For this essay, I will detail four case studies of war from the 11^th to the 20^th century, and examine if (and if so how) race has or has not been a significant or key factor in war. The case studies chosen are: Germans on the Eastern Front; Americans in Vietnam; The Crusades; and finally Europeans in (southern) Africa, up to circa. 1850. The final war case study is not strictly a “war” in the sense of a violent conflict between two states. However, I thought its inclusion worthwhile as a racially underpinned battle of land ownership law and an example of dominance asserted in ways beyond killing; e.g. the manipulation of natives to sign legal acts declaring themselves as “immigrants” in newly white lands. The Eastern Front case study provides a perfect example of racial ideology translated into killings, where motivation for invasion as well as genocide was motivated by Darwinistic racism. The Vietnam sub-section is unique, as domestic race-politics were imported into faraway battlegrounds. Essentially, the civil rights movement was continued abroad (as well as internal racism in American units) leading to low troop morale and public support, a crucial factor in the North Vietnamese victory. The Crusades case study provides us with a series of wars where race was perhaps not a significant factor: the key motivating factors for the Crusades were religious and political in nature. Further, the medieval concept of “race” was quite different to how we understand it today. Overall, I have written four small essays and attempted to cross-compare the case studies to demonstrate the impact (or lack thereof) of race in warfare. For each sub-topic I will examine: context and race/racial theory; the significance of race in the outbreak of war; the significance of race during the war itself; and I will conclude with “intersectional” factors that tie into race, as well as other factors unrelated to race.

An understanding of historical context and racial ideology surrounding this period is crucial to understanding why war occurred (and in such a brutal manner) on the Eastern front. It can be feasibly argued, as Mark Mazower did, that Nazi Germany was characterized by and intent upon “turning imperialism (of earlier centuries) on its head and treating Europeans as Africans”.¹ That is to say, the belief that Jews and the “Asiatic hordes” whose populace spread from Berlin to Vladivostok were inherently “lesser” humans was a belief that had its roots in 19^th Century (and earlier) imperialism by white Europeans into Africa and Asia.² This attitude towards those in the East existed before 1933, and was not a creation of the Nazis nor necessarily limited to Germans; we must look to the times before Hitler to truly understand the Eastern Front. American eugenicist Madison Grant in 1916 wrote ominously of “Asiatic hordes… of Mongoloid origin and coming from far-eastern Europe and central Asia”.³ His now infamous writings are littered with Nazi-associated terminology like “Aryan”, and praise the conquests of Teutons and Nordics; simultaneously denouncing the barbarians of the east as the modern degenerates of the once-great Tsarist Russia.⁴ In 1876, Darwin proclaimed that in the near future “the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races”.⁵ Thus, racial theory which underpinned and excused Lebensraum, the Holocaust and brutal aggression in the East had existed long before the Nazi Party. Further, Hitler's referral to Jews as a “horde of rats” is simply a brutally rewritten piece of Darwinism, with rats as the disease carrying pests which a superior, civilised species must neutralise for world betterment.⁶ German racism towards those in the East was inextricably tied to somewhat commonly held ideas of the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries.

