Shoutout to King Mohammed V of Morocco, despite being a subject of Vichy France, he refused to extradite any Jews or enforce any antisemitic laws, declaring all Moroccans as under his protection
Wtf a signifiant majority of french and british colonial subjects fought against the nazis. What's this kind of historical revisionism ? Anybody can litteraly compare the numbers of muslim troops on both sides (or the number of western troops on the axis), the numbers of medails gained by the muslim troops, etc.
To be honest, Muslims were a significant group of sympathisers for the Axis in general. As much as the Nazis enjoyed their backing, the Japanese also received significant backing by them, in particular during the early days of the WW2 in today's Xinjiang (among Uyghurs, Uzbeks and Kazakhs), Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mindanao (today's Philippines), Indochina and Thailand, Central Asia and South Asia.
@@kraijom319 The Japanese did even attempt to create a pro-Japanese Islamic state in Central Asia. Long even before Hitler sought to materialise alliance with the Muslims, the Japanese nearly achieved this task. That's why during WW2, the Soviets and Chinese had to carefully patrol the region due to the pro-Japanese attitude among these Central Asian Turkomens.
Ataturk did not ally with Mussolini as Mussolini was seeking Turkey as a part of his Mare Nostrum. Ataturk even showed up to Italian diplomats while being dressed with Marshall uniform, militarily denouncing Italy.
That because he and the ottoman turk fought italy invasion of libya and continue helping the local resistance even after the war was lost and italy occupational.
@@johnnyfives5416well yes, and + because itally straight up claiming territory from Turkey 💀 it wasnt just a "old rivalship". İtally was straight up threatening Turkey
Video lacks so many details, like the pogroms in Istanbul and how they were dismantled by ataturk and their leaders executed allowing the 15k Jews to come back to Istanbul to their property
Just 9 minutes into, but it makes me happy to hear you quoting "Atatürk in the Nazi imagination" by Stefan Ihrig. It's really an underrated work with not enough attention
To be honest, as a Turkish person myself, I am fascinated to study about supports from the Muslim world to Japan and Germany here. The support for Germany prior and during WW2 is well-known as you explained (German officials wooing Muslims of Palestine, the Balkans and Iraq), but the support for Japan is somewhat overlooked. In fact, during Japan's rapid conquest of Southeast Asia, the Muslims in modern-day Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Indochina hailed the Japanese conquest; whereas Indian and Sri Lankan Muslims rebelled against Britain; whereas Central Asian Muslims (in both Soviet and Chinese parts) were excited with the prospect of an Islamic-Japanese alliance to fight Russia and China. Japan's puppet armies in Asia included a lot of Muslim groups, such as Azad Hind (for India), Thai Muslim corps and the Islamic battalions of Dutch East Indies. At least before the war turned tie in favour of the Allies. I feel the German and Japanese impacts have never truly faded to even today, and still very vivid.
Muslims were divided in sea about the issue. Main stream nationalism hated the Japanese and Western powers. The Japanese committed genocide against some Muslim population . Those who supported the Japanese were either desperate or promised independence which was a lie.
Muslim divisions germany had 13. Handschar Free Arabian legion Azerbaijani legion Idel ural legion (tatars) Skanderbeg division Sandzak battalion North caucasian legion Osttürkische SS
While of course the allies had a significant portion of the Indian Army, about ten percent of the Soviet Army and quite a sizeable French North African contingent with a smaller West African contingent, no doubt there were others in all far outnumbering those you cite.
12:22 This one is false. As a Hatay native, being of Alawite descent, I can very confidently say that the people the Turkish government sent to Hatay were refugees/migrants from Hatay and it's surrounding region (meaning places like Afrin, Aleppo and Idlib) that were ethnically Turkish. Through my friend's family, I actually have a letter that a government sent to refugees from Hatay (and it's surrounding regions); saying that if they went to vote in the Referandum, their travel expenses and accommodation expenses would be subsidized by the state. The letter then added that what they did would be considered great service to the Homeland.
Also Jabzy; you've forgot to mention Greeks of the city, whom constituted %≈2 of the city's population. I also suggest you not group Alawites in with Arabs, since Alawism of Nusayris is an ethnic religion. Many Alawites, such as Hafez al-Assad's father for example, were against the annexation of the Alawi State into Syria. Many Alawites in fact voted in favor of annexation into Turkey, generally urban Alawites. Rural Alawites (then the majority of the Alawite population) did not participate in the referandum. This has the effect of magnifying the Turkish Turnout, since, at the time majority of the locals you've classified as Arabs were of Nusayri/Alawite origin.
So the answer is ... not applicable. There were Fascists worldwide, some Christian, some Muslim, some belonging to the Nazi religion. The national problems inherent in Western Colonialism caused great problems though. And there some Muslim imperialist visionaries occurred, and some other Arab nationalists creating a fictional Arab nationality.
@@ottopotatum5775Germany keeps recruiting volunteer battalions. They always seem to scrounge up someone from Belgium or across the Ostfront or Poland.
8:18 Although there existed a campaign to make the citizens speak Turkish, it was not mandated nor enforced by the government. The campaign you are referring to "Vatandaş, Türkçe Konuş"; was organized by university students, Türk Ocakları (which were mostly aligned with but independent from the government), or the local CHF parti chapters. There were instances where laws were passed (mostly in western Anatolia) that mandated speaking Turkish in public. It should be remembered that there was no organized effort to coerce or force the citizenry into speaking Turkish, both legislative and practical action varied by locality. For this I don't think it to be correct to connect the "Vatandaş, Türkçe Konuş" campaign directly with Atatürk.
This series you have going on with the Middle East and the surrounding regions is quite detailed and nuanced, which is a rare find indeed and I greatly appreciate it. I would love it if one day you did a similar deep dive into the region of the “American South”, (good luck to you to define that without a bunch of people arguing which state should be and shouldn’t be considered “The South” lol. I think a lot of people associate the south with being overwhelmingly long established African American and Anglo-Celtic American (I know Anglo-Celtic is a termed used in Australia, less so in America. But I think a term that fits due to people thinking of White Southerners as coming almost exclusively from the British Isles) and forget the other groups of people…funnily enough the inhabitants of the lands before large streams of European and African arrivals. You have the Lumbees of North Carolina, the Melungeons of Appalachia, groups considered “Tri-Racial isolates”, canary islanders of Louisiana, the Vietnamese on the Gulf Coast, a long established Mexican community in New Orleans, Charleston once having the largest Jewish population in America, the Texan German dialect, the Marshall Islanders in Arkansas and that is just scratching the surface!
If you don't know it, you should watch a video about what the Nazis actually believed (especially Himmler). They send researchers to check if Tibetans were maybe the original Aryans.
