Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

If Hitler had defeated Britain

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:36:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

* Gets this crumples it and throws it in the useless discussion bin*

p.s. rawr
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:47:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

There is no problem at all. Just assume all these things have happened.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.

Why?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 1:48:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:47:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

There is no problem at all. Just assume all these things have happened.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.

Why?

Aryans are white, though many North Indians and Persians are suprisingly pale I am not sure he would regarded them as true Aryans. However like anything he was very inconsistent. He may have still allied with them and raised SS battalions from their ranks. Plus Hitler loved Islam.

So yea he may very well have tried to set up some sort of pale-indian-muslim-SS regime.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 4:43:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

He said a lot of things. Ask Joe Stalin about his little promise to him.

In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.

Dunno, if he hadn't attacked the USSR, and America hadn't come into the picture he could have reevaluated things a bit. Keep in mind the French weren't as much of a "resistance" as we're led to think, in fact there were a sizable number of French who were okay with Nazism and would help out, and i mean a lot of French. Were he to capture England the Americans wouldn't have anyplace to mount a European rescue. I would imagine he would treat India like he treated Africa; and eventually his plans for racial extermination would come to bare, but not right away. He had some good relations with some notable Muslim leaders in the Mideast, so he wasn't as obviously vehement against some races as he was others.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 4:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.

Whew! Didn't see the just kidding bit for a second...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 6:25:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 4:44:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.

Whew! Didn't see the just kidding bit for a second...

We did almost singlehandedly bring Japan to its knees and we did save the butts of the UK, though it wasn't anything big since Hitler was doomed the moment he invaded the USSR, the country of the army that destroyed the vast majority of Nazi forces.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 7:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.

lol
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 2:16:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 4:43:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

He said a lot of things. Ask Joe Stalin about his little promise to him.

The division of poland shows perfectly the deficiency of those two men, they were never educated in any way, never meant for leadership, they showed the geopolitical skills of an 11 year old wargamer.

But yea point taken.


In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.

Dunno, if he hadn't attacked the USSR, and America hadn't come into the picture he could have reevaluated things a bit.

There is weak evidence that the USSR was preparing for an invasion of Europe on the eve of the actual Nazi invasion. In any case Stalin would have invaded Europe sooner or later if he had any sense whatsover.

Keep in mind the French weren't as much of a "resistance" as we're led to think,

They fought for five weeks, oh sure they were in the war for longer, but in terms of actual genuine proper fighting between France and Germany they lasted about five weeks. And if they invaded Germany during Hitlers invasion of poland then that would have been the war over. Idiots.

in fact there were a sizable number of French who were okay with Nazism and would help out, and i mean a lot of French. Were he to capture England the Americans wouldn't have anyplace to mount a European rescue. I would imagine he would treat India like he treated Africa; and eventually his plans for racial extermination would come to bare, but not right away. He had some good relations with some notable Muslim leaders in the Mideast, so he wasn't as obviously vehement against some races as he was others.

It still is pretty far fetched, Germany and France did not have sufficient transports.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 3:06:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 2:16:41 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 4:43:29 PM, innomen wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:42:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

This is a prettg big if, Hitler did not have the troop transports to land sufficient forces on Britain. Apparently this was true even if he prepared earlier and fully merged the french fleet with his own. It seems that his best hope was to bomb us into coming to terms, under which he would we would have retained sovereignty.

Hitler expressly stated that he had no designs on the British Empire, he considered such an Empire absurd.

He said a lot of things. Ask Joe Stalin about his little promise to him.

The division of poland shows perfectly the deficiency of those two men, they were never educated in any way, never meant for leadership, they showed the geopolitical skills of an 11 year old wargamer.

But yea point taken.


In the event that he conquered Britain would he have had the manpower to do much with India? If your occupation zone stretches from London to Moscow (if he has not defeated Russia then your scenario is a moot point) then how many forces have you got to spare?

Plus what about America? Assuming Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurs Hitler is not the one calling the shots.

The problem with Nazi victory scenarios is you have to pretty much rewrite quite a lot of things to give them any credibility.

Lastly, Hitler would not have recognised north India as Arayan, more like formerly Arayan. But he probably would have supported minority Muslim rule by proxy.