For many today, the consensus is that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was due to German aggression: aggression towards states and peoples that the Nazis (and non-Nazis alike) felt had harmed, or threatened to harm Germany. Largely, the invasion of Poland can be blamed on political, geographical and demographical disagreements, which will be discussed later. Race and racism also took a large role in Germany's eastward aggression however, and we can see examples of this even in 1933. In his Montagenhalle speech, Hitler spoke of a “rootless international clique” threatening the German people; although not naming this enemy, a member of the audience interjects with “Juden!” (Jews).⁷ In other speeches, Hitler would frequently and ominously refer to the Jewish “hyenas” who wished to further plunder Germany following Versailles.⁸ What is noteworthy in relation to Hitler's hatred and fear of the “Bolshevik-Jewry” is the demographic spread of Jews across Europe; the vast majority lived in the East, including large concentrations in Poland, Hungary and the USSR.⁹ In the context of Nazi racism, simply looking at a racial demographic map gives us an understanding of why German aggression was particularly brutal in the East from 1939, and why regions heavily populated by Jews were attacked regardless of their strategical or economic uses. Aside from Nazi hatred of the Jewish people, Slavs also were a target due to their status as subhumans (untermenschen), a key factor in the eastward aggression.¹⁰ Seen as a race echelons beneath the “Aryan” Anglo-Saxons, this aspect of racial ideology ties into Darwinism, and Mazower's aforementioned argument that Nazi aggression in the East was simply “turning imperialism on its head and treating Europeans as Africans”. In this sense, the invasion of Poland and Russia was inevitable in a time period where faraway imperialism had ended, and “inferior” conquerable races were sought out closer to home. Mark Mazower has characterised the brutal fighting on the Eastern front as a war which became “a racist war of annihilation”.¹¹ As mentioned, the Nazi attitude towards the Slavs was that of disgust and contempt; though we cannot state that this mindset was in every German soldier (or even commonplace). Despite this, Nazi racial theory gives us an understanding of why mortality rates were so skewed against Soviet civilians and Prisoners of War (POWs), regardless even of the higher concentration of Jews in the East. Statistics show that roughly 57% of all Soviet POWs died under Nazi custody, contrasting heavily with a mortality rate of approximately 3.5% for British and American POWs in Nazi custody; only 5% of the aforementioned Soviet POWs were Jewish.¹² The war saw food shortages, particularly on the Eastern front, which some have held the Royal Navy's blockade as responsible for and thus potentially explaining the death rates in Eastern POW camps compared to those in Western Europe.¹³ In reality, although food shortages were an issue for Nazi officials and POW camp officers, the responsibility for such skewed mortality rates in the East lay in the hands of policy-makers (who largely based labour and prison camp policy upon racism). Nazi rhetoric regarding Eastern European Jews seems particularly cruel: Eastern European Jews (who had not yet been executed) were the first to have their food rationing cut, as they were “animals” unlike the more culturally similar German Jews.¹⁴ Further, 2.7 million of 3 million Polish Jews were to be starved to death, at the demands of the SS, as the majority were not deemed useful to the war effort.¹⁵ Forced labour to the point of death by starvation, which killed the majority of POWs in the East, virtually did not occur whatsoever in the West. From the onset of Operation Barbarossa, SS death squads would carry out massacres of Jews in the USSR. Again, this is largely explained by racism; though ordered by higher-ups, the SS were chosen for these mass-shootings as they had been “educated” and selected upon Nazi racial theory.¹⁶

The lines between racial ideology, political ideology (and to an extent economics) were beyond blurred in this era. Hitler personally struggled to differentiate between communists (and the threat that communism posed to Europe) and Jews or “Asiatics” as a whole. Throughout Mein Kampf Hitler references the “Bolshevik-Jewry” as an all encompassing term for the communists who lived in the East and sought to destroy German greatness. Thus to be a Jew was to inherently be a Bolshevik, yet Bolsheviks were also Slavs. Simply, the enemy of Nazism was communism; communists were Jews, Poles, Russians. Enemies of the state (Churchill, Roosevelt) would also quickly be labelled as Jews, as seen in propaganda posters. Therefore, we cannot under emphasize how blurred the lines were, between a hatred of communists or a genuine hatred of the Slavs and Jews; Nazi racism in the East was literally political racism.

It was certainly the case, as Mazower characterises, that this time period in the “Dark Continent” of Europe was a battle of the ideologies; in this case, fascism vs. communism.¹⁷ Not only was Hitler's personal view of the “Bolshevik-Jewry” as a homogeneous entity a factor, but also the broader ideological battle. The communist state (thus the enemy) was the USSR, and the “red scare” phenomenon existed beyond Germany. Conveniently therefore, Germany's enemy in the East could be categorised ideologically and racially as the threatening “other”. Economic factors are also an issue which tie into race: Germany's oil shortage, along with the desire to dominate the “weaker” race was a key factor for the rapid and brutal push eastwards. Furthermore, Nazi occupied areas to the East were generally less economically viable than the West which partially explains why Western European regions were prioritised for food rationing.¹⁸ Finally worth mentioning is the “Polish corridor” issue: a geographical reason to invade Poland for Hitler, as the newly created Polish state isolated East Prussia from mainland Germany, an issue of concern for many Nazis who believed that nation borders should be defined upon race.¹⁹

