Young white coypu video


This 20 June 2017 shows a coypu with its white youngster.

We cannot be sure whether the colour of the young animal is albinism or leucism.

Marianne Leenders made this video in Germany, close to the Dutch border.

Coypus are originally South American rodents, but they are feral in many European countries.

New German barracks still named after Hitler’s old marshal Rommel


This Voice of America video says about itself:

Evidence of Pro-Nazi Extremists in German Military Deepens

19 May 2017

Evidence of far-right extremism within the German armed forces is growing following the arrest Friday of four students at a military university in Munich. Police are trying to establish whether they have links to another soldier accused of plotting to frame refugees in a terror attack. As Henry Ridgwell reports, the allegations remain sensitive in a country where the 20th century Nazi history casts a long shadow.

By Johannes Stern in Germany:

German defence minister praises Rommel, Hitler’s “favourite general”

20 June 2017

Last Saturday, speaking at the Field Marshal Rommel Barracks, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced that the Army would keep the name of the barracks. “The Rommel Barracks has been so named consciously on an anniversary of the resistance. And that shows that Rommel also had his role in the resistance,” she told media representatives. It had therefore been decided not to rename the barracks.

Von der Leyen’s announcement on the so-called Day of the German Armed Forces shows the true mindset that prevails at the top of the Defence Ministry. Following the uncovering of a neo-Nazi terrorist cell in the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) at the beginning of May, von der Leyen had been compelled to make some critical remarks about the all-too-obvious continuity of military traditions from Hitler’s Wehrmacht to today’s Bundeswehr. She was enthusiastically praised for this, especially by the Left Party.

From the beginning, the announcement by the minister of defence to rename some barracks and to remove Wehrmacht memorabilia was hypocrisy. It was a nod towards the anti-militarist sentiment in the population and merely served to downplay the extent of the right-wing conspiracy in the army. Now, von der Leyen has decided it is time to go on the offensive. Of all of Germany’s war-time generals, she has chosen to line up behind the one who was carefully built up in the Third Reich through Goebbels’s propaganda ministry to become Hitler’s most famous “war hero”.

Von der Leyen’s claim that Rommel was part of the resistance to Hitler is absurd. Before Rommel clashed with Hitler over military matters at the end of the war, and was driven to commit suicide, he was considered Hitler’s “favourite general”. In October 1942, after a conversation with the Nazi leader, Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Rommel has made a very deep impression on him [Hitler]. … He has a firm world-view, is not only close to us national socialists [Nazis] but is a national socialist.”

Among other things during his career, Rommel was commander of the Führer Headquarters, and played a central role in the Nazi war machine in five campaigns—Poland, France, Africa, Italy and the Atlantic Wall. To the very end, the Nazis clung to the “Rommel myth” they had themselves created. On October 18, 1944, Hitler’s personal daily order for the state burial of the general in Ulm read: “In the present struggle for the fate of the German people, his name is the byword for outstanding bravery and fearless bravado.”

What Hitler meant by this can be seen in Rommel’s own orders. As commander of the brutal German occupation of Italy, against all the provisions of the Geneva Convention, he compelled more than a million disarmed Italian soldiers to work as “military internees” for the German war economy. Rommel’s order of October 1, 1943, regarding this read: “This war is a total war. If the men of Italy no longer have the opportunity to fight for the freedom and honour of their fatherland, they have the duty to use their full labour power in this struggle.”

Just a week before, on September 23, 1943, he had issued the instruction: “Any sentimental inhibitions on the part of German soldiers towards gangs loyal to [former Italian general] Badoglio in the uniform of former comrades-in-arms are completely inappropriate. Any of these who fight against German soldiers has lost any right to protection, and is to be treated with the harshness which belongs to scum that suddenly turns his weapons against his friend. This view must be made common knowledge among all German troops.”

Von der Leyen’s partisan defence of Rommel confirms the warnings of the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) and the World Socialist Web Site. The return of German militarism and the systematic transformation of the Bundeswehr into a military task force, or rather a war force, defending the interests of German imperialism around the world requires the revival of the old Nazi traditions and their criminal methods.

In the meantime, this can be clearly seen in the official foreign policy publications of the German government. For example, a contribution in the anthology Germany’s new responsibility, presented by the minister of defence at this year’s Munich Security Conference, complains that in Germany, the “neurotic effort to remain morally clean” runs through almost all domestic and foreign policy debates.

