acts of Nazi leaders. Only this will prevent the article from losing focus.

The vast majority of the material in this article did not meet that criteria in any way whatsoever, and so, as suggested above, has been WP:BOLDly moved to Nazism and race.

The AfD discussion concerning this article [7], mentioned this source:

  • Nevenko Bartulin Honorary Aryans: National-Racial Identity and Protected Jews in the Independent State of Croatia

which itself mentions two historiographical studies. These sources are the ones that need to be consulted, not blogs and books about the occult, in order to get the kind of specific information which will flesh this out into a viable article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Japanese Aryan

I do not make these edits, but I want to discuss about it. The edits made by multiple IPs seems to be informational and made in good-faith. However, users had been reverted it without any explanation. I do not think those edits are vandalism. Do you think those information should be added into the article? INeedSupport (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They may well be in good faith, but the material is not topical for this article, since none of the sources provided specifically said that the Japanese were considered to be "Honorary Aryans". Because the material deals instead with the Nazi's attitudes toward the Japanese, it has been moved to an article it is more appropriate for, Nazism and race. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the fake

Beyond My Ken, I am very surprised with your revert. Everybody here agreed this "status" is a fake. In 2017, respondind on the AfD page to User:TitaniumCarbide who stated that " authors who never intended to imply that some kind of formal policy of "Honorary Aryan Status" existed in Nazi Germany (it did not.)", your answer was "I would have no problem if a re-written version of the article had the title surrounded by quotes, as in "Honorary Aryan", with a lede that said something on the order of "'Honorary Aryan' is an expression used to describe the unofficial status in Nazi Germany of some races and persons." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)". But when I bring a reliable source to eradicate that fake (official status), you tell about no consensus. Could you explain ? --Pa2chant. (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, did "everyone" agree to that. Be specific please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, YOU in the AfD page (please read your answer above)
User:TitaniumCarbide in the AfD page and in the Talk:Honorary Aryan#Article as it stands is a quasi-hoax section
IP 24.21.43.23 : [...] Emil Maurice was INFORMALLY declared "honorary aryans" and NEVER FORMALLY declared an "honorary aryan."
User:Your Buddy Fred Lewis : "any article on Wikipedia titled "Honorary Aryan" should really be about the propaganda-hoax that claims that there was such a thing."
IP 90.224.49.68 : "I do not understand why there is no reference to any actual source of Nazis using the term "Ehrenarier"."
But, more than the consensus that there is no such an official status, the point is that a reliable source wrote it : " Den Begriff „Ehrenarier" gab es offiziell nicht, nur in der Umgangssprache. Er bedeutete wohl, daß ein jüdischer Mischling auf Grund seiner Stellung und Verdienste im Reich wie ein Arier angesehen wurde und keinerlei Anstalten machen mußte, eine Besserstellung oder Gleichstellung durch Hitler zu erreichen.."
So, I still cannot understand why you rolled-back this source. --Pa2chant. (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no consensus among the editors on this talk page for the changes you made - the AfD is another matter entirely, nothwithstanding that your interpretation of the comments there is not accurate. I see no one stepping into this discussion to support your point. Second, this is English Wikipedia. Please translate the above into English so it can be evaluated by English-speaking editors. If the point is so emphatically true, then it must be supported in some English-language source. Please provide one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say "There is no consensus". It seems you are, as of today, the only one to be opposed. Let's assume you changed your mind. The question is : why ? Why did you agree one year ago that the page needed a rewriting, and why NOW are you opposed ? (I hope that this idea, that an hoax can be rewrite ONLY IF AN ENGLISH-LANGUAGESOURCE EXISTS, is just a private joke, and not a rule on English Wikipedia ? If it can help, there is a good tool called Google translation). --Pa2chant. (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the editors who have, in this discussion agreed with your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that English Wikipedia is not the one I usually edit, and that english is neither my native language. I tried to rewrite the page following both comments and source, just because I don't like the idea that Wikipedia support hoaxes. But I won't make of it the great adventure of my life. Do the french Wikipedia and english Wikipedia differs so much that you have here page owners, deciding arbitrarily which changes they reject, wich changes they accept ? I thought they have the same five pillars. Well, if YOU prefer to keep a hoax, I won't spend much more time on this. I will just notice some others people who could have some idea to do the best. Regards. Pa2chant. (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then please consider if you don't know much about English Wikipedia, you shouldn't keep arguing with someone who does about how it works. Get a consensus before you make your change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this is just a pointless sandbagging meta-discussion you're trying to direct here, Ken. Pa2chant's version is obviously much better and yes you are the only one who is blocking this, with inane arguments such as demanding he translate a source into English at your pleasure or else somehow it doesn't count. Come on. TiC (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What does that source say? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change