I would like to thank you for your editing style. In the world of youtube there seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of spastic editing, constant camera cuts, and using underhanded manipulations in order to hijack the viewer's attention. It's the TikTok effect, great for maximizing personal views with the minor cost of destroying the ability of an entire generation to function in the real world. You do it perfectly. Subtle slow moving figures, just enough to give my eyes something to rest on while I keep my ears open. Thank you Jabzy. Thank you for not being an accessory to our destruction. I would think that it's a low bar, but the mass of garbage content that has been shoveled my way lately suggests otherwise.
Mussolini was not antisemite and a quarter of italian Jews were members of the fascist party. some anti-Jewish laws were passed in 1938 for the purpose of an alliance with Germany but were never really enforced. in short, it's not strange that Jews were working with Mussolini. at the time, Germany and Italy were not friends, they almost went to war in 1934 over Austria.
It’s really intresting because the tripartite pact was more of an alliance of convenience then an actual alliance, Bulgaria also notably didn’t give its Jews to Germany
It's why I'd love to see more people remove Nazism from Fascism. Nazism even predates Fascism. Nazism evolved from German Socialism and goes as far back as the 19th century meanwhile Fascism evolved from Marxist Syndicalism and evolved over the span of the Great War into a new movement. One is built around the idea of the Totalitarian Corporate State and the other a Social Democrats Racial Religion were the Bourgeoisie are the J*ws and the end goal is the racialization of the means of production. 😂
@@smortv9629 In the German ideal vision, post-war Europe would have been Germany and a bunch of client states with second-class people. And others just depopulated and colonized with germans.
As someone who has planned to create their dissertation based off ‘Operation Mammoth’ and the prior German racial views of the Kurds, I do have to thank you for mentioning previously about the rare Hitler quote in his table talks. The most important part is the big difference between being called “Aryan” vs “Germanic”, since Aryan is a very broad term which originates from the term for noble in the Mitanni Empire (and possibly the Hurrians). Nowadays, modern day neo nazis warp the idea of “Aryan” into coinciding with “White” when this idea of a white race was mainly mistranslations or based mainly on Rosenburg and Himmlers views on race. Now to be called Germanic? that MUST hint at the fact that the creation of an independent Kurdistan would fall under the area of the “Greater German Reich”, of course this is just a theory, but even the Germans like Günther considered the Persians as a “darkened race” and Von Luschan concluded that the idea of the “Nordic ruling class of Ancient Iran” were not Persians but Kurds (Von Luschan 1911 and Günther 1927) Once again, you are literally the only youtuber who has discovered a quote which others including myself helped popularize back in 2021, I can’t help but thank you. (p.s. Sherif Pasha’s letters to Mussolini and his accepted refuge in Italy provide a new perspective on a Italian-Kurdish friendship)
@@NathanDudaniI’ll personally message you and link the video as soon as it is published. You’re gonna have to wait until May 2025, but i’m sure you’ll enjoy it. The dissertation proposal has already been submitted if that helps :)
Italy did send geologist Ardito Desio to Libya, to search for oil and other natural resources. He did find oil and in collaboration with the Italian petroleum company Agip there were plans to begin extraction. However, this was in late 1938 and operations were suspended once Italy entered WW2
I remember seeing a Fez with an SS insignia in a WW2 museum a while ago, and I was taken back at the fact that something as odd as it didn't seem far-fetched.
Jabotinsky/Zhabotinski/Żabotyński is read like dr Zhivago. He and his movement of Zionists-revisionists are an interesting topic on their own. They strived to build a "new Jew" similarly to fascists aiming for a "new Italian" and they cooperated with Polish radical nationalists since they have common purpose - to make Jews move out of the Poland. It was also Zionists-revisionists who played the most prominent role during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
While of course the allies had a significant portion of the Indian Army, about ten percent of the Soviet Army and quite a sizeable French North African contingent with a smaller West African contingent, also the largest part of the Yugoslav resistance and its' Albanian equivalent, I've no doubt other forces I'm forgetting totalling far more than the Axis allies. Not seen whole vid hoping this gets a mention.
To be honest Fascism and Nazism should be split from eachother. Most Fascist movements rejected the Racial Variation of Nationalism that dominated Nazism. Most Fascist movements that did adopted it modeled themselves after the Nazis not the Italian Fascist. So the fact Nazism is considered Fascism is more of a misinterpretation of the time that has echoed into the present. TIKhistory has two good videos on Mosley which describes this divide quite well. How Mosley modeled his movement off the Italians but was in direct hostility with the British Union of Fascist under Mosley and the Imperial Fascist League which modeled itself on Nazism.
It's a mixed bag; the Mufti was considered a joke until after the war, and even many who did support the Nazis did so more because they hated the british and french occupiers
jabzy cover blown 14:45, the axis were not "right0wing", how is the british empire, or the french colonial empire left wing exactly? It's not the right0wing who admired, just anyone that is well read. Not that this characterization would fall onto jabzy, who in all honesty does a far better job simply narrating what oher people had said than anything original.
The story of Christendom was always an empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts, for example, the word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” Another account by a chronicler and eyewitness-priest, Albert of Aachen, describes the killing of fleeing women, and depicts crusaders as:: “seizing [infants who were still suckling] by the soles of their feet from their mothers’ laps or their cradles…and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks […] they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.”The incoherence inherent in a stranger to Abraham calling the children of Abraham gentiles notwithstanding, this account evokes the very same Psalm 137:9 imprecation against Babylon, in Latin, “beatus qui tenebit et adlidet parvulos tuos ad petram.” Albert describes a massacre occurring, in cold blood, on the second day following the conquest, painting a scene that is as horrific as it is realistic and detailed: "Girls, women, matrons, tormented by fear of imminent death and horror-struck by the violent murder wrapped themselves around the Christians’ bodies in the hope to save their lives, even as the Christians were raving and venting their rage in murder of both sexes. Some threw themselves at their feet, begging them with pitiable weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they stepped up the weeping and pitiable clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to murder, so that not a suckling little male-child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape the hand of the murderer". Evoking several of these verses in practice: - (Num 31:17-18) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - (Deut 7:2, 9:3, Num 21) thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them... - (Deut 20:16-17) thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth - (1 Sam 27:9,11) And David smote the land and left neither man nor woman alive ... - (Ezek 9:6) Slay utterly old [and] young both maids and little children and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] mark begin at my sanctuary. This is the polar opposite of how the crusaders were treated in return; Eyewitness-chronicler of the fifth crusade, Oliver of Paderborn writes on how the starving defeated crusaders were treated after their defeat: "Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power." This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal, commit treachery, mutilate, or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship." It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دعوة "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya More hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ شَيْخٍ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَوْلَى لِبَنِي عَبْدِ الْأَشْهَلِ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا بَعَثَ جُيُوشَهُ قَالَ: «§لَا تَقْتُلُوا أَصْحَابَ الصَّوَامِعِ» "Do not kill the dwellers of monasteries" حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْبِرٍ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ قَالَ: كَانَ «§يُنْهَى عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ» سَعْدٍ قَالَ: «§نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالذُّرِّيَّةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ الَّذِي لَا حَرَاكَ بِهِ» "The prophet forbids the killing of women, children, and the elderly" This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal Ayah 61 in which even oath breaking deniers/unbelievers are allowed to sue for peace states if the unbelievers they ask for peace, give it to them. The modifiable testament testament commands indiscriminate killing, genocide, plunder, mutilation, enslavement, or torture of enemies, including women, on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people who take Ayat from the Quran out of their context God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Were the crusaders right wing or left wing or is it a habit of jabzy to make anachronistic statements without substance? Save us the juvenile value judgements and stick to a timleline fact sheet from now on.