In this it was clear: “Whoever goes to war, must, as a rule, take responsibility for the deaths of people. Including the deaths of uninvolved and innocent people.” Especially, in “times of new strategic uncertainty,” the role of the military should be “particularly emphasised [again], not only because society demands such hard tasks, but because it ultimately remains the most critical, and therefore also the most demanding, the crowning discipline of foreign policy.”

The concluding prognosis by Jan Techau, the author of these lines, whose current book bears the notable title Leadership Power Germany, would also have met with enthusiastic support among the generals of the Wehrmacht: In the coming years, Germany “will have to do much more politically and militarily” and will “be confronted with foreign and security policy issues”, of which “the country does not even dare to dream today. Maybe not even in its nightmares.”

Von der Leyen’s revival of the Rommel myth goes hand in hand with the preparation of new “nightmares”. “Warm words are not enough,” she declared at the Rommel Barracks. In view of growing international challenges, soldiers “will need more and more sustainable funding and support from society in the coming years.” She boasted that after 25 years of cuts, the Army would finally be able to grow and recruit more staff. New materiel would also be procured for foreign assignments.

Speaking to the press, von der Leyen then gave free rein to her dreams of new German war and colonial policies. She expected the Bundeswehr to be in Afghanistan for many years to come. “Even in Kosovo, the Bundeswehr has been stationed there for almost 20 years. In Afghanistan, we probably have to think in even longer periods, “she said. “We should not keep asking when can we withdraw, because it motivates the terrorists and unsettles the people who want to stay at home.” To stabilise Afghanistan needs “patience and a long breath”.

The German ruling class is forging its war plans against increasing resistance in the population. On Thursday, an INSA survey for the Bild newspaper revealed that 55 percent of Germans are for the complete withdrawal of the Bundeswehr from Afghanistan. Only one in five respondents supported German soldiers remaining in the country.

German Hitler-whitewashing professor Baberowski condemned


This video, about crimes of the nazi occupation of then Poland, now Ukraine says about itself:

Rape of Jewish women and slaughter of over 6,000 Jews. Lviv 1941

16 May 2016

Description at beginning of film.

This city is known by three names. Lviv (Ukrainian); pronounced as L’vil.

Lwow (Polish) pronounced L’vuf. L’vof Russian. Also called Lemburg by the Germans.

The pogrom against the Jews there may be associated by either of these names so it can be confusing.

Actions like this also happened in Kaunas, Lithuania, mostly perpetrated by [pro-nazi] Lithuanians.

One of the first films showing Jews forced to run to trenches to be shot was filmed by an off duty German sailor here in 1941. This film is intended for education only and is of significant value to all those seeking an unbiased view into the dark primeval soul of humanity. … No generation of any people of today should be associated with what happened back then.

Music: Krzysztof Penderecki. “The Dream of Jacob”.

By Peter Schwarz in Germany:

German law professor accuses Baberowski of right-wing extremism and historical revisionism

15 June 2017

Two weeks have now passed since Professor Jörg Baberowski withdrew his lawsuit against the general student committee (ASTA) of Bremen University.

The head of the Department of Eastern European History at Humboldt University (HU) wanted to ban the Bremen students from criticising his statements and describing him as a right-wing extremist and racist. In this, he has completely failed. His lawyer was forced to withdraw his legal complaint on June 1 so as to avoid a written judgement that would have been devastating to Baberowski’s reputation. The Cologne District Court of Appeals (OLG) made unmistakably clear during the oral arguments that it would rule in favour of the ASTA.

Despite Baberowski’s defeat, a statement defending him by the HU Presidium dated March 30, 2017 is still posted in the press section of the university’s web site. In it, the Presidium claims that his scholarly statements are “not right-wing extremist” and criticism of them is “unacceptable.” It threatens Baberowski’s critics with criminal prosecution.

The statement refers to a March 15, 2017 ruling by the Cologne District Court that was explicitly rejected by the OLG and is no longer valid following the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The OLG judges specifically contradicted the allegation that statements by Baberowski had been torn out of context and cited “falsely and in a manner that distorted their meaning,” as the statement of the Humboldt University Presidium claims.

Despite this, the Presidium has not retracted its statement. Neither have any of the 23 professors who signed it withdrawn their signatures. One can conclude only that this is a conscious decision to defend or at least cover up right-wing extremist and historical revisionist positions.

