There's been tremendous debate by historians over the decades regarding Germany's 'destined path to Nazism'. While much of the historical background is undeniably persuasive, it strikes me as too pat or, at best, the usual human desire to explain away uncomfortable & common realities.
Nazism, slavery, empire: can countries learn from national evil?
- Thread starter SteveJ
- Start date
There is no such thing as national evil. There is a human disposition for cruelty. There are manipulative politicians, there are nation states. There is prejudice, ignorance, anger. Combined, they bring us to some dark places indeed. But memory can fade. We need reminding, we are not good at learning, though we may sense that we are living a dangerous time.
I've not studied it for a few years and I never looked at it in depth when I did but I seem to recall that the 'Sonderweg' argument was not really treated with much credibility among most historians anymore. I agree though, I think it's a mistake to identify an inexorable path in German history leading to National Socialism and Hitler.
To be honest, some of the Sonderweg theorising reads like a mixture of xenophobia (regarding the Germans), and smug assumptions of superiority...ironically.
Your opinion; saying "largely accepted/supported" is a subjective claim that equals my "half of the population was concerned/disgusted but too scared-powerless" subjective claim. Do I need to remind you again that Hitler didn't get 50% of the vote in 1932-33? The hardest nazi civilians were from Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania, and they paid the price in 44-47.
And it is well-documented that the extermination camps were run by SS personel.
Yeah, I reckon it's mostly bollocks. Fascism could have potentially developed in any country and indeed had plenty of support in many.
I think there are a few reasons as to why German Nazism ended up being particularly grim even compared to its Italian and Spanish variants. One reason I'd argue is that it was easier for Hitler to establish control over what had been an incredibly weak and fragile republic in the first place. It was probably easier for a strongman to seize absolute power in that respect. In Mussolini's Italy the influence of the Catholic church remained a lot more pervasive, making it more difficult for him to establish complete cultural control over the nation, and Franco's Spain - once he held power - were at the end of a brutal civil war; Franco had absolute power but was presumably aware that the country would push back if he pushed them too hard.
Although Mussolini and Franco's states were still uniquely grim in their own ways. The conduct of Mussolini's Italy in Africa and the like was beyond vile and the slight thaw in later years under Franco and his normalisation in the West for diplomatic reasons means his own conduct after the civil war probably gets downplayed quite a bit.
I agree entirely with you. Just as the 48% in UK are victims of the xenophobic culture created by the BrExit leave movement.
The Nazis weren’t the only nationalist conservative party winning seats in that election. There was a wave of nationalism across the country combined with a fear of the Bolshevik threat that created a wave of fascist support.
When you look at it dispassionately the onus is on you to support the idea that a majority were opposed but cowed. Because nothing I’ve ever seen has supported that position.
We're running around in circles. I'll stick to my guns: half of the german population was not nazi in 1932-1938. They never had the chance to vote for something different in 1937, did they? Weimar was the first country invaded by the nazis.
Nothing left for me to say.
Last edited:
Yeah, some good points here, and I'd add that Hitler's pseudo-biological racial beliefs and his worldview which had opposition to a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy as its lodestar was virtually incomparable to the ideological views of Franco and Mussolini. Sure, they were racists and utterly contemptible characters too, but they had nothing like the conviction that Hitler did on such matters, and nor did they share his Social Darwinism. Mussolini, for instance, had as a young man identified as a Bolshevik, he claimed race 'was a feeling, not a reality', and was personally unmoved by anti-Semitism.
Out of sight out of mind is only partially true. It's more like out of sight, but the general German population knew, or had heard rumblings about what was going on, and either ignored it, or chose not to believe it. It's not like this was contained information. Jews, and other groups that were being eradicated, were frequently brought into Germany to work as slave labor. These contact points would leak information. Moreover, German soldiers, police, military police, all would hear (if not see first hand) about what was going on, and via word of mouth this would spread.
It's an issue of willful ignorance. Millions of people cannot be slaughtered through a mechanized process, without word getting out, either through the people working in these camps, or when the people slated to meet their fate in these camps were brought to Germany to work in factories as slave labor.
Obviously the average Germany isn't as guilty as a card carrying member of the Nazi party, not to speak of the leadership of the party. However, there is a certain degree of shared culpability that you can't wash away with "we didn't know" or "this isn't what we wanted". The society itself was poisoned to allow for such a repulsive regime to take root.