Although this section will focus on Americans in Vietnam (in the Vietnam War), we must look further than racial factors and contexts between Americans and the Vietnamese. The Vietnam War was fought during the heights of the American civil rights movement where blacks in the USA protested for equal rights; crucially, many civil rights protesters were staunchly against the Vietnam War and black Americans fighting in it.^{20 21} A famous quote from the era that encapsulates this race factor in the war came from Mohammed Ali, stating “no Vietcong ever called me a nigger”.²² Opposition to blacks engaging in war on behalf of a state that did not grant them equal civil rights is a key theme of the Vietnam War, a factor having its impact on public opinion as well as in the battlegrounds and bases in Vietnam. The key racial theme for this case study therefore (and what differentiates it from the other case studies in this essay), is, as the New York Times puts it, “the hard reality of race and politics (being) transported overseas”. Another important piece of racial context is that the Vietnam War virtually immediately followed two other wars in which Americans were actively fighting in Asia: the Second World War and the Korean War. Therefore, the Vietnam war was seen by many at the time as simply another war in a faraway land and partially for this reason had little public support. The racial aspect of this was captured by Bruce Springsteen's anti-Vietnam War song Born in The USA (1984) song, where the songs unhappy protagonist describes how “(they) sent me off to a foreign land, to go and kill the yellow man”.²³ As mentioned, historical context is key here: within three decades American troops had been sent to Asia to fight Asian people in three separate wars that many felt Americans had no part in.²⁴

Conventionally, the breakout of the Vietnam War has been seen as a consequence of the Cold War; a conflict of ideology between two (mostly) white superpowers which manifested into a proxy war in Asia. However, more radical perspectives (such as that of historian Mark Allen) view the Vietnam War as an example of modern, racist white imperialism. The argument has been made that the war was essentially “racially motivated” and a war of genocide in which the white elite of the USA wished to extend their influence further into Asia; a viewpoint that is controversial, yet was supported by many, particularly black veterans who faced racism at home and in Vietnam. Furthermore, many of those who enlisted to go to war in Vietnam were from a poorer background, hoping to return home to a more promising future. The statistics on poverty at the time (and today) show that blacks were over-represented in the lower income and education brackets.²⁵

Unlike the Slavs and Jews in the Second World War, the Vietnamese could not be wholly labelled as an enemy race; primarily because soldiers of South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam or RVN) were allies of the Americans. Nor were the American troops a homogeneous ethnic group; the US Army was, to an extent, reflective of the country's “melting pot” status, largely compromised of white Americans but with a significant black and Hispanic presence. Thus, race could not be used as a unifier in the way that it was under National Socialism, and the lines between “us” and “them” were blurred. In particular, racial tensions within the US military are important to focus on for this case study; not only did this reflect the state of race politics in the United States at the time, but makes the Vietnam War a somewhat unique case study where internal racial tension has been widely documented and is a key feature of the American Vietnam War experience.²⁶

Another critical aspect of “race” in the Vietnam War is the plight of African American soldiers, labelled as a “war within (a) war”, who for the first time fought in racially mixed combat units.²⁷ Blacks in Vietnam continued to experience the racial suffering that they suffered at home, and in many documented cases, worse. Victimization and abuse was common. A particular documented case of this is that of Billy Dean Smith, a black American who resisted the Vietnam War after being discharged in 1970; describing his experience that the war was “unjust and racially motivated”. In an ethnically diverse combat unit, Smith was consistently a victim of racism and began to see the “enemy” as “the Heroic Vietnamese who for hundreds of years, had waged the same struggle he was waging as an individual”.²⁸ Domestic race-politics in the USA in this era, combined with the fact that the enemy was ethnically Asian, was a critical factor for why the Vietnam War became so unpopular. In many cases, black American troops would identify more strongly with their “enemy” than their white comrades; an interview with 400 black enlisted men showed that only 23% agreed blacks should be fighting in Vietnam (due to their problems back home).²⁹ Racial tensions exacerbated (or perhaps caused) low morale in many cases: Lloyd Hudson, a black Vietnam veteran speaking on “fragging” (soldiers killing their officers), stated that “people got shot because of racial tensions” on the battleground. Black soldiers who argued that racial tensions disappeared on the front-line still admitted that the tensions and racial abuse would continue once the troops returned to their bases.³⁰