Renowned jurist Andreas Fischer-Lescano made this unmistakably clear in a full-page article published on June 10 in the Frankfurter Rundschau and now available online. The law professor heads the Center for European Law and Politics at Bremen University and is an expert on public law, European law and international law. He became well known nationwide in 2011 when he discovered plagiarism in the doctoral thesis of then-Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, which ultimately led to Guttenberg’s resignation.

Fischer-Lescano advises Baberowski’s supporters to take his defeat in Cologne “as an opportunity to distance themselves from their premature whitewashing of the scholar.” There were good reasons why the District Court of Appeals had confirmed that “after a close analysis of Baberowski’s writings and statements on daily politics,” he had to “accept the criticism of his positions as right-wing extremist.” These reasons, the court said, were “to be found in the works of Baberowski.”

In contrast to the Presidium’s statement, which describes Baberowski as having unquestionable “integrity” as a scholar, who could be referred to as a right-wing extremist, whether that was right or wrong, only “because of the right to freedom of opinion guaranteed in the Basic Law,” Fischer-Lescano notes that one cannot “make a distinction between the right-wing author of texts on daily politics” and the “excellent scholar.” With Baberowski, his “scholarly oeuvre and statements on daily politics” coalesce “into an amalgam of right-wing extremist criticism that is pervaded by historical revisionism and nationalist motives.”

Fischer-Lescano substantiates this in detail in the course of his article. He notes how Baberowski defended the Nazi apologist Ernst Nolte in Der Spiegel in February 2014 and went on to assert: “Hitler was not a psychopath. He was not vicious. He did not want people to talk about the extermination of the Jews at his table.” Baberowski has recently repeated this remark on several occasions and justified it.

It is simply historically false to state that Hitler did not want to discuss the extermination of the Jews at his table, Fischer-Lescano remarks, pointing to documented discussions at Hitler’s table in the Wolf’s Lair. But even if Hitler had remained silent at his table, it could “not be concluded from this that Hitler was ‘not vicious.’” There is “no conceivable context in which Baberowski’s statement that Hitler was not vicious would not be repulsive.” Viciousness, Fischer-Lescano continues, is “one of the legal criteria for murder. The perpetrator acts without feeling or mercy. But what was the Holocaust if not vicious mass murder?”

At another point in his article, Fischer-Lescano points out that Baberowski eliminates “anti-Semitism entirely from his explanatory model for Nazi violence.” He adds that in his study of violence, Baberowski does not use the word anti-Semitism once.

In his statements on daily politics regarding violence and refugees, Baberowski argues in “openly nationalist” terms, Fischer-Lescano writes. He cites as an example the fact that Baberowski asserts, in regard to the integration of refugees, that this endangers “the traditional continuity in which we stand and which provides social stability and consistency.” He further notes that Baberowski promotes violence in connection with people “who want to destroy us and our way of life.”

At the same time, Baberowski downplays the violence to which refugees are exposed: “Refugee deaths in the Mediterranean, xenophobic attacks in Germany, the burning of refugee accommodation centresviolence against refugees is for this researcher on violence ‘relatively harmless’ and represents an understandable response to problems with immigration,” writes Fischer-Lescano.

Fischer-Lescano also deals with the methods employed by Baberowski and his supporters to silence his critics. With the conclusion of the court proceedings, a “peculiar spectacle of self-dramatisation” has come to an end, he writes. For months, Baberowski has “spread the narrative in the literary supplements of newspapers that he was a victim of left-wing moral guardians engaged in intellectual terrorism against him.” The same tone was to be found in statements of solidarity portraying Baberowski as a renowned scholar who was being unfairly defamed.

Baberowski “attempts to define his revisionist and nationalist comments as the ‘new mainstream,’ and protests against being described as what he really is: a right-wing extremist. He has—and this is the shocking thing—managed over months to win support for his right-wing extremist statements and mobilise new allies who have unconditionally attested that he is not arguing as a right-wing extremist,” states Fischer-Lescano.

The author of the article adds that while Baberowski “discredited those who criticised his statements, while he intimidated student critics and sought to silence them in the courts, he sought to claim the right to freedom of opinion for himself.”

