Nazism, slavery, empire: can countries learn from national evil?

George Owen said:
Autocorrect fecking up. Ignorance and fear.
Click to expand...

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the average German, but, the feck up is too big, you can't just say "you're not to blame". I don't think it's even fair to say the "average" German, because the "average" German is absolutely culpable. They were cheering in the streets when Hitler took Poland, when he took France. The exceptional Germans are the ones you have to feel for. The people who at the business end of the advance into the USSR, categorically refused to aid the Einsatzgruppen in their tasks, among other examples.

It absolutely WAS a poisoned culture. We've got a guy in this thread who denies part of the Holocaust saying that "every" country in Europe was just as vile as Germany was regarding antisemitism. Maybe that's true, but, they didn't put a guy into power who tried to eradicate the Jews. So it's fair to say, most if not all of Western Europe had systemic antisemitism to some extent. It's not fair to say they were all the same as Germany, because words are words, and actions are actions, and at the end of the day, France didn't kill 6-7 million Jews, Germany did. France didn't launch a general European war that killed in-excess of 50 million people. Germany did.

You don't reach a level of power and support that allows you to do that, without support of the people. In this case, a large enough plurality is all it took to put Hitler in power, and once he was in power, his support sky rocketed right up until February 1943. He ran on nationalism, antisemitism, and jingoism. What did they expect? Following the annexation of the Sudetenland Hitlers popularity and support had never been higher. It was certainly higher than the 37% or whatever that he rode into power. His ability to invade Poland was PREDICATED on this support. The German people supported him, and he knew that once he took them into war, through feckery or otherwise, the German people would support him so long as he won. He did win, quickly, and his support only grew, and he kept winning, and his support continued.

Did the average German want to see the mechanized slaughter of Jews carried out? Almost certainly not. However, if you put a gun in the hands of a mass murderer, and he murders a bunch of people, you put the gun in that mass murderers hands, whether you wanted him to kill people or not. You bear responsibility for that. Maybe you wanted to stop him, but you didn't because he had a gun, and you didn't, so you were scared. Ok. You still armed him to begin with. Your mistake. Germany's mistake. Actions have consequences. Bad decisions bring culpability for the consequences of those decisions.

So yes, at the end of the day, the people of Germany share some degree of responsibility for what happened.
 
SteveJ said:
I know it's a clumsy analogy but just look how the Republican Party's main players have fallen in line behind Trump and his godawful policies; and maybe that's all it takes for consequent horror to take hold, as it did with Hitler and Stalin: a cult of (particularly malign) personality, unquestioned leadership, and expedient politics beyond the standard restrictions of statesmanship.
Click to expand...
I have no doubts about the fascist potential of the US "conservative movement", it's plain to see. But I don't think a dictatorship with attached personality cult is all it takes, as you suspect. Too much weight is put on the dictatorial aspect of Nazism, however crucial it was, and too little on its quality as a quasi-religious mass movement with roots that can be traced much further back in modern German social history.

I understand the reasons why you're reluctant about criticizing millions of people without being rather sure what their part was. But at the same time I can't help but thinking that this lack of knowledge on the everyday aspects of Nazism, and the attitudes and behaviours widespread among of the German population and soldiery, must be the main reason for that reluctance. In short: If your mind isn't set already, I think you should try to find out more about that. And I'm quite certain you will be as shocked as everyone who attempts that with two open eyes.
 
2cents said:
I’ll defer to you on this, not quite my area. But would be interested to hear more on the bolded - it’s something I’ve come across before with vague references to the counter-Enlightenment/Romanticism, etc. which seem to have had their intellectual home in Germany.
Click to expand...
I think the foundation upon which National Socialism could eventually develop has to be seen as a compound of several elements. To me, it was a fusion of rigid (Prussian) militarism & state authoritarianism* with völkisch-antisemitic nationalism (crucially influenced by the anti-modernist romanticism you mentioned), and its characteristic brand of aggressive, self-pitying jingoism. The latter, it has to be emphasized, was not a product of 1918, but already the predominant conservative/reactionary mindset during pre-War times. I see the (self-perceived) humiliation of Versaille and the economic crisis of 1929 as catalysts, not origins of these developments.

These factors were already firmly established during the times of the German Empire. On the other side was the chronic weakness of any liberal-bourgeois challenge to this social order - the price for political toleration was conformism. (A few words on social democracy in the spoiler below.) I'm sure variants of these political and ideological elements existed in other Western European societies as well, perhaps even strongly so, but I'm also sure the constellation characteristic for Germany between the mid 19th and mid 20th century was unique. The second part of this post continues at this point.

-----
* I suspect non-Prussian traditions of reactionary conservatism must have been a docking point for (proto-)NS ideology as well, especially in terms of its antisemitism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism. (I'm thinking mainly of Bavaria and Austria here, the cradle of the original NS movement.) But this may have been a somewhat contradictory relationship, at least initially, as the National Socialist movement also had a distinct revolutionary, anti-conservative side to it. This conflict existed in Prussian Germany as well.