The intersectionality of race and ideology in the Vietnam War is certainly not clear cut. Conventionally, it is a war of capitalist democracy fighting communism; the viewpoint that it was a war of race/racism is controversial and not mainstream. However, a link can be made between the concept of the feared and foreign “other”: the communist; along with the “other” race in a distant land. The race factor in the war is strengthened by historical context; as mentioned, (mostly) white Americans had been recently involved in two separate wars in Asia. As historians like Allen have put forward, it is arguable that the USA would be far more hesitant to have engaged in an anti-communism land war with a European or North American enemy. Thus, the racial separation plays a key factor in marking the enemy as the enemy. We must also remember, however, that the racial situation was complex: the South Vietnamese allies of the USA were visibly indistinguishable from the North Vietnamese, a key factor in the latter's guerilla efforts. Unlike the Japanese, the Vietnamese could not be marked as a homogeneous enemy entity of the USA. This, along with racial tensions in combat groups (which were a large factor in making the war unpopular) played a huge role in making Vietnam an unwinnable war for the USA.³¹

Next, we will look examine the crusades, from the late 11^th the late 13^th century; in particular I will be drawing from the research of Francisco Bethencourt.³² For racial theory and context during this period, one of the key themes is the separation (or lack thereof) between “race” and religion. Recently, historians have put forth that our modern idea of “race” is a modern social construct; that either did not exist or had only begun to bloom in medieval society.^{33 34 35} What is certain for this period, however, is that people in this era belonged to often conflated ethno-religious communities. As one writer puts it, in the medieval period “religion meant membership of a community much more than adherence to a set of principles or beliefs… one was born a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew, just as one was born English or Persian”.³⁶ Further, Bethencourt demonstrates that Greeks nad Romans saw environment and community directly tied to race; one's place of birth, community and ethnicity were one and the same which continued into the era of the crusades.³⁷ In contrast to the previous case studies of this essay, to understand the crusades we must see “race” and racial groups more as communities, than as physiological categorisations of humans (the latter of which Nazi ideology leaned heavily upon).

The killings and expulsions of Jews during the First and Second Crusades occurred mostly inside Europe, similarly to the Nazi killings of Jews in the Second World War. Strangely, however, to be a “Nazi” is to be seen as inherently racist and the holocaust entirely underpinned by racism; yet the anti-Semitism of the crusades is seen as more of a complex racial issue with religion a key factor. Jews in medieval Europe were a scapegoat for many societal problems of the era, for example, large numbers of Jews were burned alive after being blamed for the Black Death.³⁸ Scaremongering and rumour spreading was a frequent phenomenon. Myths circulated that European Jews were born with horns and a tail, and that Jews needed to consume the blood of Christian children, whom they would regularly torture to death.³⁹ What these examples demonstrate is that we must use the term “race” loosely to understand it as a major factor in the crusades (which it was); we must understand “race” as societal groupings and communities rather than strictly the physiological differences in our appearance. Although difficult to do in the modern, international world, this loose definition of races makes sense for the medieval period. Simply, travelling was much more treacherous and took far longer, naturally leading to isolated groups of people across Eurasia to whom “outsiders” were unusual to see, and threatening. Traditionally we see the outbreak of the crusades as a “holy war” with the aim to take over (or recapture) the Muslim world and spread Catholicism, and thus religiously motivated. However, this medieval phenomenon of “race” and members of other communities (regardless of their strictly genetic ethnicity) being seen as a distant “other” is a key factor in why the crusades began. In many ways, the crusades ere simply proto-imperialism.⁴⁰ The fact that many Jews were killed out of convenience (as they were killed “on the way” to the Muslim world) strengthens this point.