Were the crusaders rightwing or leftwing? Or is it a habit of jabzy to make anachronistic substance without substance? Save us the juvenile value statements and stick to an animated timeline of events.
This is actually a pretty interesting topic you’ve brought up. While initially the Nazis were somewhat successful in trying to gain Muslim support by promising “liberation from Britain and France”. They were eventually unsuccessful because more and more people found out about the Nazi crimes and some even joined the allies. The majority of Muslims that served in WW2 that weren’t from countries that were allies, joined the allies not the Nazis.
That’s straight up false Most Muslims may have fought for the Allies because they were from allied countries, but those from non allied countries, and many from allied countries, flocked to the SS Hitler’s best pall was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who would try to finish what he started just 2 years later
@@jonathanwilliams1065 he was initially somewhat successful but ended up unsuccessful. There were very little volunteers from countries that weren’t under British and French rule and he had no reason to appeal to those who weren’t under British and French rule. I’ve meet Muslims who lived during ww2 and they weren’t pro nazi. The majority of them were actually fascinated by the soviets and the Soviet army which is what led to many Muslim countries almost becoming communist. You mean to tell me they were pro Nazi and communist at the same time? Please read or study
@@EgyptianChiefKeefThe Soviets would keep a lot of influence in places like Egypt through the cold war. A lot of these places still have local communist or socialist parties.
You forgot to mention that those pogroms were latter dismantled by attaturks government, their leaders executed and the 15k Jews were able to return to their property in Istanbul.
I heard Alternative Hypothesis give an interesting argument that the axis could have won World War II if they had invaded the Soviet Union through Persia and captured the oil fields.
Noziees Called them as "Half apes". Were using them as allies in Middle East to conquer later. "It was like giving hope to a chicken before the day of supermarket meat sale.
Zhabotinsky* not Yabotinsky* And yeah, he definitely was a fascist, but not as much of a fascist as he is portraited like. He was more like of a nationalist rather than a fascist...
So the answer is sort of but not in any meaningful way. They were under the control of the British and French so appealing to their enemies seemed like a good idea at the time, until they realized the Nazis were also a colonialist expansionist regime like those that controlled them.
Muslims? Algeria participated in the war against the nazis. Majority of muslim countries were occupied by the west at that time. What a ridiculous title.
this is not like what certain people think, some Muslim still support British and some Muslim support Nazi. Because Muslim having though decision to make at that time, if they support axis power, they will be poor, if they support British Allies, it will questioning they anti colonial movement, but even when Hitler in power, he is so busy in Berlin, and never trying to help Muslim country to be free from colonialism. after ww2 end, the idea decolonisation give chance to many colony to gain independence more better than Nazi propaganda.
He described him as inexperienced in both war and politics and therefore unreliable for making drastic changes he also rejected switching to outright fascism when it was seen as successful in Italy
There were Americans who supported Hitler too. Even IBM and father of President G HW Bush and Grandfather of President G W Bush, late US Senator Prescott Bush supported Hitler and became wealthy doing so.
many major industrial figures supported hitler before ww2 because they were at odds with big finance and people of wall street. By 1945 big finance took over most of america's industries and then gradually over a period of time the rest of the world.
That wasn’t the thought of most people back then. Muslims and Jews lived fine and then Zionism ruined it. Most Muslims don’t hate Jews and vice versa but to paint it this way is stupid and shows you’re uneducated. Also, the state of Israel has been found guilty of numerous warcrimes and is probably going to get a very small punishment for it. Anyways, please do research before commenting something stupid.
What is Zionist? a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. how could you separate a Jewish person from this? do you think you don’t believe your own self determination and protection do you believe that you don’t deserve to exist?
@@cendistbenjamin7066 Calm down I'm a proud Israeli zionist myself even believe Khane is right. I just lough at the blind Arab hate that even this series exposes. How in their eyes you can't be a decent person without advocating to throw jews to the sea. How jews legaly coming and buying and developing land that even they enjoy cause of the increase of uppertonity is somehow evil. I love this series cause it shows how even during the rule of the ottoman empire you didn't have peace How Arabs fought among themselves.
12:15 I would like to make a correction. Ataturk never applied to the League of Nations, but Ataturk was personally invited by the British and members of 29 states.
One big mistake made in the video is the implication that the Havara agreement was signed by the Revisionist movement. It was signed by a member of the Labor movement and was opposed by the Revisionists. As to the situation in the British Mandate, the fact remains that Britain could have saved millions of Jews from the Holocaust, and didn't largely because of Arab pressure. In fact at the Evian conference only one country in the entire world, the Dominican Republic, offered to take 100,000 Jews. They ended up being able to take only a couple thousand because the war broke out. It should be noted that Jews were able find refuge in Shanghai also, but that was because it was basically an international free for all zone. I personally dont know why the Israeli War of Independence refers to the '48 war and not the struggle against Britain which ladted for several years and was quite bloody. Indeed it was the first and arguably most significant British Colonial defeat by an indigenous insurgency after the war. British troops ransacked Kibbutzim and drew swastikas on the walls. Some of them were ww2 veterans, how they saw camps and then three years later found themselves drawing swastikas, I can't fathom.
Britain and the others are placing their own immigration controls in the pre-war years. Germany starts to confiscate property of all Jewish exiles and refusing these now impoverished Jews in the UK etc re-entry. They have some idea that this will spread the "Jew problem". Jews in the UK have to fund refugees themselves.