2cents said:
As for the right circumstances? Obviously it’s impossible to say anything for certain when dealing in counter-factuals, but it doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me to speculate that if the Great War had played out differently, a defeated, humiliated France in 1918 might have produced its own regional variant of what I clumsily referred to a Nazism above.
Click to expand...
In the spoiler below are some thoughts about a comparison between France and Germany. In what's already a thread tradition, I freely admit that my knowledge on these issues is cursory. This is simply how I put the puzzle pieces I'm aware of together, and criticism is welcome.

As for France, it obviously had a strong tradition of Republicanism, and also working class struggle, and a rich history of revolutionary unrest against state authority. By all accounts, antisemitism must have been rife by the end of the 19th century, and there was the deep-rooted authoritarian tradition of Bonapartism, so certainly enough potential for a French fascism. But throughout the 19th century, these two - or if we follow Marx, more - camps fought each other in a constant back and forth. (Vichy seems like a special case for me, and was itself checked by Free France and the remarkable persistence of the Résistance.)

These oppositional factors were largely suppressed or absent in German modern history until 1918, which is marked by the crushing defeat of liberal elements in 1848, and the dominance of Prussia over Germany between 1866 and 1918. Revolutionary social democracy emerged as a serious challenger in the later 19th century, but its leadership miserably failed its do-or-die test in 1914. (I partly understand this failure as an outcome of said social and political preconditions as well.) For all I've read, these developments must have had grave consequences for the political, ideological, cultural, and socio-psychological landscape of German society, and that may be the most important origin of the levels of obedience and affection towards authority that were so characteristic for National Socialism.

As for eliminatory antisemitism, these numbers seem very telling to me: According to wikipedia, more than 250,000 of 330,000 Jews in France survived the Holocaust under conditions of Nazi occupation and far-reaching collaboration of the Vichy government; of the 75,000 Jews the Germans managed to deport, 72,500 were murdered.

I know practically nothing about France in the 2-3 decades preceding the First World War, but I think a speculation on something akin to a French "Nazism" (I know you already relativated this) would have to rely on the assumption that between ~1880 and 1918 the strength of contradicting social forces must have been reduced to a point comparable to German conditions. Which I deem very unlikely. An authoritarian/fascist regime may have well been possible, but I strongly suspect it would have been under serious internal fire, in good French tradition.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
I have no doubts about the fascist potential of the US "conservative movement", it's plain to see. But I don't think a dictatorship with attached personality cult is all it takes, as you suspect. Too much weight is put on the dictatorial aspect of Nazism, however crucial it was, and too little on its quality as a quasi-religious mass movement with roots that can be traced much further back in modern German social history.

I understand the reasons why you're reluctant about criticizing millions of people without being rather sure what their part was. But at the same time I can't help but thinking that this lack of knowledge on the everyday aspects of Nazism, and the attitudes and behaviours widespread among of the German population and soldiery, must be the main reason for that reluctance. In short: If your mind isn't set already, I think you should try to find out more about that. And I'm quite certain you will be as shocked as everyone who attempts that with two open eyes.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I guess you suspect - as I do - that sadly my position likely boils down to an unwillingness to accept a horrible truth.
 
@2cents

Sorry for spamming you, but what I should have pointed out more is that the basis of what I tried to outline is usually seen in Germany's delay of nationbuilding and inner development caused by its peculiar situation of territorial/political fragmentation. Which lead to the explosive discrepance between a unified Germany's potential as a global power and the reality of its inferior standing in the competition with the established leading nations. And supposedly (not that I can really specify here) the development of a more state-centralist than liberal-pluralistic variant of a modern capitalist society.
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
@2cents

Sorry for spamming you, but what I should have pointed out more is that the basis of what I tried to outline is usually seen in Germany's delay of nationbuilding and inner development caused by its peculiar situation of territorial/political fragmentation. Which lead to the explosive discrepance between a unified Germany's potential as a global power, and the reality of its inferior standing in the competition with the established leading nations. And supposedly (not that I can really specify here) the development of a more state-centralist than liberal-pluralistic variant of a modern capitalist society.
Click to expand...

Really interesting posts as always @Synco, much appreciate the time and effort.
 
Nucks said:
So yes, at the end of the day, the people of Germany share some degree of responsibility for what happened.
Click to expand...

So, playing Devils Advocate....is it my fault/your fault when the US or the UK launch a drone attack on civilians in the Middle East?

I mean, I didn’t vote for it but it’s happening/has happened....what did we do about it and/or are we doing about it?

It’s fairly clear the only reason we’re interested in the Middle East is it’s resources so I’m not going to have any “it’s war/they’re terrorists” arguments....I’m sure that type of propaganda is exactly the type of propaganda Hitler used against the Jews

It’s easy to look back at the Holocaust with hindsight and think “how was this allowed to happen?” In reality, the continuous cycle of war and genocide we have seen across the globe for millennia suggests it can and does happen much more easily than we might wish to believe.