One crucial aspect of the “race” factor in the crusades is that the European “crusaders” were not ethnically homogeneous belligerents; they were of different nationalities and ethnic subgroups, bound by a common objective and religion. Therefore, it is problematic to think of the conflicts/conquests as a war between two races (in contrast to the “Germans in the East” subsection where the “Bolshevik-Jewry” became the homogeneous enemy of the German volk). Bethencourt uses the example of Roger II's kingdom, where the “king of Sicily, Apulia and Capua” ruled over various races of people whom were ranked hierarchically. Defeated Muslims were at the bottom of this racial hierarchy and were as much a “lower” social class as they were an ethnic or religious group. Furthermore, the ruler of Sicily was designated “defender of God and protector of the Christian religion” (as opposed to an ethnic designation e.g. “defender of the Sicilian peoples”.⁴¹ The case study of Sicily also disproves the concept of a “race-war”: the majority of merchants and businessmen in Palermo were still Muslim in the late 12^th Century, with southern Italy becoming a “melting pot” of races to an extent. The differing “races” in the Crusades were moreso categorised and represented as religious and geographical communities. Although appearance and physiology was recognised in the crusades, race representation was moreso in religious, cultural (language, clothing etc.) differences. Though a factor, we certainly cannot say that the Crusades were a race war in the same way that we can argue the Eastern Front of the Second World War was so.⁴²

As mentioned, race in this era simultaneously merged with and was separated by religion, the latter seemingly being the more important issue. Though there were incidences of massacres and mass-killings, the crusades were more of a war of Christianisation than of racial annihilation. The crusaders sought to convert Muslim people, not to exterminate them as a “race” (nor seeing them as a homogeneous racial group defined by their physiology). To make a comparison, parts of Poland were seeing as German land by the Nazis and a war was to be fought upon race and nationality. Contrastingly, the “Holy Lands” were seen as Christian lands by the crusaders and the Catholic Church, but there was no true concept of a proto-Lebensraum or racial extermination behind the crusades. Thus, religion was a far important factor. Finally, we must also remember the importance of geopolitics and proto-imperialism behind the crusades: the Papacy was hugely powerful in medieval Europe and sought to extend its boundaries politically, not just religiously. To think of the crusades as a race-war is overall misleading.

Finally, I will focus on the factor of race in the European conquests of Africa; in particular I will be drawing from the Weaver's research into the acquisition of Southern Africa in the first half of the 19^th Century.⁴³ Much of this section comes before the era of Darwinism and Nietzsche and the respective racial theory that arose from their work, yet that is not to say this was not a “racist” era of history. The 19^th Century European attitude towards black Africans was, largely, that they were barbaric, inferior and “perhaps not even human”.⁴⁴ These racist attitudes of the era heavily tie into one of the most important aspects of this “war of acquisition”: the concept of “”terra nullius” i.e. “nobody's land”.⁴⁵ As the natives of the land were considered racially inferior, if human at all, racial ideology of the time justified the war of land-grabbing and conquest. Similarities can be seen here with the Nazi “lebensraum” attitude; the “superior” race feeling it was their entitlement to seize land from inferior races, for their own benefit. This also strengthens the argument that Nazism was inspired by European conquests in Africa.

This section is not a war in the same way that my previous examples have been, as much of the fighting was scattered and far more complex than simply two modern nation-states “at war” with each other. However, I consider the European conquest of southern Africa as a war (albeit often a manipulative war of legalities and land ownership), as the overarching phenomenon is land-grabbing and territorial expansion where “natives” would be at the whim of the (white) invaders. Race and racism was clearly a key factor in why race broke out; as mentioned, the view that the African natives were “inferior” justified conquest and killings. Further, a widely held view (partially true in some regards) was that Africa was a barbaric land torn by tribal wars. Thus, the beginnings of the invasions and land grabbing was commonly justified by colonists that they were a solution to the problem: whites were simply bringing unity and peace to regions like the Orange Free State, by asserting white governance and killing off native leaders.