Dear IP, 

- and sorry for the second short edit log I noticed afterwards - please explain your changes first in the talk. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"Half-Monkeys"

The source for the "half-monkeys" quote seems suspect. It's written in 2018, so it's far from a primary source. I can't find a second source confirming it, and the page with the citations isn't available on the free preview so it's difficult to check right now, with the libraries closed. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Hitler would use the same epithet twice, about both the Japanese and the Arabs. This 1945 article alleges that Hitler called his Japanese allies "lacquered half-monkeys" but in both cases (Arabs and Japanese) this may be Allied propaganda. Perhaps this quote should be added to the Japanese section, or else the claim he said the same about Arabs removed until it can be confirmed by primary source. --Scharb (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being "far from a primary source" is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced book is online here.
Other sources which cite the remark are:
  • Deutschland and Japan zwischen den Mächten, 1935-1940 Theo Sommer, Mohr, 1962
  • Die Welt des Islams, Volumes 25-26, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Islamkunde, 1985
  • Der Hitler-Stalin-Pakt: eine völkerrechtliche Studie, Gilbert-Hanno Gornig, P. Lang, 1990
  • The Jews in modern Egypt, 1914-1952, Gudrun Krämer, I. B. Tauris, 1989
  • Deutschlands Araberpolitik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Heinz Tillmann, 1965
  • Islam in inter-war Europe, Nathalie Clayer, Eric Germain, 2008
  • Der Hitler-Stalin-Pakt: eine völkerrechtliche Studie, Gilbert-Hanno Gornig, P. Lang, 1990
  • Ala Al-Hamarneh, Jörn Thielmann (2008) Islam and Muslims in Germany. Brill. ISBN 9789004158665 [[8]]
  • Mahmoud Kassim (2000) Die diplomatischen Beziehungen Deutschlands zu Ägypten, 1919-1936 LIT Verlag Münster ISBN 9783825851682 [9]
  • Stefan Wild (1985). "National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939". Die Welt des Islams. New Series. 25 (1/4): 126–173. doi:10.2307/1571079. JSTOR 1571079.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I have seen some discussion about whether the quote is real or was a piece of British propaganda made during WWII, but I don't have an opinion about that one way or the other. However, I have also seen no citations to support the propaganda claim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This gives citations for the remark, both in German and English [10]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Han Chinese edit war

I dont want to engage in an edit war with 96.49.209.80, but the reference that is added to support the inclusion of 'Han Chinese' in the Honorary Aryan category does not support this inclusion. It's just a web page about a lecture. Anyone able to help out here? Thanks Gilgamesh4 (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to before the dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan race (Indo-European)