On this occasion the consequences were horrific and it likely resonates harder with us because it happened on our doorstep but we shouldn’t see it as a unique event or that there was something about being German in 1939 that allowed/caused it to happen. It still happening now, maybe on smaller scales, maybe further afield. What are WE doing about it? Nothing. Are we individually at fault? I don’t feel like we are to be honest!
 
Red Dreams said:
@Lentwood

The German people could not foresee what eventually happened to the Jews. It still does not fully absolve them of what the Nazis did.
Secondly I believe they were afraid themselves of what the Nazis would do if they objected.
Click to expand...

Even a quick flick on Google shows an estimated 21 recorded genocides were 100,000+ people were killed based on their religion or ethnicity

If we’re blaming the German people for the Holocaust then it’d be hard to find any group of people anywhere who don’t have blood on their hands

It scares me what people in this country would vote for, given the chance, and we’re living at a comparatively comfortable and peaceful time
 
You can't blame all Germans, that would be ludicrous. Just as daft as those who claim all Americans are responsible for slavery, or all Brits for the atrocities committed by the British Empire.

Many of the people involved in WW2 are now dead or soon will be. So the last living remnants of the time will be gone, meaning no living person can be held responsible for the actions carried out in WW2.
 
Lentwood said:
So, playing Devils Advocate....is it my fault/your fault when the US or the UK launch a drone attack on civilians in the Middle East?

I mean, I didn’t vote for it but it’s happening/has happened....what did we do about it and/or are we doing about it?

It’s fairly clear the only reason we’re interested in the Middle East is it’s resources so I’m not going to have any “it’s war/they’re terrorists” arguments....I’m sure that type of propaganda is exactly the type of propaganda Hitler used against the Jews

It’s easy to look back at the Holocaust with hindsight and think “how was this allowed to happen?” In reality, the continuous cycle of war and genocide we have seen across the globe for millennia suggests it can and does happen much more easily than we might wish to believe.

On this occasion the consequences were horrific and it likely resonates harder with us because it happened on our doorstep but we shouldn’t see it as a unique event or that there was something about being German in 1939 that allowed/caused it to happen. It still happening now, maybe on smaller scales, maybe further afield. What are WE doing about it? Nothing. Are we individually at fault? I don’t feel like we are to be honest!
Click to expand...

There is a difference though. The actions of the Nazi's towards jews, poles, slavs in general, prisoners of war, etc, displayed a deliberate agenda of genocide. When a drone strike to kill a "terrorist" kills some innocent civilians, it is absolutely a crime, but it is absolutely not indicative of a wider, deliberate plan to wide out an entire group of people. Was it the intent to kill innocent civilians? For the Nazi's yes. For the US or UK drone strike? No.

Now, the level of culpability of your average American or British citizen in holding their government accountable for these atrocities is a different discussion, and a discussion that is worth having. I think that there is some culpability, it's very small, but, we do need to hold our elected officials accountable.

Ultimately though, there is no real moral equivalence regarding accountability between drone strikes, and the Holocaust in any of its stages.
 
Lentwood said:
So, playing Devils Advocate....is it my fault/your fault when the US or the UK launch a drone attack on civilians in the Middle East?

I mean, I didn’t vote for it but it’s happening/has happened....what did we do about it and/or are we doing about it?

It’s fairly clear the only reason we’re interested in the Middle East is it’s resources so I’m not going to have any “it’s war/they’re terrorists” arguments....I’m sure that type of propaganda is exactly the type of propaganda Hitler used against the Jews

It’s easy to look back at the Holocaust with hindsight and think “how was this allowed to happen?” In reality, the continuous cycle of war and genocide we have seen across the globe for millennia suggests it can and does happen much more easily than we might wish to believe.

On this occasion the consequences were horrific and it likely resonates harder with us because it happened on our doorstep but we shouldn’t see it as a unique event or that there was something about being German in 1939 that allowed/caused it to happen. It still happening now, maybe on smaller scales, maybe further afield. What are WE doing about it? Nothing. Are we individually at fault? I don’t feel like we are to be honest!
Click to expand...
Great point. I tend to agree.

Another example is protests in the UK. 1 million people protested against the war in Iraq. But it still went ahead.

Going back to Nazi Germany, if a reign of terror is happening around you. The choices are- comply or rebel (and then likely, die). No doubt the regime was horribly brutal. It is most definitely a warning from history. But I think it would be unfair to condemn 100% of the German population from that time as being culpable.
 
@Nucks I feel you've made some really strong and interesting arguments in this thread thus far with regards to collective culpability. It's not where my instinct would have taken me, but they are strong points nonetheless. I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind.

- How do you feel about the level of culpability of Canaris, Oster, and the Abwehr [or at least its command structure]?
- How do you feel about the level of culpability of say Doenitz?
- What amount of resistance would you feel would be appropriate in Nazi Germany to *not* be as culpable as the rest?
 