At first glance it seems natural to categorise the African story as that of the white aggressor invading the lands of the black victim. However, the European acquisition of southern Africa was not simply a race war i.e. “white vs. black” and is in fact quite a complex era of history. For example, some African natives were forthcoming and willing to work with/ give up pieces of land for protection in return. Overall however, the racist ideas of the Vortrekkers (Dutch) and British colonists were translated into law, after battle had been won. Beyond initial battles, the war of conquest only saw scattered violence in southern Africa, but racial theory became racial law. For example, racial segregation was imposed in British Natal. Blacks were excluded from buying or renting land that was now “Afrikaner” (land that was obtained initially through violence and then through misleading or forced sales).⁴⁶ Similarly, after winning battles due to a mismatch of fire-power, Dutch colonists would declare laws and “acts” favouring white settlers; e.g., in 1838 when Zulus were legally considered “immigrants” in what was now white territory.⁴⁷

Overall, we can definitively say that the European intrusion into African lands (and the subsequent violent and legal wars) were underpinned by racism and is a story of enforced “white superiority”. White Europeans felt entitled to enforce democracy and self-serving land laws, as well as treating natives as inferior humans, simply because of race. In some ways similarities can be drawn with the Vietnam War, where Americans were more willing to “defeat communism” given the war was with an Asian nation. Briefly worth considering are other aspects beyond racism, however: European whites were at the time warring with each other. The fact that Africans were not white was a convenience, but not the entire reason for war; war was commonplace for Europeans. Also worth noting is that the white invaders heavily out-gunned the Africans – we could perhaps make the argument that if a European state was as underdeveloped as southern Africa in the 19^th Century, they would have also fell victim to invasion and dominance. Regardless, race is a key factor in the story of Europeans in Africa.

To conclude, race has been a factor in every case study for this essay, though not always the key factor. Racist ideology, anti-Semitism and a concept of “Aryan” superiority led the Nazis to invade Eastern Europe, and also explains the heavily skewed mortality rates for Soviet civilians and PoWs in the war. In Vietnam, domestic race-politics were imported into the battleground and were significant in causing low troop morale. Furthermore, Americans were arguably more willing to assert capitalist democracy in a non-white, faraway land than they would have been in Europe; racism allowed a proxy-war. As mentioned however, to examine the Crusades strictly through the lens of race is dishonest. The Crusades were largely underpinned by spreading Catholicism and expanding the powers of the Papacy. Race, however, was evidently a factor, e.g. in the anti-Semitism of the Crusaders; yet we must be careful to not use our modern definition of “race” when examining medieval wars. Finally, the wars of land acquisition in Africa were a different type of “war”, and largely became a legal and political war between white settlers and native Africans. Crucially however, Europeans were motivated by their view that Africans were barbaric and inferior. The wars in Africa were not decided by race but were started by race, and thus race is a key factor.

~

Bibliography

Mazower, Mark, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (London, 1999).

Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim (London, 1998).

Grant, Madison, “The Passing of the Great Race”, Geographical Review, 2 (1916).

Darwin, Charles, The Descent of Man (London, 1871).

Diethe, Carol, Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism (Maryland, 2006).

Cesarani, David, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-49 (London, 2016).

Mazower, Mark, Hitler's Empire: How The Nazis Ruled Europe (London, 2009).

Kinder, Hermann and Hilgemann, Werner, The Penguin Atlas of World History (London, 1995).

Francis Pike, Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II (London, 2010).

Allen, Mark, “The Case of Billy Dean Smith”, The Black Scholar, 4 (1972).

Westheider, James E., Fighting in Vietnam: The Experiences of the U.S. Soldier (USA, 2011).

Bethencourt, Francisco, Racisms: From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century (USA, 2013).