Regarding fascist dictatorships in southern european countries, specifically the portuguese one, something to consider is that the government couldn't, at the same time, say whites are the true portuguese and at the same time call the inhabitants of our former colonies also portuguese.
The fascists didn't refer to colonies as colonies but as ultramarine regions of Portugal, and angolans, mozambicans, timorese and so on were portuguese. It was an ideological way of justifying keeping those lands under their control. So, although of course there was institutional racism in southern european fascist regimes, there wasn't much ideological focus on race or even religion, since many territories had different religions.
The fascists didn't refer to colonies as colonies but as ultramarine regions of Portugal, and angolans, mozambicans, timorese and so on were portuguese. It was an ideological way of justifying keeping those lands under their control. So, although of course there was institutional racism in southern european fascist regimes, there wasn't much ideological focus on race or even religion, since many territories had different religions.
Nope.
Please remember that the actual (secret mass slaughter) Holocaust was approved by a small nazi elite in early 1942. If it was, as you say, widespread by "German soldiers, police, military police" (who had very limited-if any-access to the camps-run by SS personnel and psychopathic german orc women) it surely was late 1943 or even early 1944 and by that time a) the main concern was stopping the USSR at least in eastern Poland, and b) for any anti-nazi german citizen it would have been a futile suicide to complain about the Holocaust, his/her family probably killed as well just in case.
Perhaps "we didn't know" is not believable but "I was powerless and they-SS/Gestapo-would have killed me" was the hard sad truth for millions of "non-nazi/anti-concentration camps" Germans.
I'm always trying to defend the average non-nazi german civilian who didn't have the guts, means, will or forecast to leave Germany in 1934-38 and was trapped there by 1939, the scariest place on the planet for dissidents.
Makes sense. The III Reich had zero colonies, all lost when the II Reich lost the war in 18-19.
Except that even setting aside the millions of Jews who had already been driven into ghettos or forcibly displaced in Nazi occupied territory, after Barbarrosa was launch in 1941 over 500,000–800,000 Jews had been killed in Russia alone by mass shootings by the end of that year. At that point Wannsee hadn't even happened.
Jews were being murdered and viciously abused all across Nazi controlled Europe. The decision to implement the Final Solution was a significant event, but Jews were being slaughtered long before, and certainly not in secret.
It is well documented and accepted, included current Israeli historians-authorities that the Holocaust was a 42-45 event.
What the feck are you even talking about here? You're trying to say normal Germans wouldn't have known about the mass extermination of the Jews and therefore can't be morally blamed, yet you want to just skip over the genocide of 500-800,000 Jews in Russia alone, not to mention the countless murders all across Nazi held Europe?
It's not often a post makes me genuinely angry, but yours just did.
I can see you are biased beyond redemption. Also, when you cannot agree with somebody you switch to an "angry keyboard SJW" mode. How old are you, anyway? By your tone I smell mid'20s?
If you cannot accept the fact that half of Weimar Republic was not nazi and didn't vote for the Nazis in 32-33 it's your fecking problem, not mine.
If you cannot accept the fact that most european countries at that time were equally antisemitic-darwinist it's your fecking problem not mine.
If you cannot accept that althought even half of the population was disgusted about the abuse,persecution and deportation of jews they were virtually terrified and powerless to do something about it it's your fecking problem not mine.
If you cannot accept the fact that the systematic mass murder-the actual genocide-started in 1942 it's your fecking problem, not mine.
If you keep confusing the concepts "persecution-deportation" with "systematic genocide" it's your fecking problem, not mine.
Keep your insulting crap to yourself.
Given that I made a number of posts just above saying EXACTLY that, I can only assume you didn't bother reading them first.
You have no idea whether half the population was 'disgusted' let alone 'virtually terrified and powerless'. You're making a complete guess based around your existing assumptions. If you want to debate history, then provide some actual evidence to support your positions, otherwise you're just talking shite.
The Nazis murdered between 500,000 and 800,000 Jews just months before, in what fecking disturbed version of the world does that not count as systematic genocide?
What in the actual feck are you talking about?
You're aware that around 500,000 Jews were killed in the occupied parts of the USSR, in 1941, right? That's part of the Holocaust. Where did you get your education? What is your education? What are your credentials? You're talking nonsense right now.
Good reply. I don't think you're equipped with the education to have this debate. Carry on.