Nucks said:
There is a difference though. The actions of the Nazi's towards jews, poles, slavs in general, prisoners of war, etc, displayed a deliberate agenda of genocide. When a drone strike to kill a "terrorist" kills some innocent civilians, it is absolutely a crime, but it is absolutely not indicative of a wider, deliberate plan to wide out an entire group of people. Was it the intent to kill innocent civilians? For the Nazi's yes. For the US or UK drone strike? No.
Click to expand...
Not to take anything away from your comprehensive posts or turn it into a tangential competition for pity, but it suddenly struck me that the Sinti/Roma/traveler-nomad genocides are often omitted in discussions or swept under the rug in collective memory (probably because they are not embedded in their intellectual bourgeois), despite their annihilation at the hands of organisations like the Ustaše or the Einsatzgruppen (by percentage of total population in Europe, if not pure numerical volume). Especially considering there was a ton of hard-wired hostility and internal support by the general populace against such undesirable/not-fit-for-nationalistic-society (via racial classification) groups...which certainly played a role in aiding, if not precipitating, the Kali Traš / Porajmos. That underlying sociostructural attitude of rejection and stripping of dignity seems very much ingrained and sadly persists to this day in a myriad ways via stereotypes and anecdotes, and leads to continued ostracization and lack of integration/visibility/upward-mobility and turns said group even more insular. Apologies for randomly butting in, by the way, don't mean to detract from your post(s)!
 
owlo said:
@Nucks I feel you've made some really strong and interesting arguments in this thread thus far with regards to collective culpability. It's not where my instinct would have taken me, but they are strong points nonetheless. I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind.

- How do you feel about the level of culpability of Canaris, Oster, and the Abwehr [or at least its command structure]?
- How do you feel about the level of culpability of say Doenitz?
- What amount of resistance would you feel would be appropriate in Nazi Germany to *not* be as culpable as the rest?
Click to expand...

Regarding the Abwehr and individuals involved with it. Complicated. The Wehrmacht and by extension Abwehr facilitated Hitler in a very real way. People opposed him. Canaris and Oster are examples. Canaris was executed for it. My feeling is, Canaris probably felt in some ways responsible, and as an officer, he did the right thing. I think that by being in the military, and the officer corps in general, your obligation is higher than the average citizen.

My feeling is that, your average citizen bears some responsibility, but I also don't really hold it against them if the terror apparatus of the state cowed anyone from acting. Without some form of organized leadership in opposition to the Nazi's, your average citizen can't really do anything. This might seem contradictory to my earlier statements, but really it isn't. It doesn't absolve the average person from the rise of Hitler, but, it absolves them of being held accountable for not being able to do anything. If that makes sense. The officers on the other hand, they are in positions of authority, and if anyone is going to lead a charge, it has to be (and should be) them. So men like Canaris and Oster, yes, they have a very high degree of culpability in facilitating the rise of Hitler through the role of the Abwehr, the navy, and the army. However, they did the right thing in the end, and opposed Hitler, which is the only thing you can ask someone to do when they are in that position. Do that absolve them? No, but, they came good in the end.

Doenitz I think is representative of the greater German feelings of Hitler. When things were going good, they were happy. When things turned bad, they became critical. I would say that he has a level of culpability as high as anyone involved in the military. I know Doenitz liked to suggest that he had no obligation to do anything, because he was a soldier and not a politician. I have a problem with this. It is not like Germany had some strong democratic tradition of civilian governments, where the military was subordinate to the civilian leadership. Is it possible Doenitz adopted this sort of feeling during the Weimar years? I suppose it is possible, but Germany was traditionally very much a militarist state. There is, for example, a very strong case to be made that it was the German general staff that in large part hijacked the Austro-Hungarian Serbian war to start WW2 (edit meant WW1), against the wishes of Wilhelm. I think that by and large, while he perhaps didn't agree with everything the regime was doing, he was happy to reap the benefits of victory, until he wasn't. Being that his position within the country was so high, I think if you were to rank the culpability of different strata within Germany, he's at the tippy top. One rung down from your say your Goerings, Goebbels, Himmler types.

I think that in general, for most German people, the realistic answer is, it was simply too late. For low ranking officers, refuse to cooperate with the SS, refuse to carry out illegal orders. It happened, and not all of them were shot. I think that for a general uprising the war would have had to have lasted longer to see civil unrest topple the government. The people were too indoctrinated into authoritarianism. For higher ranking officers, do what Canaris did. Resist Hitler, work against him. Even attempt to knock him off. So, to not be seen as culpable as the average, just do something, or in the case of lower ranking officers, don't do something when it related to helping massacre people.

I don't know if my position has really come across. Basically, I don't really blame the average German for not stopping Hitler after he came to power. They were a product of their times and their society. I hold them responsible to some degree for the rise of Hitler. This also might seem contradictory, and maybe I'm failing miserably to explain. Germany was responsible for putting Hitler in power, but once he was in power, there wasn't much the average person could do to stop that run away train. Everything that train hit as it ran away, they have some responsibility for, but, there wasn't really anything they could do to stop it once it left the station. The average German has some culpability, the people in positions of power who didn't step up, they had a lot.
 