@WikiLinuz: Do you care to explain why you keep reverting the inclusion of (Indo-European) after “Aryan race”? The term “Aryan” refers to the Indo-European languages and then later some people tried to argue it was a racial term. BTW, by 1935 when the Nazis introduced their race laws they had largely abandoned the idea of using Aryan as a racial group officially but continued to use it in propaganda and that’s why they instead used the term “German or related blood”. Finns and Hungarians weren’t considered “honorary Aryans”, they were considered Aryans from a racial point of view because all of the ethnic groups in Europe were considered to be racially related and that’s what the official law stated. But, the term “German or related blood” which was just a fancy term for Aryan went beyond just Europe because Turks and Iranians were considered to be Aryans. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FriendlyFerret9854: I already answered you on your talk page. As I stated earlier, Indo-Europeans have nothing to do with Aryan race. And, the term Aryan is attested exclusively to Indo-Iranians; see Aryan article. Your edits were factually incorrect. The article on Aryan race does a better job of elucidating the "Aryan" term usage in Nazi Germany, and who were considered under that category per racial theories. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 01:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a source. In any case, the Aryan article is referring specifically about the ancient Indo-Iranians and not the Aryan race concept. However, the Aryan race article clearly states that the term has been used to mean Indo-Iranian, Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European and as a racial term to “describe people of Proto-Indo-European heritage as a racial grouping”. The Aryan (disambiguation) article makes that very clear. And since the honorary Aryan is referring to Aryan being used in a racial sense it’s quite obvious that the Nazis were not using it to refer to the ancient Indo-Iranians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused. I already know what the term means historically, but this article is referring specifically to Aryan being used in a racial sense and that was not used to just refer to ancient Indo-Iranians because by the time the concept of it as a racial group came about it was referring to Indo-Europeans/Proto-Indo-Europeans. If it were being used to refer to ancient Indo-Iranians then even the Germans themselves would have been referred to as honorary Aryans and that just wasn’t the case. The article isn’t factually correct because Hungarians, Iranians, Turks and Finns weren’t regarded as honorary Aryans but just Aryans. This article should be referring to specifically groups like the Chinese and Japanese. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot bracketize Indo-European within Aryan race; those two terms aren't interchangeable.
Hungarians, Iranians, Turks and Finns weren’t regarded as honorary Aryans but just Aryans - Please cite me a source for this claim. Currently, there are four sources that say otherwise. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can when it’s about the Aryan RACE, not just the term Aryan. You were so disingenuous to not make the distinction between “Aryan” and “Aryan race”. The Aryan race article states it was a term used to “describe people of Proto-Indo-European heritage as a racial grouping.” It had nothing to do with referring to the ancient Indo-Iranians. What part of that are you finding difficult to comprehend?
If you’re referring to the four sources after the mention of Finns and Hungarians in the article then you should perhaps check the sources before posting such nonsense. The first two sources are about Greeks which is weird and I have no idea why they’re still included in the article, the third source states that the Nazis declared the Turks to be Aryans (not “honorary Aryans”) and the last source does not state that they were regarded as “honorary Aryans” but in 1942 Adolf Hitler regarded the Finns as being racially related and that the Hungarians were regarded as Aryans but some people were arguing about the racial status of them. If you spent less time harassing people on here and threatening to report people then you would probably contribute more to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do know the distinction between "Aryan race" and "Aryan". And I don't have any difficulty to comprehend the distinction, and I certainly don't want you to school me on this either. I re-wrote the entire Aryan race article to begin with, so you can trust that I possess at least minimal knowledge about this subject to argue about. Your behavior on articles concerning this topic is just disruptive. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case then you would know that the term ‘Aryan race’ was used specifically to refer to Indo-European speaking peoples and not just “Aryan” to refer to ancient Indo-Iranians, so why did you bring the latter up in the first place? Anyway, none of the sources that are referenced describes the Hungarians and Finns being classified as “honorary Aryans”. Iranians and Turks weren’t classified as “honorary Aryans”. Why are those ethnic groups mentioned in this article? They were classified at one point or another as Aryans/racially related and that’s not the same as being classified as honorary Aryans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative: Could you please keep this article on your watchlist? Thanks. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 04:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLinuz: You claim that there are four sources which state that various groups mentioned above were regarded as honorary Aryans, do you care to quote from the sources? Because from my reading of the sources, Finns, Greeks, Hungarians, Iranians and Turks were all considered to be Aryans and not honorary Aryans. If you can provide some evidence from any of the sources then go ahead otherwise quite a large chunk of the information from this article can be removed because it’s incorrect and irrelevant since this is about honorary Aryans and not groups of people whom the Nazis considered to be Aryans.

Turks, Finns, Hungarians and Iranians weren’t considered honorary Aryans

Turks, Finns, Hungarians and Iranians weren’t considered to be honorary Aryans. On the contrary, they were classified as Aryans at one point or another during the existence of the Third Reich.
This article should only include actual cases where groups or people were classified as honorary Aryans.
The Wikipedia articles Racial policy of Nazi Germany and Nazi racial theories clarify what I mean.