This is a great rundown on the shitty people on all sides, thanks for this. It's frustrating that we're still hearing about the impacts of these extremists, decades later
funny since Marxists are the ones running the culture and currently running it into the dirt. Of course they are telling you about people dead not for decades but for over a century. Pay more attention to the current people casusing issues in your nation rather than people who have no power in other nations that say words you dislike
Azerbaijan also did the same thing with Iran with its naming which shares it with Iranian Azerbaijan. However there was no political dispute by the government of Iran.
This is the most historically literate history channel on TH-cam bar none. Everything else is either overly simplified or downright intellectually dishonest
brother muslims are all over the world, and outside of the middle east. bangladesh for example is a Muslim nation. was under British rule, and fought the axis ferociously in ww2. chittagong, was a major frontline in the asian theatre. meanwhile "christians" were also under the nazi team. but we can't say "did Christians support the nazis". add to that- the decision of states are not the same as the decisions of the people. as a history and anthropology enthusiasts you should understand the difference between ethnic groups, state, religious groups and nationalities. so yeah, the title of your video should be "did the middle eastern states support the german reich"
The title is a question. As all things, there is nuance, which is touched upon in the video. The answer to that question should be reached by the viewer with the information provided. He never claims that Muslims as a group supported Nazis, and provides instances where there was a conflict of interest. The reason there is no "did Christians support the Nazis" video is because nobody's actually thinking about that, meanwhile the question of Muslim loyalties is much more obscure. And why would he need to clarify about it being Middle Eastern Muslims? The video is part of a series ON the Middle East. The fact it's about Middle Eastern Muslims should be obvious, even with the title.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D1 | Summer | แข่งที่ไทย ต้องใส่ให้สุด](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jkuf7nCS7jI/mqdefault.jpg)
Shoutout to King Mohammed V of Morocco, despite being a subject of Vichy France, he refused to extradite any Jews or enforce any antisemitic laws, declaring all Moroccans as under his protection
The Mosque of Paris, build to honor the muslim troops who fought during the first world war, also saved some jews during the Occupation.
So how come a larger % of Jews in Germany are still around compared to those in Morocco?
@@huriale1617 This is part of our religion to disavow and fight tyrants such as hitler
@@owenm.1282 and yet so many are cheering for the massacre of Jews
the last righteous king of morocco
Well it is very simple ,most of muslim were occupied by france and Britain, and wanted to be liberated from them ,so enemy of my enemy is my friend
Wtf a signifiant majority of french and british colonial subjects fought against the nazis.
What's this kind of historical revisionism ? Anybody can litteraly compare the numbers of muslim troops on both sides (or the number of western troops on the axis), the numbers of medails gained by the muslim troops, etc.
That’s not even remotely true. Islam is inherently anti-Semitic. That’s the reason.
perfect explanation.
twisted logic, Islam does the invading
@garyjohnstone6422 so ignored that the Germans were Christians and blame the muslims who fought in both sides
To be honest, Muslims were a significant group of sympathisers for the Axis in general. As much as the Nazis enjoyed their backing, the Japanese also received significant backing by them, in particular during the early days of the WW2 in today's Xinjiang (among Uyghurs, Uzbeks and Kazakhs), Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Mindanao (today's Philippines), Indochina and Thailand, Central Asia and South Asia.
it is like finland being an ally of axis. just protecting their lands from soviet union and nothing more.
@@TP_ERK Not just only against the Soviets, many of them supported the Axis against China and Britain.
Even Japan's native irregular fighters in Indonesia were commanded by islamic clerics
German-Japanese jihadism was crazy. I couldn't imagine this happening.
@@kraijom319 The Japanese did even attempt to create a pro-Japanese Islamic state in Central Asia. Long even before Hitler sought to materialise alliance with the Muslims, the Japanese nearly achieved this task. That's why during WW2, the Soviets and Chinese had to carefully patrol the region due to the pro-Japanese attitude among these Central Asian Turkomens.
Many in India sympathized with the nazis as well. Gandhi amongst them.
For west colonisation by France, Britain is good but Nazis are bad 🤡
@@Sagar-vv9gdBoth are bad, but the Nazis were a lot lot worse.
@@bigbootros4362France: How did you know if they were killing millions of people like me?
@@user-fl5mq9kp7g Should google what he thought about South Africans.
Mein Kampf is still quite popular in India.
Ataturk did not ally with Mussolini as Mussolini was seeking Turkey as a part of his Mare Nostrum. Ataturk even showed up to Italian diplomats while being dressed with Marshall uniform, militarily denouncing Italy.
That because he and the ottoman turk fought italy invasion of libya and continue helping the local resistance even after the war was lost and italy occupational.
@@johnnyfives5416well yes, and + because itally straight up claiming territory from Turkey 💀 it wasnt just a "old rivalship". İtally was straight up threatening Turkey
Video lacks so many details, like the pogroms in Istanbul and how they were dismantled by ataturk and their leaders executed allowing the 15k Jews to come back to Istanbul to their property
Just 9 minutes into, but it makes me happy to hear you quoting "Atatürk in the Nazi imagination" by Stefan Ihrig. It's really an underrated work with not enough attention
To be honest, as a Turkish person myself, I am fascinated to study about supports from the Muslim world to Japan and Germany here. The support for Germany prior and during WW2 is well-known as you explained (German officials wooing Muslims of Palestine, the Balkans and Iraq), but the support for Japan is somewhat overlooked. In fact, during Japan's rapid conquest of Southeast Asia, the Muslims in modern-day Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Indochina hailed the Japanese conquest; whereas Indian and Sri Lankan Muslims rebelled against Britain; whereas Central Asian Muslims (in both Soviet and Chinese parts) were excited with the prospect of an Islamic-Japanese alliance to fight Russia and China. Japan's puppet armies in Asia included a lot of Muslim groups, such as Azad Hind (for India), Thai Muslim corps and the Islamic battalions of Dutch East Indies. At least before the war turned tie in favour of the Allies. I feel the German and Japanese impacts have never truly faded to even today, and still very vivid.
Muslims were divided in sea about the issue. Main stream nationalism hated the Japanese and Western powers.
The Japanese committed genocide against some Muslim population .
Those who supported the Japanese were either desperate or promised independence which was a lie.
Same arabs that turned their blind eye on the Turks
This must have taken a lot of research, great job!! Thank you for helping me understand this type of history more
Jabzy’s vids getting wilder and wilder
You play stick war 3?