Last edited:
Invictus said:
Not to take anything away from your comprehensive posts or turn it into a tangential competition for pity, but it suddenly struck me that the Sinti/Roma/traveler-nomad genocides are often omitted in discussions or swept under the rug in collective memory (probably because they are not embedded in their intellectual bourgeois), despite their annihilation at the hands of organisations like the Ustaše or the Einsatzgruppen (by percentage of total population in Europe, if not pure numerical volume). Especially considering there was a ton of hard-wired hostility and internal support by the general populace against such undesirable/not-fit-for-nationalistic-society (via racial classification) groups...which certainly played a role in aiding, if not precipitating, the Kali Traš / Porajmos. That underlying sociostructural attitude of rejection and stripping of dignity seems very much ingrained and sadly persists to this day in a myriad ways via stereotypes and anecdotes, and leads to continued ostracization and lack of integration/visibility/upward-mobility and turns said group even more insular. Apologies for randomly butting in, by the way, don't mean to detract from your post(s)!
Click to expand...

You're right. People often stop when they talk about the Holocaust, with the Jews. The Jews were just the single largest group targeted. I always try to be mindful of as many other groups as possible, hence I list a few and then say "etc". These other groups are worthy of more than "etc", but, for brevity sake, we could list probably a dozen+ groups who were targeted, so I tend to by name, name the largest ones and indicate that it didn't stop with those groups.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Going back to Nazi Germany, if a reign of terror is happening around you. The choices are- comply or rebel (and then likely, die).
Click to expand...
A (quite widespread) fallacy I see is treating the fact that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, brutally suppressing internal opposition, as quasi-proof that the "average German" must actually have been some sort of suppressed internal opposition. What's often silently ruled out beforehand is that 'comply or rebel' also holds the possibility that a vast number of Germans were simply compliant with and supportive of Nazism. Which, for all the complexities and contradictions involved in such a societal system, is a far more accurate description of the overall conditions.

It's something that's already been very visible in the few pages of this thread. Another fallacy: the truism that "you can't blame all the Germans" is often supposed to be the end of the question how many Germans were actually to blame for their individual contributions to the Nazi system, in its many aspects.
 
Last edited:
Obviously some very knowledgable people talking on this thread, very able to discuss and prove their opinions with facts however having discussed the era with my Father who was Austrian and living all his life in Western Austria virtually on the border with Bavaria and a teenager during the war period 1939-1945, and the title of this thread being something to do with learning from National Evil, can people see any direct connections with the 1930s period and the current period which is glibly known as Austerity?

I think my Father's family and friends welcomed the Anschluss with open arms having been living in extreme austerity alongside the German people as well as only just coming to appreciate if that's the right word any democracy it does seem to me that as citizens we've had little to no say ourselves in government politicians -particularly in the UK (because that's all I know) imposing the right conditions as it were for similar hatred of the wrong suspects. Do we see direct comparisons yet and how do we fight against it if that is what is needed?
 
oates said:
Obviously some very knowledgable people talking on this thread, very able to discuss and prove their opinions with facts however having discussed the era with my Father who was Austrian and living all his life in Western Austria virtually on the border with Bavaria and a teenager during the war period 1939-1945, and the title of this thread being something to do with learning from National Evil, can people see any direct connections with the 1930s period and the current period which is glibly known as Austerity?

I think my Father's family and friends welcomed the Anschluss with open arms having been living in extreme austerity alongside the German people as well as only just coming to appreciate if that's the right word any democracy it does seem to me that as citizens we've had little to no say ourselves in government politicians -particularly in the UK (because that's all I know) imposing the right conditions as it were for similar hatred of the wrong suspects. Do we see direct comparisons yet and how do we fight against it if that is what is needed?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's something that's not really been discussed too much on this thread. People overlook that Hitler's predecessor was Bruning, whose chancellorship has been labelled a proto-dictatorship with some justification by historians. He ruled by presidential decree and as usual, it was the people at the bottom of the heap who were made to bear the brunt of his brutal cuts. And another uncomfortable reality that people overlook is that Hitler (and Mussolini) expanded social welfare once in power. People like to discuss these fanciful and rather intangible ideas about why many Germans voted for the NSDAP, but the reality is perhaps a lot simpler than is assumed: as is usually the case, people voted because they felt the party would best represent their material interests (of course it is impossible to fully disentangle this from other aspects, such as ideology, especially when there can be on overlap such as with anti-Semitism or anti-Bolshevism. But the point is the Nazis would have won votes in spite of people disagreeing with aspects of their ideology). There's a monograph by a historian named Hamilton who wrote on the reasons people voted for the Nazis and his central thesis, if I recall it correctly, was essentially this. I never read it in depth though as it was a topic of secondary relevance to my dissertation, so I just got the points I wanted from it and left it at that. I do recall one specific example he cited and that was that American researchers formulated a questionnaire asking Nazi members to explain why they voted (or joined?) for the party (this would have been soon after they entered power, or possibly shortly before it) and anti-Semitism was very rarely mentioned at all in the responses they received.
 