I'll see myself out of this thread. Dead-end. I've already said all I think/I've read about the subject. From the 32-33 elections and the '30s concentration camps for german dissidents to the Wannsee conference in 1942. I will NOT stand for crass bullying and violent SJW bravado with zero links to support it.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
If you need a link to know that 500-800k Jews were slaughtered in 1941, then you probably shouldn't be in a thread trying to argue against it.
Oh and if you think the responses you received were 'crass bullying' then you should probably be a bit more self aware and realize that anything that appears to be brushing over genocide is likely to be received extremely poorly here.
Please be aware, you don't really know what you are talking about.
The Holocaust didn't begin in 1942. The only thing that happened in 1942, was the formalization of the industrial plan for mechanized slaughter. The Holocaust was in full swing prior to 1942, with Waffen SS, Allgemeine SS, and the Wehrmacht forces all taking part in mass killings. Wehrmacht forces often assisting and providing security for the actual Einsatzgruppen.
Perhaps we should talk about how in the opening phases of the war in Europe, the SS or Einsatzgruppen often didn't do any of the killing themselves. Rather they enlisted the help of local nationalists who carried out the mass killings with the urging, logistical, and political support of the SS, who were supported, helped, and protected by regular army units.
Again, this was not some secret conspiracy that was air tight. I feel like we're about to tread on the myth that, the German army was clean, and fought a clean war, and they were separate from the SS. Well, it wasn't. With the invasion of the USSR with Barbarossa, OKW ordered ALL German officers to cooperate fully with the Einsatzgruppen, including, and not limited to, actual logistical support and military support for the activities of the death squads. There are examples of officers refusing to cooperate, and they are a credit to themselves, but they were the exception, not the rule.
The Wehrmacht worked hand in hand frequently with the SS and the Einsatzgruppen to massacre Jews, and other civilians in occupied territories, often under the guise of "anti-partisan" activities. What that really meant was rolling into a village or hamlet in a show of force, and killing all military aged men, or whoever they felt like.
I guess the 30,000 Jews killed over a few days and dumped into the Babi Yar ravine wasn't part of the Holocaust though, right? I should also inform you, that the massacre at Babi Yar on 29-30 Sept 1941, yes 1941, was facilitated by the 6th Army under Reichenau. The "Final Solution" wasn't the Holocaust. It was part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is traditionally, and widely recognized to begin roughly in 1941 with the invasion of the USSR, though, you could make arguments that it began in 1939 with the Invasion of Poland.
Another problem with your theory, is that 6 of the main extermination camps were setup in 1941 in Poland. All Wannsee was, was a formalization of the informal plans already underway, and to being a more unified and organized approach to what was already happening.
Yeah you should learn to converse with people, what an utterly unpleasant post.
Anyone here read Goldhagen’s Willing Executioners ?
Is he actually denying that over 500,000 Jews were killed in 1941 as part of the Holocaust?
No more unpleasant than "What the feck are you talking about?" "What is your education-credentials?" before that post of mine.
I blame Kentonio and Nucks for ruining this thread. Re-read my original posts in Page1.
No, worth a read?
You're adorable. You say this "I can see you are biased beyond redemption. Also, when you cannot agree with somebody you switch to an "angry keyboard SJW" mode. How old are you, anyway? By your tone I smell mid'20s?"
Then you get upset?
I don't want to get involved in the whole argument, but I collect antisemitic/'satirical' medals from the 16th-19th century, and a LARGE proportion (85%, 13/16) of those are German. Obviously this is evidence of nothing, but it's interesting and relevant.
In comparison, I have zero Russian ones, zero Danish, zero Swedish, zero Portuguese, and 2 British ones. Comparing to my main medal collection of naval motifs, that ratio is very different.
I haven’t read it, just know that it’s extremely controversial in the field.
Here is a collection of primary sources pertaining to one example of the mass killings that tallied up to over 500,000 in 1941.
I hope this source isn't too "SJW" for you to take seriously.
https://www.yadvashem.org/education...ing-environment/babi-yar/primary-sources.html
I hope this source isn't too "SJW" for you to take seriously.
https://www.yadvashem.org/education...ing-environment/babi-yar/primary-sources.html
Last edited:
Last edited:
You can't blame people for their ignorance band fear, sorry.
Sorry, I don't understand what "ignorance band fear" is supposed to mean. If you're insinuating I am ignorant on the subject, that's amusing.
Autocorrect fecking up. Ignorance and fear.