Fischer-Lescano accuses the Presidium of Humboldt University of “not saying a word in its March statement about this perfidious action—even though it was directed against students—and instead asserting that the professor was arguing ‘not as a right-wing extremist’ in his academic work.” This demonstrates “how shockingly normal right-wing speech at universities has become.” A university that, after Baberowski’s defeat in Cologne, insists “that its academic is not arguing as a right-wing extremist” is making itself “an accomplice of right-wing scholarship.”

This is undoubtedly correct. But one must add that over the past three years hardly any academic or journalist was disturbed by Baberowski’s right-wing extremist and historical revisionist views. The only ones to warn of his defence of Nolte and Hitler were the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party—SGP) and the International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE). For this reason, they were targeted for an hysterical campaign of slander in the media, without a single voice being raised in opposition.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zietung led the way in this campaign. On March 27, 2017, it published a tirade by Heike Schmoll titled “The creeping poison of character assassination,” which combined shameless lies with outrageous slanders and accused the IYSSE of violating “freedom of scholarship” by criticising Baberowski’s right-wing extremist statements.

Die Welt and Cicero Magazine were not far behind, and even Die Zeit displayed its support for Baberowski in a lengthy feature by Mariam Lau. Fischer-Lescano is correct to state that “right-wing speech” has “become shockingly normal,” and not only at universities.

If the IYSSE and SGP had not taken up these issues in the face of huge pressures, Baberowski would still be free to spread his right-wing ideology unhindered. The Left Party, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Greens all maintained a stony silence or defended Baberowski. Humboldt University President Sabine Kunst is an SPD politician.

While the HU administration, several other academic institutions and numerous professors backed Baberowski or remained silent, the IYSSE found strong support for its criticisms among students and workers. Many student bodies, including the student parliament at HU, passed resolutions critical of Baberowski.

The Bremen ASTA protested against Baberowski on its own initiative. But in the course of its legal proceedings against Baberowski, it was able to rely on the material produced by the IYSSE and SGP. Fischer-Lescano himself uses citations from the book published in 2015 by Mehring Verlag titled Scholarship or War Propaganda, as well as passages from articles published on the World Socialist Web Site in the course of the conflict with Baberowski.

In the final analysis, the normalisation of “right-wing speech at universities” is the result of fundamental political shifts. Three years ago, in its first statement on Baberowski’s claim that “Hitler was not vicious,” the IYSSE pointed to the connection between Baberowski’s downplaying of Hitler’s crimes and the growth of German militarism.

German President Joachim Gauck and other leading government members had just declared the “end of military restraint.” As the IYSSE wrote in 2014, “The attempts to establish a historically false narrative come at a critical point in German history. The revival of German militarism requires a new interpretation of history that downplays the crimes of the Nazi era.”

Since then, this militarisation has continued to advance. The fight against “right-wing tendencies in scholarship”—as Fischer-Lescano puts it in the title of his article—is thus only beginning. It is inseparable from the struggle against militarism and war.

The IYSSE demands that the Humboldt University Presidium publicly retract its statement supporting Baberowski and remove it from the HU web site. An open letter to this effect dated June 8 has thus far elicited no response.

The university administration is deeply discredited. It is apparently playing for time. While it fired left-wing sociologist Andrej Holm for a trivial matter and reinstated him only after protests from students, it is defending the right-wing extremist historian Jörg Baberowski at all costs. The outcome of the legal proceedings in Cologne has, however, upset its plans.

Neonazi scandal in German army update


This video from the Voice of America in the USA says about itself:

Evidence of Pro-Nazi Extremists in German Military Deepens

19 May 2017

Evidence of far-right extremism within the German armed forces is growing following the arrest Friday of four students at a military university in Munich. Police are trying to establish whether they have links to another soldier accused of plotting to frame refugees in a terror attack. As Henry Ridgwell reports, the allegations remain sensitive in a country where the 20th century Nazi history casts a long shadow.

By Christoph Vandreier in Germany:

Links established between neo-Nazi network and “Identity Movement” in the German army

23 May 2017

It is becoming increasingly clear that the far-right terrorist cell around First Lieutenant Franco A is part of a broad neo-Nazi network in the German army. This network is evidently linked to the “Identity Movement.”

Last Thursday, the media outlet NDR (Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland) reported on an aspiring officer who admitted to having telephone communications with Franco A. The officer candidate is suspected of breaking into a tank at an army training ground in Munster in February of this year and stealing two machine guns and a pistol. It has been determined that he was at the location when the incident occurred.