BobbyManc said:
Yes, it's something that's not really been discussed too much on this thread. People overlook that Hitler's predecessor was Bruning, whose chancellorship has been labelled a proto-dictatorship with some justification by historians. He ruled by presidential decree and as usual, it was the people at the bottom of the heap who were made to bear the brunt of his brutal cuts. And another uncomfortable reality that people overlook is that Hitler (and Mussolini) expanded social welfare once in power. People like to discuss these fanciful and rather intangible ideas about why many Germans voted for the NSDAP, but the reality is perhaps a lot simpler than is assumed: as is usually the case, people voted because they felt the party would best represent their material interests (of course it is impossible to fully disentangle this from other aspects, such as ideology, especially when there can be on overlap such as with anti-Semitism or anti-Bolshevism. But the point is the Nazis would have won votes in spite of people disagreeing with aspects of their ideology). There's a monograph by a historian named Hamilton who wrote on the reasons people voted for the Nazis and his central thesis, if I recall it correctly, was essentially this. I never read it in depth though as it was a topic of secondary relevance to my dissertation, so I just got the points I wanted from it and left it at that. I do recall one specific example he cited and that was that American researchers formulated a questionnaire asking Nazi members to explain why they voted (or joined?) for the party (this would have been soon after they entered power, or possibly shortly before it) and anti-Semitism was very rarely mentioned at all in the responses they received.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think people living during those times when the proverbial barrow of cash would barely have bought a loaf of bread, times that lasted years and years and with no relief in prospect were happy - alright some of them - to be told who was to blame and that someone was going to turn it all around.

With Trump not disowning the right, Boris Johnson making derogatory and racist comments they are leaving a signal that it's ok to blame these others. Taking yo' jawbs, taking your NHS places, taking your welfare. We've had the disgusting and disgraceful Windrush affair and they'll kick out any European far more any migrant - asylum seeker or not if they can get away with it. Plus all of a sudden the Government seem to be telling us that they are going to throw money at hospitals, schools, councils as if the good times are just around the corner - okay some of it is General Election posturing and all my words but just why have we been enduring Austerity if the Conservatives had the cash all along?

Meanwhile the people of the UK can see that their policies are working, focus on the bad guys and everything will be just fine.
 
Populist leaders who taper into peoples emptions will always exist. It takes a few to come along and turn a population violent.

The world has learned nothing. There is a boogeyman all throughout history. Used to be the jews blamed for everything that's going wrong now its the muslims etc
 
shamans said:
Populist leaders who taper into peoples emptions will always exist. It takes a few to come along and turn a population violent.

The world has learned nothing. There is a boogeyman all throughout history. Used to be the jews blamed for everything that's going wrong now its the muslims etc
Click to expand...
The basic societal circumstances on which this murderous dynamic was possible are very much intact, so much is true. I'd describe them differently, but it's an important premise in any case.

As for anti-Muslim paranoia, I see it as an resentment in its own right, and working differently from antisemitism. The latter has never gone away, it has actually become more globalized.
 
Synco said:
The basic societal circumstances on which this murderous dynamic was possible are very much intact, so much is true. I'd describe them differently, but it's an important premise in any case.

As for anti-Muslim paranoia, I see it as an resentment in its own right, and working differently from antisemitism. The latter has never gone away, it has actually become more globalized.
Click to expand...
I think it could be the Chinese next.
 
Synco said:
The basic societal circumstances on which this murderous dynamic was possible are very much intact, so much is true. I'd describe them differently, but it's an important premise in any case.

As for anti-Muslim paranoia, I see it as an resentment in its own right, and working differently from antisemitism. The latter has never gone away, it has actually become more globalized.
Click to expand...

They're different flavors but similar idea. Not everyone was a maniac who wanted all jews killed in Europe. Many people had Jewish friends but it was widely "accepted" that "Jews control us" and are the "root of the problem". There was widespread resentment that was accepted by official leaders.

Sure antisemitism still exists but at least it is not (bar few exceptions) tolerated through official stance. Trump said "I think there is a lot of hate in Islam". You have republican candidates saying Islam isn't a religion but a cult. Heck, even Hillary Clinton speaking about Muslims as being the "eyes an ears" of America to help uncover these terrorists was also demeaning. It makes the assumptions there are a bunch of Muslims sitting out there who know very well who these terrorists are but aren't interested in uncovering them.

You wouldn't hear a world leader of a powerful nation say anything close to "I think there is a lot of hate in Judaism" without getting completely obliterated (and rightly so). That's what I meant by "it was the jews before" -- antisemitism still exists but at least most of the world officially accepts it as bad.
 
shamans said:
They're different flavors but similar idea.
Click to expand...
As I said, that's where I disagree. In classic antisemitism, Jewish forces are blamed of causing and orchestrating the fundamental pitfalls of modern society, from inequality, to the endless clashes of interest groups, to financial crisis. That makes antisemitism unique, and different from other forms of resentment-driven "othering", as malign and dangerous as they doubtlessly are.