So, for example, when it came to the Iranians:

The Nazis found a favorable climate amongst the Iranian elite to spread fascistic and racist propaganda. The Nazi propaganda machine advocated the (supposedly) common Aryan ancestry of "the two Nations." In order to further cultivate racist tendencies, in 1936 the Reich Cabinet issued a special decree exempting Iranians from the restrictions of the Nuremberg Racial Laws on the grounds that they were 'pure-blooded' Aryans ... In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn among Reza Shah, Hitler, and Mussolini to emphasize the charismatic resemblance among these leaders.

— Asgharzadeh, Alireza, Iran and the Challenge of Diversity: Islamic Fundamentalism, Aryanist Racism, and Democratic Struggles. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 91-94.
Thus, the mentions of the groups I have mentioned that were classified as Aryans do not belong in this article because it is strictly about honorary Aryans. FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since when did Adolf Hitler consider Greeks to be “honorary Aryans”? Southern Europeans were classified as Aryans. The Mediterranean race was considered to be a sub-race of the Aryan race. Hitler himself said during the war, “When we are asked about our ancestors, we should always point to the Greeks.” And, “If we consider the ancient Greeks (who were Germanics), we find in them a beauty much superior to the beauty such as is widespread to-day—and I mean also beauty in the realm of thought as much as in the realm of forms.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks

The information regarding the Nazis’ views about Greeks doesn’t say anything about the Nazis regarding Greeks as specifically honorary Aryans. Shouldn’t the information just be added to a different article where it’s more relevant e.g. Nazi racial theories? FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finns and Hungarians - Part 2