@@llamagames6803 ye
Muslim divisions germany had
13. Handschar
Free Arabian legion
Azerbaijani legion
Idel ural legion (tatars)
Skanderbeg division
Sandzak battalion
North caucasian legion
Osttürkische SS
Too many foreign soldiers for a racist state if you ask me
Enemy of my Enemy is my friend (uk and france ) @@kazmahamza3115
@@kazmahamza3115 muslims never destroyed europe and germany that was jews
@@kazmahamza3115 non european divisions usually were just canon fodder
While of course the allies had a significant portion of the Indian Army, about ten percent of the Soviet Army and quite a sizeable French North African contingent with a smaller West African contingent, no doubt there were others in all far outnumbering those you cite.
12:22 This one is false. As a Hatay native, being of Alawite descent, I can very confidently say that the people the Turkish government sent to Hatay were refugees/migrants from Hatay and it's surrounding region (meaning places like Afrin, Aleppo and Idlib) that were ethnically Turkish. Through my friend's family, I actually have a letter that a government sent to refugees from Hatay (and it's surrounding regions); saying that if they went to vote in the Referandum, their travel expenses and accommodation expenses would be subsidized by the state. The letter then added that what they did would be considered great service to the Homeland.
Also Jabzy; you've forgot to mention Greeks of the city, whom constituted %≈2 of the city's population.
I also suggest you not group Alawites in with Arabs, since Alawism of Nusayris is an ethnic religion. Many Alawites, such as Hafez al-Assad's father for example, were against the annexation of the Alawi State into Syria.
Many Alawites in fact voted in favor of annexation into Turkey, generally urban Alawites.
Rural Alawites (then the majority of the Alawite population) did not participate in the referandum.
This has the effect of magnifying the Turkish Turnout, since, at the time majority of the locals you've classified as Arabs were of Nusayri/Alawite origin.
Do Alawites consider themselves Muslims?
@@user-dy9jq4lc5y Depends on the Alawite.
@@user-dy9jq4lc5y Alawism and Alevism are completely two different things. But unfortunately very often confused due to similar names.
One mistake bud, Afrin is ethnically Kurdi including the Ezidis.
Great video as always!
Great educational content
So the answer is ... not applicable. There were Fascists worldwide, some Christian, some Muslim, some belonging to the Nazi religion. The national problems inherent in Western Colonialism caused great problems though. And there some Muslim imperialist visionaries occurred, and some other Arab nationalists creating a fictional Arab nationality.
Many of the Christian fascists opposed Hitler, and some, like Metaxas, actively fought against him and had pro British policies before the war
Short answer: yes but you cant say it cause its offensive.
@@ottopotatum5775 Short answer is no. It is so simplified, that even you can understand it.
Nasser and a few others would try to keep pan-atabic ideas going.
@@ottopotatum5775Germany keeps recruiting volunteer battalions. They always seem to scrounge up someone from Belgium or across the Ostfront or Poland.
Good video, I just wish you put in sources somewhere for us to look at.
Just finished the last episode. Perfect timing.
8:18 Although there existed a campaign to make the citizens speak Turkish, it was not mandated nor enforced by the government. The campaign you are referring to "Vatandaş, Türkçe Konuş"; was organized by university students, Türk Ocakları (which were mostly aligned with but independent from the government), or the local CHF parti chapters. There were instances where laws were passed (mostly in western Anatolia) that mandated speaking Turkish in public.
It should be remembered that there was no organized effort to coerce or force the citizenry into speaking Turkish, both legislative and practical action varied by locality. For this I don't think it to be correct to connect the "Vatandaş, Türkçe Konuş" campaign directly with Atatürk.
This series you have going on with the Middle East and the surrounding regions is quite detailed and nuanced, which is a rare find indeed and I greatly appreciate it.
I would love it if one day you did a similar deep dive into the region of the “American South”, (good luck to you to define that without a bunch of people arguing which state should be and shouldn’t be considered “The South” lol.
I think a lot of people associate the south with being overwhelmingly long established African American and Anglo-Celtic American (I know Anglo-Celtic is a termed used in Australia, less so in America. But I think a term that fits due to people thinking of White Southerners as coming almost exclusively from the British Isles) and forget the other groups of people…funnily enough the inhabitants of the lands before large streams of European and African arrivals.
You have the Lumbees of North Carolina, the Melungeons of Appalachia, groups considered “Tri-Racial isolates”, canary islanders of Louisiana, the Vietnamese on the Gulf Coast, a long established Mexican community in New Orleans, Charleston once having the largest Jewish population in America, the Texan German dialect, the Marshall Islanders in Arkansas and that is just scratching the surface!
What is the background music especially around 14:30
Stefan Ihrig's "Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination" is a great read on this topic.
Crazy. Never thought funny mustache man would think we are pure blooded aryans…
we are 🗿
Iran means “land of Aryans”. Most descendant ethnicities of proto-indo-Europeans are Aryan by definition.
If you don't know it, you should watch a video about what the Nazis actually believed (especially Himmler). They send researchers to check if Tibetans were maybe the original Aryans.
he pretty much picked the name from Iran so that's not as surprise
Only the aristocracy
I would like to thank you for your editing style. In the world of youtube there seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of spastic editing, constant camera cuts, and using underhanded manipulations in order to hijack the viewer's attention. It's the TikTok effect, great for maximizing personal views with the minor cost of destroying the ability of an entire generation to function in the real world.
You do it perfectly. Subtle slow moving figures, just enough to give my eyes something to rest on while I keep my ears open. Thank you Jabzy. Thank you for not being an accessory to our destruction. I would think that it's a low bar, but the mass of garbage content that has been shoveled my way lately suggests otherwise.
Please put in lists of sources in your videos in the future....
Fascinating video btw
Please Jabzy, include sources in your videos please
Its called a world war for a reason..
have you ever thought about making a similar series of videos about recent South american history ?
The most 3 am video i would get fr
Mussolini was not antisemite and a quarter of italian Jews were members of the fascist party. some anti-Jewish laws were passed in 1938 for the purpose of an alliance with Germany but were never really enforced. in short, it's not strange that Jews were working with Mussolini. at the time, Germany and Italy were not friends, they almost went to war in 1934 over Austria.
It’s really intresting because the tripartite pact was more of an alliance of convenience then an actual alliance, Bulgaria also notably didn’t give its Jews to Germany
Italy is under practical German occupation at the end of the war.
It's why I'd love to see more people remove Nazism from Fascism. Nazism even predates Fascism. Nazism evolved from German Socialism and goes as far back as the 19th century meanwhile Fascism evolved from Marxist Syndicalism and evolved over the span of the Great War into a new movement.
One is built around the idea of the Totalitarian Corporate State and the other a Social Democrats Racial Religion were the Bourgeoisie are the J*ws and the end goal is the racialization of the means of production. 😂
I heard some where the surname "Mussolini" derived from Muslim.
ie, his ancestor was a Muslim.