Dunno, if he hadn't attacked the USSR, and America hadn't come into the picture he could have reevaluated things a bit.

There is weak evidence that the USSR was preparing for an invasion of Europe on the eve of the actual Nazi invasion. In any case Stalin would have invaded Europe sooner or later if he had any sense whatsover.

Keep in mind the French weren't as much of a "resistance" as we're led to think,

They fought for five weeks, oh sure they were in the war for longer, but in terms of actual genuine proper fighting between France and Germany they lasted about five weeks. And if they invaded Germany during Hitlers invasion of poland then that would have been the war over. Idiots.

Great book called Strage Defeat about the French in WWII. There were massive numbers of French who held tacit consent for Hitler's aims, and yeah, they were inept militarily, especially when you consider the Maginot line. In reality it was Britain against Hitler's conquered Europe. In so many ways WWII was a creation of WWI, and in so many ways the French were really cause and effect.

in fact there were a sizable number of French who were okay with Nazism and would help out, and i mean a lot of French. Were he to capture England the Americans wouldn't have anyplace to mount a European rescue. I would imagine he would treat India like he treated Africa; and eventually his plans for racial extermination would come to bare, but not right away. He had some good relations with some notable Muslim leaders in the Mideast, so he wasn't as obviously vehement against some races as he was others.

It still is pretty far fetched, Germany and France did not have sufficient transports.
It is, Hitler would have just pummeled Britain then install a pupet gov't. Brits are not French though, and i don't see any Brit then sitting by while a Nazi takes control of their country. As irritating as the British pride and arrogance can be from time to time, it has served the country in positioning itself as a formidable force that is committed to it's autonomy and integrity both individually and nationally (although i see a gradual degradation of that now). So, sustaining an occupied Britain is hard to imagine.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 3:40:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.

When I first read that I thought you said "shaved your butts".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 6:01:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hitler never had any intention to go to war with Britain. Hitler's idea was that Britain could keep her empire and he would control Europe.

If Britain hadn't declared war on Germany when the Nazis invaded Poland, Hitler could have concentrated all his forces on the eastern front and may well have defeated Russia.

One interesting outcome of this would be that the state of Israel would not have been created and Islamic terrorists could not use the plight of the Palestinians as an excuse to attack Britain for creating the state and America for supporting it politically, financially and militarily thereafter.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 12:34:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 1:48:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Aryans are white, though many North Indians and Persians are suprisingly pale I am not sure he would regarded them as true Aryans. However like anything he was very inconsistent. He may have still allied with them and raised SS battalions from their ranks. Plus Hitler loved Islam.

So yea he may very well have tried to set up some sort of pale-indian-muslim-SS regime.

Actually, Hitler was wrong. Aryans are not white Europeans, but Iranians. So really in reality Hitler would have had to favour Iranians.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 12:50:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 12:34:15 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/22/2011 1:48:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Aryans are white, though many North Indians and Persians are suprisingly pale I am not sure he would regarded them as true Aryans. However like anything he was very inconsistent. He may have still allied with them and raised SS battalions from their ranks. Plus Hitler loved Islam.

So yea he may very well have tried to set up some sort of pale-indian-muslim-SS regime.

Actually, Hitler was wrong. Aryans are not white Europeans, but Iranians. So really in reality Hitler would have had to favour Iranians.

Aryans as 'white europeans' was a fundamental premise of his believe system. The Nazis were not sure if the Arayans hailed from 'thule' or were indo-european. In the latter he would have favoured pale skinned Iranians and pale skinned northern Indians over darker skins.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 10:50:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually, Hitler was wrong. Aryans are not white Europeans, but Iranians. So really in reality Hitler would have had to favour Iranians.:

True Aryans are modern-day Iranians. Hitler and his group of Brown-shirts had a fundamental misunderstanding of what an Aryan is and where it originated.

But try explaining that to people like Mengele who's far too imbued with racial identity.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:57:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 2:23:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
The U.S saved your butts. Thats what my history book told me....Just kidding.

lol
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 1:41:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 12:34:25 PM, Indophile wrote:
Then Britain's colonies would have come under the Reich.

My question is, what would Hitler have do regarding India? Most of North India is Aryan.