@WikiLinuz: Is there any actual reasoning with you? Right. Let's get back on topic. You have reverted my removal of the Finns and Hungarians being classified as honorary Aryans. Did you even bother to check the sources? Source one - Semiotic Society of America (1982). Semiotics 1980. Springer US. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-306-40827-4. So how do you shape stones to express Hitler's words? Like Marx, he subscribed to the Greek, for the Greeks were "Aryans". Hitler wanted to preserve the "purity" of the Aryan race, and so, of course, his buildings should be "Greek". - Totally irrelevant and does not support the claim. Source two - Muñoz, Antonio J. (22 February 2018). The German secret field police in Greece, 1941/1944. p. 201. ISBN 978-1-4766-6784-3. OCLC 1030931630. The Greeks were considered by Hitler to be mostly Aryan. - Same as above. Source three - Ahmed, Akbar (2018). Journey into Europe: Islam, Immigration, and Identity. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 379–380. ISBN 9780815727590. Retrieved 23 March 2020. In 1936 the government began an investigation to decide the racial status of the Turks, and the Turkish press announced the results in the press in the headline "The Turks are Aryans!" - Yet again, totally irrelevant. Source four - Ehrenreich, The Nazi ancestral proof, p.10 - This source does not claim Finns and Hungarians were classified as honorary Aryans. Ehrenreich provides evidence that Hitler later described the Finns as being racially related to the Germans and were classified as Aryans. Similarly, he provides evidence that the Nazis considered the Hungarians to be Aryans, but there were some questions and debates about the racial origins of the Hungarians. As you can see, none of the sources provide any evidence that the Nazis considered the Finns and Hungarians as "honorary Aryans". Thus, the text needs to be removed from the article because it's not factually correct.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Aryan" identity of Hungarians and Finns—as defined by the Nazis—was complicated due to the nuances between "tribal alien" and "blood alien"; and this article isn't the right place to write about such distinction anyway. But classifying "Hungarians" as Aryan altogether is incorrect too. Nevertheless, I don't object to your removal of the bullet points. I will re-write it, covering the nuances, in the appropriate article. I was initially objecting to you bracketing Indo-European with Aryan race, which indeed is erroneous. Iranians, Turks, Kurds, and Afghans (including Germans, Greek, Slavs, Celt, Indians, and Armenian) were initially considered "Aryan" per Albert Gorter's definition to reconcile "Aryan paragraph" in Civil Service Law, although it excluded Mongolian, Finns, Hungarians, Jews, Arabs, and Hamites. But Gorter's definition of Aryans which included Iranians, Afghans, or Kurds was overturned by the later scientific racism based approach by Expert Advisor for Population and Racial Policy which exclusively attested "Aryan" identity to a Volk (which excluded Iranians, etc.). But in the later years of the Nazi regime, people belonging to the "non-Aryan types" (this included white Russians, Poles, Ukrainians) but possessed the supposed "Aryan traits" (which according to Nazis: blond hair and blue eyes) were recruited as Ostarbeiter#Nannies. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 23:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article Aryan is specifically about the Indo-Iranians but the idea of Aryans being a race was used as a way to lump all Indo-Europeans together and that was what the Nazis and other racists used it in that way. That’s why it caused a problem because Finns and Hungarians do not speak Indo-European languages but they are Europeans.
Albert Gorter’s definition of “Aryan” when used for the Civil Service Law in 1933 included Finns and Hungarians as Aryans, he wrote: “The Finns and the Hungarians belong to the Mongoloid race; but it is hardly the intention of the law to treat them as non-Aryans. Thus . . . the non-Jewish members of the European Volk are Aryans...”
Eric Ehrenreich wrote about that definition, “This definition of Aryan was clearly unacceptable. Not only did it include large numbers of non-European peoples such as Kurds and Afghans, but it also made the racial laws seem to be based on political expedience rather than science. Gercke replied that he would use the definition of Aryan established by the Expert Advisor for Population and Racial Policy (Sachverstandigenbeirats fur Bevolkerungs- und Rassenpolitik)-. “An Aryan is one who is tribally related (stammverivandte) to German blood. An Aryan is the descendant of a Volk domiciled in Europe in a closed tribal settlement (Volkstumssiedlung) since recorded history.” This definition managed to include Finns and Hungarians, and exclude Kurds and Afghans. Why this definition was more scientifically accurate, however, Gercke did not say.”
Also, during the 1930s there were discussions about the racial status of Hungarians. Author Eric Ehrenreich in his book “The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution” wrote:
“In October 1934, while evaluating the naturalization of a Hungarian citizen, the Interior Ministry informed the Saxon State Chancellery in Dresden that not all Hungarians were “non-Aryans.” According to the Interior Ministry, Hungarians are “tribally alien” (ifremdstammig ) but not necessarily “blood alien” (fremdbliitig )—two additional terms adding to the definitional confusion. On the other hand, a 1934 brochure from the series Family, Race, Volk in the National Socialist State simply stated that the Magyars (which it did not define) were Aryans. Four years later, a major commentary to the Nuremberg Laws likewise baldly stated that “the overwhelming majority” of present day Finns and Hungarians were of Aryan blood. Yet the following year an article in the Journal for Racial Science, on the “Racial Diagnosis of the Hungarians,” noted that “opinions on the racial condition of the Hungarians are still very divided.”
Since we’re discussing Hungarians and Finns here and not Slavs (Poles, Russians, etc) I don’t want to go on too much about that point, but non-Jewish Poles during the war were still classified as “Aryans” (although they were by then classified as subhumans and racially inferior to the Germans) because they were allowed to carry “Aryan papers” and many non-Jewish Poles gave them to Jews to help them avoid persecution. You've confused 'Aryan' with 'Nordic' - the Nazis wanted to Germanise as many Nordic people in Eastern Europe who were said to have been descendants of the ancient Germanic tribes that settled there centuries ago.FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've confused 'Aryan' with 'Nordic' - No, I did not. Nazis considered the Nordic race to be the "purest" of the Aryans, who conquered "unfit" races around the world (including being founders of the major ancient civilizations of ancient Greece, Rome, India, and Iran) but "diluted" over time due to racial mixture with those "unfit inferior races". Read Nordicism. This was supported by now-discredited North European hypothesis in which they situated Proto-Indo-European homeland in northern Europe to "scientifically [meaning scientific racism] and archaeologically" support the Nordic racial supremacy. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 14:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" You've confused 'Aryan' with 'Nordic' " Nordics were seen to be the purest of Aryans, only behind Germans which was justified via the NSDAP Racial Offices; however, pure Nordics(which did not exist according to the NSDAP Racial Offices) were the purest of Aryans. Kecesi (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1935 Wilhelm Stuckart gave the definition of being of “related blood” to the German people as the following:
“So, when we speak of related blood, we mean the blood of those races that are determinative for the blood of the peoples who since time immemorial have a closed settlement area in Europe. Therefore, the members of the European peoples as well as their pure descendants in other parts of the world are essentially of related blood. However, one has to exclude the foreign-blooded, who can be found among every European people, such as the Jews and the human beings with a Negroid blood-impact.”
(Wilhelm Stuckart, 'Die völkische Grundordnung des deutschen Volkes', Deutsches Recht, vol. 5, no. 23/24, 15 December 1935, pp. 558-559.)
Also, in 1942 the Nazis who were leading the Deutschen Volkstuum decided to clarify even further about the non-Germanic peoples living in Europe:
“Blut aller Völker, die geschlossen in Europa siedeln, als artverwandt bezeichnet. Damit sind z.B. auch die Polen, Russen, Madjaren oder Portugiesen ebenso dem deutschen Blut artverwandt wie die germanischen Völker.”
That basically states that Europeans who weren’t Germanic peoples were still considered to be related to the Germanic peoples.
(Rainer Mackensen, “Ursprünge, Arten und Folgen des Konstrukts "Bevölkerung" vor, im und nach dem "Dritten Reich": Zur Geschichte der deutschen Bevölkerungswissenschaft”, page 352) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyFerret9854 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remember that after 1935 the term 'Aryan' was rarely used in legal documents because by then the Nazis had actually listened to the prominent racial anthropologists in the Third Reich who argued (correctly) that the term 'Aryan' could not be used as a racial term and only as a linguistic term. However, and this is where you seem to be confusing what the term really means and how people who argued it was a race defined the term, they used the term 'Aryan race' to refer to people who spoke any Indo-European language. That's why they ran into problems into classifying Europeans who did not speak Indo-European languages but rather Uralic languages i.e. Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian. Thus, they changed their terminology and replaced 'Aryan' with 'German or related blood' and officially the term 'racially related' referred to any of the peoples of Europe (see above).