As for the rest of your post, I don't want to derail this thread with this discussion - it's a good & very focused thread as it is. I'm also not sure if I really want to have this discussion at all right now, but if I answer, I'll take it elsewhere.
 
Synco said:
As I said, that's where I disagree. In classic antisemitism, Jewish forces are blamed of causing and orchestrating the fundamental pitfalls of modern society, from inequality, to the endless clashes of interest groups, to financial crisis. That makes antisemitism unique, and different from other forms of resentment-driven "othering", as malign and dangerous as they doubtlessly are.

As for the rest of your post, I don't want to derail this thread with this discussion - it's a good & very focused thread as it is. I'm also not sure if I really want to have this discussion at all right now, but if I answer, I'll take it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The reasons are unique but how is it unique from any other belief about a group?

"Black people have lower intelligence as evident from their skull shape and are better suited as working under command else their savage minds take over and they start raping citizens".

"Islam is a cult that goes against western ways of living with the goal of the religion being to establish shariah law and what they believe is God's law. They cannot co-exist with us".

And I think this thread is relevant for this discussion because the point is "national evil's" still exist and will do so in different flavors. Black people still face racism but at least most advanced nations do not have open laws, policies or slogans agains them officially (systemic racism is a separate issue). Point is, Islam and muslims are openly targeted by leaders of influential states.

I have no doubt in my mind 50 years from now this 9/11 period will be seen as the height of Islamic hate.
 
Yes and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet this was the biggest cause of these "terror" activities starting in the middle East.
When the Nazis invaded France and the Vichy government was formed any French who opposed them and fought against them were classified as resistance and heroes.
When the Americans and the British invaded Afghanistan and any Afghani who fight against them are classified as terrorists.
 
Nucks said:
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of the average German, but, the feck up is too big, you can't just say "you're not to blame". I don't think it's even fair to say the "average" German, because the "average" German is absolutely culpable. They were cheering in the streets when Hitler took Poland, when he took France. The exceptional Germans are the ones you have to feel for. The people who at the business end of the advance into the USSR, categorically refused to aid the Einsatzgruppen in their tasks, among other examples.

It absolutely WAS a poisoned culture. We've got a guy in this thread who denies part of the Holocaust saying that "every" country in Europe was just as vile as Germany was regarding antisemitism. Maybe that's true, but, they didn't put a guy into power who tried to eradicate the Jews. So it's fair to say, most if not all of Western Europe had systemic antisemitism to some extent. It's not fair to say they were all the same as Germany, because words are words, and actions are actions, and at the end of the day, France didn't kill 6-7 million Jews, Germany did. France didn't launch a general European war that killed in-excess of 50 million people. Germany did.

You don't reach a level of power and support that allows you to do that, without support of the people. In this case, a large enough plurality is all it took to put Hitler in power, and once he was in power, his support sky rocketed right up until February 1943. He ran on nationalism, antisemitism, and jingoism. What did they expect? Following the annexation of the Sudetenland Hitlers popularity and support had never been higher. It was certainly higher than the 37% or whatever that he rode into power. His ability to invade Poland was PREDICATED on this support. The German people supported him, and he knew that once he took them into war, through feckery or otherwise, the German people would support him so long as he won. He did win, quickly, and his support only grew, and he kept winning, and his support continued.

Did the average German want to see the mechanized slaughter of Jews carried out? Almost certainly not. However, if you put a gun in the hands of a mass murderer, and he murders a bunch of people, you put the gun in that mass murderers hands, whether you wanted him to kill people or not. You bear responsibility for that. Maybe you wanted to stop him, but you didn't because he had a gun, and you didn't, so you were scared. Ok. You still armed him to begin with. Your mistake. Germany's mistake. Actions have consequences. Bad decisions bring culpability for the consequences of those decisions.

So yes, at the end of the day, the people of Germany share some degree of responsibility for what happened.
Click to expand...

100% agree.

As for the underlined part i'd say those that actively voted for him and continued to support him despite being well aware of his ideology and his anti-semitic laws bear the highest degree of responsibility, at best a notch below the card carrying members of the nazi party.
 
shamans said:
Populist leaders who taper into peoples emptions will always exist. It takes a few to come along and turn a population violent.

The world has learned nothing. There is a boogeyman all throughout history. Used to be the jews blamed for everything that's going wrong now its the muslims etc
Click to expand...

The jews are still blamed for the ill's in the west by the far right, its just that muslim immigrants are an easier target atm.

Despite me being a muslim, i can fully understand the desire of the jews to have a jewish homeland rather than living as a minority in some country (going by there history, said minority has always existed at the mercy of the majority).
 
shamans said:
And I think this thread is relevant for this discussion because the point is "national evil's" still exist and will do so in different flavors. Black people still face racism but at least most advanced nations do not have open laws, policies or slogans agains them officially (systemic racism is a separate issue). Point is, Islam and muslims are openly targeted by leaders of influential states.
Click to expand...
The issue of anti-Muslim populism and racism certainly belongs in this thread, no question.