@@smortv9629 In the German ideal vision, post-war Europe would have been Germany and a bunch of client states with second-class people. And others just depopulated and colonized with germans.
As someone who has planned to create their dissertation based off ‘Operation Mammoth’ and the prior German racial views of the Kurds, I do have to thank you for mentioning previously about the rare Hitler quote in his table talks.
The most important part is the big difference between being called “Aryan” vs “Germanic”, since Aryan is a very broad term which originates from the term for noble in the Mitanni Empire (and possibly the Hurrians).
Nowadays, modern day neo nazis warp the idea of “Aryan” into coinciding with “White” when this idea of a white race was mainly mistranslations or based mainly on Rosenburg and Himmlers views on race.
Now to be called Germanic? that MUST hint at the fact that the creation of an independent Kurdistan would fall under the area of the “Greater German Reich”, of course this is just a theory, but even the Germans like Günther considered the Persians as a “darkened race” and Von Luschan concluded that the idea of the “Nordic ruling class of Ancient Iran” were not Persians but Kurds (Von Luschan 1911 and Günther 1927)
Once again, you are literally the only youtuber who has discovered a quote which others including myself helped popularize back in 2021, I can’t help but thank you.
(p.s. Sherif Pasha’s letters to Mussolini and his accepted refuge in Italy provide a new perspective on a Italian-Kurdish friendship)
Turks already destory our friendship both against kurds italians and germans.
pLaNnEd To CrEaTe
@@NathanDudaniI’ll personally message you and link the video as soon as it is published. You’re gonna have to wait until May 2025, but i’m sure you’ll enjoy it. The dissertation proposal has already been submitted if that helps :)
Ey new episodes!
What surprises me is that Mussolini's government didn't invite oil prospectors into the bits of desert Italy colonized.
Italy did send geologist Ardito Desio to Libya, to search for oil and other natural resources. He did find oil and in collaboration with the Italian petroleum company Agip there were plans to begin extraction. However, this was in late 1938 and operations were suspended once Italy entered WW2
Yeah their are a bunch of fossil fuels and iron ore in Ethiopia aswell , could've helped the axis alot.
Feels like I just watch the worlds greatest poker game
Team Germany and Turkey now🇩🇪❤️🇹🇷
👇
Turkey didn't even fought...🦃
@@roderik3059overused joke. 0 laughs :)
@@JustYourRandomTurk Maybe I'm lying. What Turkey did in World War II?
@@roderik3059 nothing. lol. better than spending millions of dollars as a newly founded republic and losing half our population tbh
@@JustYourRandomTurk So why the hell do you writte team Germany Turkey? Ridiculous. 😂
When I saw the part where the character had a bride's outfit, I couldn't help but laugh
Interesting history here 🤔 this potentially has many alternate historical ramifications......
Enemy of my enemy is my friend?
I fucking love these ME videos
I remember seeing a Fez with an SS insignia in a WW2 museum a while ago, and I was taken back at the fact that something as odd as it didn't seem far-fetched.
Jabotinsky/Zhabotinski/Żabotyński is read like dr Zhivago. He and his movement of Zionists-revisionists are an interesting topic on their own. They strived to build a "new Jew" similarly to fascists aiming for a "new Italian" and they cooperated with Polish radical nationalists since they have common purpose - to make Jews move out of the Poland. It was also Zionists-revisionists who played the most prominent role during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
His talk of building an ethnic homeland and creating living room by clearing out the natives sounds more like mustache man though.
@@barahngwow, that’s a real 💩ty take.
short answer: YES.
While of course the allies had a significant portion of the Indian Army, about ten percent of the Soviet Army and quite a sizeable French North African contingent with a smaller West African contingent, also the largest part of the Yugoslav resistance and its' Albanian equivalent, I've no doubt other forces I'm forgetting totalling far more than the Axis allies. Not seen whole vid hoping this gets a mention.
Fun fact, there were more dutch soldiers that fought for the Axis than the allies. And also the last defender's of Berlin were French SS soldiers.
@@NobleBossThe local fascists in Belgium run a big anti-communist recruitment drive I think. They try to do the same in half-pacified Norway.
To be honest Fascism and Nazism should be split from eachother. Most Fascist movements rejected the Racial Variation of Nationalism that dominated Nazism. Most Fascist movements that did adopted it modeled themselves after the Nazis not the Italian Fascist.
So the fact Nazism is considered Fascism is more of a misinterpretation of the time that has echoed into the present.
TIKhistory has two good videos on Mosley which describes this divide quite well. How Mosley modeled his movement off the Italians but was in direct hostility with the British Union of Fascist under Mosley and the Imperial Fascist League which modeled itself on Nazism.
18:30 lol these guys even wear the appropriate mustache
Nah we just following the latest fashions :)
It's a mixed bag; the Mufti was considered a joke until after the war, and even many who did support the Nazis did so more because they hated the british and french occupiers
jabzy cover blown 14:45, the axis were not "right0wing", how is the british empire, or the french colonial empire left wing exactly? It's not the right0wing who admired, just anyone that is well read. Not that this characterization would fall onto jabzy, who in all honesty does a far better job simply narrating what oher people had said than anything original.
The story of Christendom was always an empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts, for example, the word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
-Psalm 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
-1 Samuel 15:3
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
-Hosea 13:16
The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers:
“in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.”
Another account by a chronicler and eyewitness-priest, Albert of Aachen, describes the killing of fleeing women, and depicts crusaders as:: “seizing [infants who were still suckling] by the soles of their feet from their mothers’ laps or their cradles…and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks […] they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.”The incoherence inherent in a stranger to Abraham calling the children of Abraham gentiles notwithstanding, this account evokes the very same Psalm 137:9 imprecation against Babylon, in Latin, “beatus qui tenebit et adlidet parvulos tuos ad petram.”
Albert describes a massacre occurring, in cold blood, on the second day following the conquest, painting a scene that is as horrific as it is realistic and detailed: "Girls, women, matrons, tormented by fear of imminent death and horror-struck by the violent murder wrapped themselves around the Christians’ bodies in the hope to save their lives, even as the Christians were raving and venting their rage in murder of both sexes. Some threw themselves at their feet, begging them with pitiable weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they stepped up the weeping and pitiable clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to murder, so that not a suckling little male-child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape the hand of the murderer".
Evoking several of these verses in practice:
- (Num 31:17-18) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
- (Deut 7:2, 9:3, Num 21) thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them...
- (Deut 20:16-17) thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth
- (1 Sam 27:9,11) And David smote the land and left neither man nor woman alive ...