Author Christopher Hutton in his book Race and the Third Reich on pages 90-92 wrote about this problem:

In the early years of Nazi rule, there was a collision between this populist-political term and the basic tenets of racial anthropology. From the point of view of the National Socialist regime, there were a number of fundamental problems with the term 'Aryan'. Firstly, if used in a positive sense ('of Aryan descent'), it failed to distinguish between Germans from non-Germans, since the concept 'Aryan' was much wider than 'German'. Used in the negative, the term also caused problems in relations to the status of foreign nationals resident in Germany. Though it was primarily targeted at Jews, it actually failed to pick them out in any precise or legally defined way, even if everyone knew what 'non-Aryan' intended to mean. There was the question of long-standing European populations such as the Finns and the Hungarians who did not speak an Indo-European or Aryan language. Furthermore, it had been long argued by scholars that the term 'Aryan' referred to a language family and connoted a linguistic not a racial identity. In short, the term 'Aryan' was unable to make the required racial distinctions, though one suggestion was to reject use of 'non-Aryan' for Jewish but retain 'Aryan' for peoples which consisted of predominantly Nordic racial elements.

The term 'Aryan race' (arische Rasse) was not favoured in official documents in Nazi Germany, and instances of this phrase are extremely rare, though it is used in reporting the views of earlier race theorists. Laws passed in the early years of the Nazi regime used the notion of 'Aryan descent', but exclusively in its negative form, so that those 'of non-Aryan descent' were excluded from different aspects of public life. In the Law for the Restoration of the Civil Service (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums, 7 April 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt I s. 175), civil servants who were 'of non-Aryan descent' ('Beamte, die nicht arischer Abstammung sind') were to be compulsorily retired (with exceptions made for those who were appointed before 1 August 1914, or who had served at the front in the First World War, or whose father or son had been killed in the war). Non-Aryan descent was defined so as to include those with one (or more) Jewish grandparent(s). The Minister of the Interior also had discretionary powers to make recommendations in other cases (ss. 3.1, 3.2). Similarly, the Defence Law (Wehrgesetz, 21 May 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt 1935 I, s. 609) made Aryan descent a prerequisite for active miliary service, and for the taking of positions of authority (ss. 15.1, 15.3) But the racial use of the term 'Aryan' was politically and legally problematic.