However, a route I don't want to take is that of a broad, generalizing comparison between bigotry against Muslims, Black people, and Jews - a tendency I see shining through in parts of what you've written. Such a generalizing assessment fails to recognize the (somewhat inevitable) ignorance of the real situation of people outside one's own social group, and likely involves an underestimation of the adversity they face. It can also quickly lead to a rivalry over the "real" victimhood, which I categorically reject.

My standpoint is that all forms of prejudice and oppression have to be treated as part of the same problem. So when I say differences have to be acknowledged and discussed, it's not meant as bickering about supposedly quantifiable levels of overall bigotry against various groups. But in order to oppose group-based prejudice and hatred, it's essential to try to understand each form within its own distinct history and inner logic. Different levels of threat in various situations are part of that, but it has to be done way more specific and carefully in my eyes.

shamans said:
The reasons are unique but how is it unique from any other belief about a group?
Click to expand...
With all of the above in mind, I'll write something about this part of our discussion in the Racism thread in the coming days.
 
Last edited:
Nucks said:
Perhaps not. Yet, when Hitler rolled into the Sudetenland, when he rolled into Poland, when he rolled into France, and on and on, when he invaded and conquered these countries easily, the people were happy, behind him, and over joyed. He was a messianic figure for much of Germany. It wasn't until they ran into wall in the USSR that suddenly large numbers of people started to question what he was doing.
Click to expand...

History is not that easy. You have a lot of researches to make to truly understand why things happend or were cheered by the Volk.

First to this topic, almost everything what happened right there has its roots in WW1.

Germany, just like France, Britania, US, etc. was a proud nation. WW1 humilated them big time. The Volk suffered not only from the humilations of Versailles but also from the Great Depression, starvation, post-war racism, not beeing able to see their friends families (new borders etc. after WW1) and a lot more.

After WW1 there has been a lot of racism against german people. And this was a problem because the borders had changed and many ethnic germans were living outside of Germany under foreign govs. Especially those germans in the Sudetenland and in East Prussia had to suffer a lot.



Just from the perspective of the Volk you could paint the happenings with a good portion of propaganda like that:

- Hitler marches into Austria. Austria was also in depression after WW1. The great and celebrated reunification!

- Hitler marches into the Sudetenland to free and reunite the Volk. There are videos out there even on youtube how innocent civilian Sudetendeutsche were treated (horribly massacred) over there. The videos are post-WW2 but even before they had to suffer a lot.

- Hitler tried to negotiate with Poland for quite a while because he wanted a road to East Prussia (which was a german enclave after WW1) but Poland refused. So he decided to march in to 'free and reunite the Volk'. Also to get back what was once theirs (until WW1).

- From the perspective of the Volk, France has humilated Germany big time after WW1. They even presented a fallen eagle statue (representing Germanys loss i guess), where the Nazis symbolically put their flag over it, probably to 'make things right'. So this could have been presented as some kind of revenge propaganda or whatever. Also they were at war for quite some time already at this point.



So in that contexts it could make some more sense why the german people according to you only started to turn their backs on Hitler when he invaded the soviets. But even then it was presented as a defensive war to the people ('if we don't attack them first, they will attack us'). The power of media and propaganda cannot be denied. And the Nazis were really good at using propaganda.

And you can't compare the time to todays time. There was no internet, there was no international education, no social media etc.
If someone keeps propagating to you, that the Jews are the reason why the Volk is or was starving and living like dogs during the great depression, then many (if not most) people will start to believe that.

It's way too easy to say "they should have known". Who taught them otherwise?
 
The only things that countries can learn from those examples is that they're shortcuts to long term wealth, power and influence.
 
OutlawGER said:
So in that contexts it could make some more sense why the german people according to you only started to turn their backs on Hitler when he invaded the soviets. But even then it was presented as a defensive war to the people ('if we don't attack them first, they will attack us'). The power of media and propaganda cannot be denied. And the Nazis were really good at using propaganda.
Click to expand...

To be fair. Fairly recent releases of secret documents by the russian government pretty much confirmed (what many historicans already suspected looking at the massive arming up) that the UDSSR was waiting for Europe being weakened to run over it. So it wasn't even false propaganda in this regard.

Either way, good comment. Many people - inside and outside of Germany - do not look at these things through the lense of what happened during the time leading up to the NSDAPs power. People didn't just wake up one day wanting to vote for genocide and worldwar, the 2nd edition. By neglecting to understand what lead to this, we are bound to eventually repeat those mistakes. And by just painting people as the evils who followed Hitler, we neglect to understand.
 
Nationalism isnt the problem BUT globalism is the desire of the few and so of course it will be sold as evil. A spiritual war on earth, is a war of ideas and regular people must be mislead because its people who will bring it about because few question anything. Govenments don't represent you but there are more people not in government so how do they control people? The ways you imagine. Its a war for the mind. Most are intellectually dishonest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.