NDR based its report on information from the parliamentary Defence Committee, which met behind closed doors last Wednesday. The suspect is reportedly a student at the Bundeswehr University in Munich who allegedly had contact with the right-wing extremist “Identity Movement.” The stolen weapons are compatible with the arms found in the possession of Franco A’s suspected accomplice, the student Matthias F.

NDR reported that the aspiring officer exchanged Facebook messages with a second accomplice, Maximilian T, shortly before the theft in Munster. The stolen weapons have not been located.

Army officers Franco A and Maximilian T, as well as the student Matthias F, have been arrested. They are accused of preparing a serious criminal act endangering the state. They allegedly procured weapons and identified potential targets for a terror attack, including former President Joachim Gauck and Justice Minister Heiko Maas. Franco A created a second identity as a Syrian refugee in order to blame such an attack on asylum seekers.

The latest reports confirm that the suspected terrorist cell is part of much more widespread right-wing extremist networks in the army. In addition to the aspiring officer, investigations are ongoing into three other students at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. Soldiers in Bremerhaven, Torgelow (Mecklenburg-Pomerania), Bischofswiesen (Bavaria) and Munster (Lower Saxony) are also being targeted. Some of the suspects are associated with the Identity Movement.

This is a far-right group that espouses cultural racism and has some 400 members in Germany. “Their leading members come from the NPD (National Democratic Party) youth, radical student groups, and even the banned Nazi organisation Loyal Youth for the German Homeland (HDJ),” wrote Die Zeit.

No concrete proof of ties between the group and the neo-Nazi network has yet been published. But the group is reportedly extremely active at the Bundeswehr University in Munich where Maximilian T studied. Already in 2011, several media outlets reported that three writers for the new right-wing newspaper Sezession had jointly initiated the takeover of the student newspaper Campus by the Identity Movement. According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, university staff feared “that attempts were being made to saturate the newspaper of the student body with the political agenda of the new right.”

But the three students remained largely untouched and expanded their network in the course of their officer careers. In 2013, they jointly published the book Soldiery—Searching for the Bundeswehr’s Identity and Vocation Today, which was celebrated by right-wing extremist newspapers and presented by the authors at the Library of Conservatism in Berlin.

One of the three writers, Lieutenant Felix S, is now one of the leading figures in the Identity Movement. He appears in campaign videos, marches in xenophobic demonstrations and publishes on new right web sites. He makes no secret of this.

The soldiery volume was funded by the Foundation of the German Army Association. Neither the Bundeswehr University nor the military Surveillance Service (MAD) responded to requests from the Süddeutsche Zeitung for comment on the matter, pointing to an official cover-up of neo-Nazi forces.

A glance at the list of authors in the book published by the Identity Movement group in Munich demonstrates how far these right-wing networks reach. One author is Marcel Bohnert, a major in the army and a participant in the training programme for the general staff at the Leadership Academy in Hamburg. He has published two militarist books that made headlines because of their anti-democratic tendencies and historical revisionism.

In the 2014 book Army in Turmoil, 16 officers wrote about their conception of the army. These officers depict themselves as an elite that stands in contrast to a “hedonist and individualist” society that concentrates on “self-realisation, driven by consumerism, pacifism and egoism.” According to the authors, this society has no understanding of “the striving for honour through a great readiness to sacrifice” for a “patriotic ideal of the people and fatherland,” and for “courage, loyalty and honour.”

Similar theses, together with the explicit covering up of Nazi crimes, were advanced in the 2016 book The Invisible Veterans. The book states that the Nazi Blitzkrieg and the “military triumphs” associated with it resulted from the “decisiveness” of the officers involved, whereas in today’s Bundeswehr, “the leader who enjoys taking decisions is no longer desired.” Instead, “the functioning bureaucrat” is the ideal.

The book continues: “A clientele [is] being targeted for recruitment that is more focused on the blessings of public service than the concept of sacrificing to serve,” including a readiness to “lay down one’s life.” It states further: “The ‘warrior instinct’ is tossed aside. All that is left is the soul of bureaucrats.”

The book advances in opposition to this the ideal of a “spirit” of “readiness to sacrifice, courage and comradeship,” which “was to be found in the army until the retirement of those generals forged in the Second World War.”

The right-wing cliques reach well beyond the officer corps. The editor of these two volumes was given space for a guest commentary by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung just three days after Franco A’s arrest. In it, he warned that one should not demonise “military rigour.” “Giving [it] sufficient emphasis in the training of soldiers is an essential precondition for ensuring that they will be able to cope under the hardships of operational reality.”