- (Ezek 9:6) Slay utterly old [and] young both maids and little children and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] mark begin at my sanctuary.
This is the polar opposite of how the crusaders were treated in return; Eyewitness-chronicler of the fifth crusade, Oliver of Paderborn writes on how the starving defeated crusaders were treated after their defeat:
"Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."
This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished.
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah):
"includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit."
This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal, commit treachery, mutilate, or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship."
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children."
بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دعوة
"To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause"
-Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya
More hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:
حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ شَيْخٍ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَوْلَى لِبَنِي عَبْدِ الْأَشْهَلِ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا بَعَثَ جُيُوشَهُ قَالَ: «§لَا تَقْتُلُوا أَصْحَابَ الصَّوَامِعِ»
"Do not kill the dwellers of monasteries"
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْبِرٍ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ قَالَ: كَانَ «§يُنْهَى عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ»
سَعْدٍ قَالَ: «§نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالذُّرِّيَّةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ الَّذِي لَا حَرَاكَ بِهِ»
"The prophet forbids the killing of women, children, and the elderly"
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal Ayah 61 in which even oath breaking deniers/unbelievers are allowed to sue for peace states if the unbelievers they ask for peace, give it to them.
The modifiable testament testament commands indiscriminate killing, genocide, plunder, mutilation, enslavement, or torture of enemies, including women, on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context.
Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people who take Ayat from the Quran out of their context
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
.... So your definition of right wing = what exactly?
Were the crusaders right wing or left wing or is it a habit of jabzy to make anachronistic statements without substance? Save us the juvenile value judgements and stick to a timleline fact sheet from now on.
Were the crusaders rightwing or leftwing? Or is it a habit of jabzy to make anachronistic substance without substance? Save us the juvenile value statements and stick to an animated timeline of events.
Politics can be so lethal
Please cover india next.
This is actually a pretty interesting topic you’ve brought up. While initially the Nazis were somewhat successful in trying to gain Muslim support by promising “liberation from Britain and France”. They were eventually unsuccessful because more and more people found out about the Nazi crimes and some even joined the allies. The majority of Muslims that served in WW2 that weren’t from countries that were allies, joined the allies not the Nazis.
That’s straight up false
Most Muslims may have fought for the Allies because they were from allied countries, but those from non allied countries, and many from allied countries, flocked to the SS
Hitler’s best pall was the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who would try to finish what he started just 2 years later
@@jonathanwilliams1065 he was initially somewhat successful but ended up unsuccessful. There were very little volunteers from countries that weren’t under British and French rule and he had no reason to appeal to those who weren’t under British and French rule. I’ve meet Muslims who lived during ww2 and they weren’t pro nazi. The majority of them were actually fascinated by the soviets and the Soviet army which is what led to many Muslim countries almost becoming communist. You mean to tell me they were pro Nazi and communist at the same time? Please read or study
@@EgyptianChiefKeefThe Soviets would keep a lot of influence in places like Egypt through the cold war. A lot of these places still have local communist or socialist parties.
@@SusCalvin Had Turkey not joined NATO, communism could have spread in the Middle East
@@jonathanwilliams1065 what do you mean by "finishing the job 2 years later" that's absolutely unrelated
where does all this information come from ?
History books. Not wiki
You forgot to mention that those pogroms were latter dismantled by attaturks government, their leaders executed and the 15k Jews were able to return to their property in Istanbul.
Ataturks government post-1939?...
@@JabzyJoe yeah I posted both comments at the same time, look foward to the next episode :)
Sources?
I heard Alternative Hypothesis give an interesting argument that the axis could have won World War II if they had invaded the Soviet Union through Persia and captured the oil fields.
22:14 that looks just like Saddam Hussein.
🤯🤯🤯
@@alter3602 Is that supposed to be Saddam Hussein?
Noziees Called them as "Half apes".
Were using them as allies in Middle East to conquer later.
"It was like giving hope to a chicken before the day of supermarket meat sale.
What the sigma
Morocco defended a lot of jews
Source?
Yes
Some Muslim Was against N@z!
@@alihajri1885 some?
@@Ok_waffle
5.5 million Muslims fought for the Allies.
@@alihajri188590% of muslims fought against the nazis (north africa, british raj) etc...
Please include more sources in your videos man please.....
Where peaceful music? 😢
Well obviously the most based regime would be allied with the most-based religion duh
just before i watch it if n+zis were still here they would be best chumps...100% like no chance they would be supporting eachother even more.
Ataturk was also a dictator.
Zhabotinsky* not Yabotinsky*
And yeah, he definitely was a fascist, but not as much of a fascist as he is portraited like.
He was more like of a nationalist rather than a fascist...
So the answer is sort of but not in any meaningful way. They were under the control of the British and French so appealing to their enemies seemed like a good idea at the time, until they realized the Nazis were also a colonialist expansionist regime like those that controlled them.
Muslims?
Algeria participated in the war against the nazis. Majority of muslim countries were occupied by the west at that time. What a ridiculous title.
Entirely depends on if they follow their God given conscience or their religious book
this is not like what certain people think, some Muslim still support British and some Muslim support Nazi. Because Muslim having though decision to make at that time, if they support axis power, they will be poor, if they support British Allies, it will questioning they anti colonial movement, but even when Hitler in power, he is so busy in Berlin, and never trying to help Muslim country to be free from colonialism. after ww2 end, the idea decolonisation give chance to many colony to gain independence more better than Nazi propaganda.
Mr. Worldwide i guess
Hell yeah we did
The just had a mutual dislike of jews 😂
Yes and no muslim can live with jews without a problem
Note: Yazidis are Kurd 19:54
I would like to know Ataturks opinion of Adolf
He described him as inexperienced in both war and politics and therefore unreliable for making drastic changes he also rejected switching to outright fascism when it was seen as successful in Italy
@@kriemhild9425well it’s pretty clear Hitler knew more than ataturk lol (no offense)
@@kriemhild9425 thanks you seem informed so where could I get information like this please?
@@Ciech_mateBe aware that a lot of lies are created about him by kemalists to suit their narrative.
@@Ramirez83786 thank you mate, I am aware of potential bias. As a historian I can sniff it out, or at least try to.
There were Americans who supported Hitler too. Even IBM and father of President G HW Bush and Grandfather of President G W Bush, late US Senator Prescott Bush supported Hitler and became wealthy doing so.
How is that relevant to this video?
@@christianweibrecht6555every people had their AH supporters
IBM made machines that did the shoah en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
many major industrial figures supported hitler before ww2 because they were at odds with big finance and people of wall street. By 1945 big finance took over most of america's industries and then gradually over a period of time the rest of the world.