Heng, Geraldine, “The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages I: Race Studies, Modernity, and the Middle Ages”, Literature Compass, 8 (2011), 258-274.

Cohn, Jr., Samuel K., “The Black Death and the Burning of Jews”, Past & Present, 196 (2007), 3-36.

John C. Weaver, The Great Land Rush and The Making of The Modern World: 1650-1900 (Quebec, 2013).

Jewish Virtual Library.

YouTube.

Berkeley Internet.

The Daily Telegraph.

National Humanities Centre.

Encylopedia.com.

New York Times.

Genius.

The Guardian.

The American Resources Centre at LJMU.

Public Medievalist.

1Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (London, 1999), xiii.

2Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. Translated by Ralph Manheim (London, 1998).

3Madison Grant, “The Passing of the Great Race”, Geographical Review, 2 (1916), 359.

4Ibid, 354-360.

5Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (London, 1871), 156.

6Hitler, Mein Kampf, 274.

7Adolf Hitler, Speech (1933), retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0V_xf3OQgM (accessed 14 January 2018).

8Youtube

9http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-europe-before-the-holocaust-map (accessed 15 January 2018).

10Carol Diethe, Historical Dictionary of Nietzscheanism (Maryland, 2006)

11Mazower, Dark Continent, introduction.

12http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/iwm/soviet.html (accessed 17 January 2018)

13http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/6086144/World-War-2-Churchill-orders-German-ship-blockade.html (accessed 15 January 2018)

14David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-49 (London, 2016), chs. 6-8.

15Ibid, chs. 6-8.

16Mark Mazower, Hitler's Empire: How The Nazis Ruled Europe (London, 2009), ch. 12.

17Mazower, Dark Continent, ch. 1.

18Mazower, Hitler's Empire, chs. 3-6.

19Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, The Penguin Atlas of World History (London, 1995), ch. 7.

20http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1917beyond/essays/crm.htm (accessed 16 January 2018).

21http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/political-science-and-government/political-parties-and-movements/civil (accessed 16 January 2018).

22https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/opinion/muhammad-ali-in-vietnam.html (accessed 16 January 2018).

23https://genius.com/Bruce-springsteen-born-in-the-usa-lyrics (accessed 17 January 2018).

24Francis Pike, Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II (London, 2010), chs. 30-37.

25Mark Allen, “The Case of Billy Dean Smith”, The Black Scholar, 4 (1972), 15-17.

26Pike, Empires at War (London, 2010), chs. 30-37.

27https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2001/sep/15/weekend7.weekend3

28Allen, “Billy Dean Smith”, 15-17.

29http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Vietnam_Civil_Rights.htm (accessed 16 January 2018).

30James E Westheider, Fighting in Vietnam: The Experiences of the U.S. Soldier (USA, 2011), 186-187.

31Pike, Empires, chs. 30-37.

32Francisco Bethencourt, Racisms: From the Crusades to the Twentieth Century (USA, 2013), chs. 1-2.

33https://www.publicmedievalist.com/medieval-people-racist/ (accessed 16 January 2018).

34Geraldine Heng, “The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages I: Race Studies, Modernity, and the Middle Ages”, Literature Compass, 8 (2011), 258-274.

35https://www.publicmedievalist.com/is-race-real/ (accessed 16 January 2018).

36https://www.publicmedievalist.com/medieval-people-racist/ (accessed 16 January 2018).

37Bethencourt, Racisms, ch.1.

38Samuel K. Cohn, Jr “The Black Death and the Burning of Jews”, Past & Present, 196 (2007), 3-36.

39Heng, “The Invention”, 258-259.

40Bethencourt, Racisms, chs. 1-2.

41Ibid, ch. 2.

42Ibid, chs. 1-3.

43John C. Weaver, The Great Land Rush and The Making of The Modern World: 1650-1900 (Quebec, 2013), ch. 4.

44https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/08/european-racism-africa-slavery (accessed 17 January 2018)

45Weaver, Land Rush, 160.

46Ibid, 163-172.

47Ibid, ch. 4.