A day after the parliamentary Defence Committee was informed of the possible ties between the terrorist cell and the Identity Movement, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published an article by Gerald Wagner explicitly defending Major Bohnert’s views. He declared that he understood the “military capacity to fight” not in the sense of technology and weaponry, but “rather as the mental superiority of an elite formed for this purpose.”

He also explicitly defended Bohnert’s two books and the militarist volume published by the right-wing clique from Munich. The officers wanted to “build bridges, without concealing the essence of a special type of soldiery,” according to Wagner. The authors considered “the capacity of military force experts to use force responsibly” as the “best means to guard against the excesses in question.” That the public was now refusing to “recognise their ability to lead” was a “particularly humiliating disappointment.”

The only problem seen by Wagner was that some of these declarations were “accompanied by the unpleasant smell of superiority.” He added, regretfully, “The damage is that it makes it much easier for society to avoid the challenge and instead regard terms like nation, honour, loyalty, obedience, valour, elite and fighting spirit as the internal enemy speaking.”

The political and media establishment in Germany is exploiting outrage at US President Trump’s arrogant behaviour to mobilise support behind an independent great power policy: here.

United States racism influenced nazi Germany


This video from the USA says about itself:

American Racism Inspired Nazi Nuremberg Laws

1 April. 2017

The first half of our interview with James Whitman, Professor at Yale Law School and author of the book “Hitler’s American Model,” who joins David to discuss American influence on Nazi Nuremberg laws, and similarities and differences between pre-World War II Germany and America today.

This video is the sequel.

From the Washington Post in the USA:

The Nazis as students of America’s worst racial atrocities

By Jeff Guo, May 19

Jeff Guo is a journalist in Washington, D.C.

When Adolf Hitler seized control of Germany in 1933, one of his priorities was to create a legal framework for his vision of an anti-Semitic state. Thus began a meticulous Nazi research project on race-based lawmaking aimed at erasing the rights of Germany’s Jews.

One foreign country in particular grabbed the Nazis’ interest because of its advanced and innovative system of legal racism.

The object of Nazi fascination? America.

“In the early twentieth century the United States was not just a country with racism,” writes Yale law professor James Whitman in his book “Hitler’s American Model.” “It was the leading racist jurisdiction — so much so that even Nazi Germany looked to America for inspiration.”

In his startling new history, Whitman traces the substantial influence of American race laws on the Third Reich. The book, in effect, is a portrait of the United States assembled from the admiring notes of Nazi lawmakers, who routinely referenced American policies in the design of their own racist regime.

As they drafted their own laws to exclude German Jews from public and civic life, Nazi lawyers carefully studied how the United States suppressed nonwhite immigrants and consigned minorities to second-class citizenship. In private hearings, they discussed how the U.S. model for white supremacy in the Jim Crow South could be transposed to Germany and inflicted on the Jews.

The Nazis were keenly influenced by America’s laws forbidding interracial marriage. Dozens of states not only banned black-white unions but subjected violators to lengthy jail sentences. The harsh criminalization of mixed-race marriages in America set an example for the Nazis as they created their Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, which forbade German Jews from marrying non-Jews, invalidated existing mixed marriages and sent offenders to prison labor camps.

Whitman’s book contributes to a growing recognition of American influences on Nazi thought. Other historians have shown, for instance, that the vigorous U.S. eugenics movement emboldened the Nazis, who copied America’s forced-sterilization programs and took cover in the pseudoscientific theories of American eugenicists.

Biographer John Toland has noted that Hitler admired the American conquest of the West, particularly the decimation of the Native American population. The Nazi concentration camps may have been based, in part, Toland argued, on the Native American reservation system.

The Nazi atrocities held a dark mirror to some of America’s most shameful impulses. On some level, Americans understood this. After World War II, eugenics fell out of favor, and the United States gradually rolled back some of its racist laws. Jim Crow was dismantled, at least on paper, by the efforts of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. And the last anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967. This was slow progress, but it probably would have been slower if the Nazi regime hadn’t horrified the world with its racial intolerance.

Two United States racists who influenced nazism were car factory boss Henry Ford, with his propaganda for the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and pseudo-scientist Lothrop Stoddard, who coined the word ‘subhuman’ (Untermensch in nazi Germany).