🙄 “what about”
27:12 lol some things don't change
"Jews cant be thrown in the sea"
Arabs: "must be a Zionist"
Well, they have been trying for a century but they always walk away running off to the UN asking Israel to show restraint. Go for round 526 I suppose?
That wasn’t the thought of most people back then. Muslims and Jews lived fine and then Zionism ruined it. Most Muslims don’t hate Jews and vice versa but to paint it this way is stupid and shows you’re uneducated. Also, the state of Israel has been found guilty of numerous warcrimes and is probably going to get a very small punishment for it. Anyways, please do research before commenting something stupid.
To be honest.. The Arabs say Jews...the one who say and promoted "Zionists, not Jews" are the communists xD
What is Zionist? a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. how could you separate a Jewish person from this? do you think you don’t believe your own self determination and protection do you believe that you don’t deserve to exist?
@@cendistbenjamin7066
Calm down I'm a proud Israeli zionist myself even believe Khane is right. I just lough at the blind Arab hate that even this series exposes. How in their eyes you can't be a decent person without advocating to throw jews to the sea. How jews legaly coming and buying and developing land that even they enjoy cause of the increase of uppertonity is somehow evil. I love this series cause it shows how even during the rule of the ottoman empire you didn't have peace How Arabs fought among themselves.
some were some wernt
Oy vey!
I ask myself this every day
12:15 I would like to make a correction. Ataturk never applied to the League of Nations, but Ataturk was personally invited by the British and members of 29 states.
One big mistake made in the video is the implication that the Havara agreement was signed by the Revisionist movement. It was signed by a member of the Labor movement and was opposed by the Revisionists.
As to the situation in the British Mandate, the fact remains that Britain could have saved millions of Jews from the Holocaust, and didn't largely because of Arab pressure. In fact at the Evian conference only one country in the entire world, the Dominican Republic, offered to take 100,000 Jews. They ended up being able to take only a couple thousand because the war broke out. It should be noted that Jews were able find refuge in Shanghai also, but that was because it was basically an international free for all zone.
I personally dont know why the Israeli War of Independence refers to the '48 war and not the struggle against Britain which ladted for several years and was quite bloody. Indeed it was the first and arguably most significant British Colonial defeat by an indigenous insurgency after the war. British troops ransacked Kibbutzim and drew swastikas on the walls. Some of them were ww2 veterans, how they saw camps and then three years later found themselves drawing swastikas, I can't fathom.
Britain and the others are placing their own immigration controls in the pre-war years. Germany starts to confiscate property of all Jewish exiles and refusing these now impoverished Jews in the UK etc re-entry. They have some idea that this will spread the "Jew problem". Jews in the UK have to fund refugees themselves.
Were the Nazis and Muslims Allies? Doesnt talk about al husseini even once, this video just lacks so many details
Comes up when I deal with ww2 itself...
@@JabzyJoe ahh my apologies, didnt see the year range
Yes there are plenty of pictures with Hitler and the grand mufti Palestine
Muslims supported both sides but they were majorly with allied
Dumb title. Thought this was an educational channel
Would you prefer "An in-depth look at the Foreign Policy of Islamic Nations between 1930 and 1939"?
Two groups of insane murders? Yeah, prolly.
the christians murdered an entire continent
guess who is the biggest murderers of all time , yup , the west , britin , france , and USA .
Yes jews and europeans
@@manofwar2354 I disagree with both: Japanese and Germans
@@randomperson-uj4bp both germans and japanese did was retaliation to invaders
Read what in ww1 did to germany and how nasty america was to japan
This is a great rundown on the shitty people on all sides, thanks for this. It's frustrating that we're still hearing about the impacts of these extremists, decades later
funny since Marxists are the ones running the culture and currently running it into the dirt. Of course they are telling you about people dead not for decades but for over a century. Pay more attention to the current people casusing issues in your nation rather than people who have no power in other nations that say words you dislike
You seem like a liberal, might want to do some introspection before calling others shitty people
This seems weird
Azerbaijan also did the same thing with Iran with its naming which shares it with Iranian Azerbaijan. However there was no political dispute by the government of Iran.
aran
Palistine was never a state.
So basically same story as Ukraine…
"Sword of islam" just like Timur who build pyramids of skulls of Muslims.
Yeah ironically he killed muslims than anyone
The awards ironic like the peace prize.
That's a good bunch of lies on Timur,
And like the crusaders wen they soups to protect Christianity but they killed and re..p christians in byzantine empire
@@islammehmeov2334 keep looking Moor
14:05 (where i stayed)
I wonder if Muslim Bosnian Wehrmacht meet and greet with Muslim Turkic Red Army in eastern front
Maybe idk lmaoooooo
This is the most historically literate history channel on TH-cam bar none. Everything else is either overly simplified or downright intellectually dishonest
Based
Yo dude, your title is disrespectful
we gotta deny truth because its disrespectful
why so insecure?
Disrespectful? pftt..
As a muslim, it is important to question things,
his title is not disrespectful, it is good, it shows
a question and an answer.
brother muslims are all over the world, and outside of the middle east. bangladesh for example is a Muslim nation. was under British rule, and fought the axis ferociously in ww2. chittagong, was a major frontline in the asian theatre. meanwhile "christians" were also under the nazi team. but we can't say "did Christians support the nazis". add to that- the decision of states are not the same as the decisions of the people.
as a history and anthropology enthusiasts you should understand the difference between ethnic groups, state, religious groups and nationalities.
so yeah, the title of your video should be "did the middle eastern states support the german reich"
Your forgetting that we muslims who fought in any side of ww2 were just used as canon fodder, wether it was for the western allies, axis or soviets
The title is a question. As all things, there is nuance, which is touched upon in the video. The answer to that question should be reached by the viewer with the information provided. He never claims that Muslims as a group supported Nazis, and provides instances where there was a conflict of interest. The reason there is no "did Christians support the Nazis" video is because nobody's actually thinking about that, meanwhile the question of Muslim loyalties is much more obscure.
And why would he need to clarify about it being Middle Eastern Muslims? The video is part of a series ON the Middle East. The fact it's about Middle Eastern Muslims should be obvious, even with the title.
@@FF-le3ps Only true muslims did not fight in the war but those who did are not real muslims
@@NoUsername534 tbh the vast majority of Muslims who fought in ww2 had little to know choice, either forced through gunpoint or starvation
South asian muslims did ut cause they were forced too
The short answer is yes
The long answer is yes, they were Allies
They were enemies.
not at all
muslims fought with Britain and france
Short answer, yes
Long answer, yes but also no (Muslim also fight with allies)
@@justchaitea6675 muslims fought with them also