In late 1935, a terminological shift took place in the language of the law, and the term' Aryan' ceased to be used. The Citizenship Law (Reichsbürgergesetz. 15 September 1935, ReichsgesetzblattI 1935 1 s. 1146) restricted citizenship to those of 'German or cognate blood' ('deutschen or artverwandten Blutes', s. 2.1), and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour (Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre, 15 September 15 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I. S. 1146) forbade marriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and those 'of German or cognate blood' (ss. 1.1, 1.2). These laws did not speak of a 'Jewish race', but of Jews defined 'according to race' ('der Rasse nach'), as opposed to converts to Judaism ('Erste Verordnung zum Reichsbürgergesetz, 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I s. 1333). This law also evoked the concept of 'the purity of blood' ('die Reinheit des Blutes', ss. 6.1, 6.2). The phrase 'of German or cognate blood' was used in the later Civil Service Law ('Beamtengesetz, 26 January 1937, Reichsgesetzblatt I s. 41 ss. 25.1, 72.1).

The official solution was to replace the problematic term 'Aryan' with the notion of 'German blood ties'. Setting out the argument for a Sippenamt (Genealogical Office), Achim Gercke (1934) argued that such an office would 'water over the purity of the blood' (Blutsreinheit) of the Volk. Its task would be to awaken the 'racial will of the people', and those who worked in the office should represent the best 'German blood' (deutsches Blut). Dr Ernst Brandis, a senior legal bureaucrat, in his commentary on the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour and the Law for the Protection of the Hereditary Health of the German people Gesetz zum Schutze der Erbgesundheit des deutschen Volkes or Ehegesundheitsgesetz, 18 October 1935), defined 'German blood' in the following terms:

"The German people is no unitary race, rather it is composed of members of different races (of the Nordic, Phalian, Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, East-Elbian race) and mixtures between these. The blood of all these races and their mixtures, which thus is found in the German people, represents 'German blood'."

Critics of National Socialist ideology, both then and now, have failed to grasp the narrative. They have been misled by use of the term 'Aryan' in the early laws and in many public contexts in the Third Reich'. The term 'Aryanization' (Arisierung) was used for the state-authorized seizure of Jewish property, and the popular terms for the genealogical certificate required to prove an individual's racial identity (the Abstammungsnachweis) were Ariernachweis or Arierpass. It has been assumed that this terminology reflected the ideologically distorted views of scholars and academics about the relationship of language to race.

Günther consistently rejected the racial use of the term 'Aryan', fearing that it would lead to the misleading classification of non-Nordic racial elements. Günther argued against its use in any scholarly context, including linguistics, ethnography and racial anthropology. The juxtaposition of 'Aryan' with 'Semitic' confused linguistic with racial identity. The use of 'Aryan' in linguistics instead of Indogermanic was also ill-advised, as the term would be again used to designate anthropological race in a confusing way.

But, let's just make two things very clear: the four sources used in the article make no mention of Finns or Hungarians being described as 'honorary Aryans', for crying out loud three of the sources are about Turks and Greeks! And, this article isn't about groups that the Nazis found problematic or weren't entirely sure how to classify in a racial sense. those problems are mentioned on the articles that are relevant about those sorts of things e.g. Aryanism, Nazi racial theories, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, etc.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLinuz: It’s been a couple of days since you last posted on here. Do you want to remove the bullet points or do you want me to do it? Let’s reach a consensus before editing the article anymore. The problems of racially defining Finns and Hungarians are already mentioned on other articles. Also, Greeks weren’t considered “honorary Aryans” so a few bullet points need removing from this article and if you want you could move the information about Greeks to the Nazi racial theories that is more appropriate for that information. What do you say?--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 17:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turks and Iranians - Part 2

All kinds of WP:TALKNO violations in one short comment. Please stick to content. Generalrelative (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@WikiLinuz: The only person being disruptive is you. I don't need to answer to you. I have checked the sources. I'm not sure why you're reverted back and including unsourced text. Why is that? The sources show that the Nazis considered those groups to be Aryans NOT honorary Aryans.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Honorary_Aryan&oldid=1207635623"