Hitler would have exterminated anyone he did not consider "Aryan"

As an adaptation of Latin Arianus referring to Ariana, 'Arian' has "long been in English language use". Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya to refer to speakers of North Indian languages. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 19th century, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.

Then, in the 1830s, partly based on the theory (now regarded as erroneous) that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages (such as the idea that "Éire" derived from "Aryan"), the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the original speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be called the "Aryan race", as contradistinguished from what came to be called the "Semitic race". By the late 19th century, among some people, the notions of an "Aryan race" became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). This "master race" ideal engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews. By the end of World War II, the word 'Aryan' had become associated by many with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 2:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 1:41:06 PM, DanT wrote:

Hitler would have exterminated anyone he did not consider "Aryan"

As an adaptation of Latin Arianus referring to Ariana, 'Arian' has "long been in English language use". Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya to refer to speakers of North Indian languages. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 19th century, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.

Then, in the 1830s, partly based on the theory (now regarded as erroneous) that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages (such as the idea that "Éire" derived from "Aryan"), the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the original speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be called the "Aryan race", as contradistinguished from what came to be called the "Semitic race". By the late 19th century, among some people, the notions of an "Aryan race" became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). This "master race" ideal engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews. By the end of World War II, the word 'Aryan' had become associated by many with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

Mmmm, yummy copypasta bro.

I think the analysis is pretty spot on here, and I like Wikipedia too, but I'd recomend putting things into your own words, or at least citing your sources if you're gonna quote someone else.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 4:43:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 2:07:32 PM, feverish wrote:
At 9/26/2011 1:41:06 PM, DanT wrote:

Hitler would have exterminated anyone he did not consider "Aryan"

As an adaptation of Latin Arianus referring to Ariana, 'Arian' has "long been in English language use". Its history as a loan word began in the late 18th century, when the word was borrowed from Sanskrit ārya to refer to speakers of North Indian languages. When it was determined that Iranian languages — both living and ancient — used a similar term in much the same way (but in the Iranian context as a self-identifier of Iranian peoples), it became apparent that the shared meaning had to derive from the ancestor language of the shared past, and so, by the early 19th century, the word 'Aryan' came to refer to the group of languages deriving from that ancestor language, and by extension, the speakers of those languages.

Then, in the 1830s, partly based on the theory (now regarded as erroneous) that words like "Aryan" could also be found in European languages (such as the idea that "Éire" derived from "Aryan"), the term "Aryan" came to be used as the term for the Indo-European language group, and by extension, the original speakers of those languages. In the 19th century, "language" was considered a property of "ethnicity", and thus the speakers of the Indo-European languages came to be called the "Aryan race", as contradistinguished from what came to be called the "Semitic race". By the late 19th century, among some people, the notions of an "Aryan race" became closely linked to Nordicism, which posited Northern European racial superiority over all other peoples (including Indians and Iranians). This "master race" ideal engendered both the "Aryanization" programs of Nazi Germany, in which the classification of people as "Aryan" and "non-Aryan" was most emphatically directed towards the exclusion of Jews. By the end of World War II, the word 'Aryan' had become associated by many with the racial theories and atrocities committed by the Nazi regime.

Mmmm, yummy copypasta bro.

I think the analysis is pretty spot on here, and I like Wikipedia too, but I'd recomend putting things into your own words, or at least citing your sources if you're gonna quote someone else.

wound have but I was in a time crunch when I posted it. I normally dissect Wiki before quoting it because of discrepancies, but that is pretty spot on for how the word, "Aryan" came about.

Long story short Europeans mixed the Latin "Arianus", with the Hindi word "Arya" to create Aryan, than everything else that sounds like Aryan they grouped in as a variation of Aryan. Than they made distinction between "Aryan" and other races such as "Semites" (I'm a Semite), than they turned Aryan into a form of "Master race" and white power fanatics such as Hitler decided to exterminate anyone who he deemed was "genetically inferior".

As a side note; Hitler made laws regarding sex, and Aryans could only breed with Aryans. The usual result was retarded babies, or infants with some kind of deformity.

It is also important to Note: Many Germans was highly intelligent, and both the Russian and American Space Program was headed German Scientists who was ex-Nazi. But on the other hand Semites was also highly intelligent including Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and Ernst Boris Chain.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle