11th of november

[Buddha 3]

Lucky, I 100% agree there would have been some German soldiers who were not agreeance with Nazi policies or doctrines but that is not the point.
You, nor anybody else could possibly draw the line that separates them from Nazi sympathisers/activists from within the German army.
You suggest they be proud of themselves, with the proviso being they were brave and that alone constituting reason enough.

Some of them may well have been brave but I'm afraid the cause they were fighting, completely and utterly negates any room for allowing pride to creep into their mentality or how we should regard them.

As soon as you start accommodating people just because they were 'brave' undermines any integrity when people condemn the Nazi movement and what they set out to do.
It seems ironic to me that the Germans themselves seem to be adopting the correct attitude in getting on with their lives and trying to forget what happened whereas you're endeavouring to excuse some of them on the basis they were brave.




Don't be confused Lucky, it's quite simple mate, we shouldn't ignore their recollections but you aligned that need for historical reference with an associated need for respect.
We cannot allow ourselves to start degrading the horror we should all feel for what the Nazis did and more importantly tried to do.
It's the thin end of a wedge when you begin 'accommodating' .





You are not seriously equating the Nazi policy of Jewish annihilation with modern history's filtering of the Nazi's actions are you?
If so, then it's a completely inappropriate parallel ... insultingly so.




Not to me mate, not to me, thus starts the process of a whitewash ........

Pete makes some good points. One thing many people don't realise is that antisemitism wasn't invented by Hitler. These feelings towards the Jews were well and truly established in Germany and had been for centuries (and many other countries by the way). All the stuff that Hitler said fell on very fertile ground.

Many people consider Rommel and Von Stauffenberg heroes these days, because of their involvement in the conspiracy to kill Hitler, but they wanted to get rid of the man because they knew he would lose the war and Germany would be devastated in the process. None of them were really interested in saving the Jews and other Unerwunschten (unwanteds).

Sure, there have been a number of good Germans, but by and large, the German people were guilty. Not because the participated, but because they allowed things to happen. You often hear arguments like "it was kept a secret, the people didn't know", but that's crap. The camps were in full view, were not hidden and required such an immense amount of manpower to keep the whole system running that it would have been impossible to get everybody to keep their mouths shut.
In fact, many of the people involved were proud of their work and sent pictures of their "handiwork" home. This has all been well documented, but is not often brought out in public, as it makes us feel uncomfortable to know that a civilised people, so close to our own, could be so inherently evil.
To say that the actual killings were done by fervent nazis is just repeating another myth. Yes, most camps were run by the SS (a political paramilitary organisation, not to be confused with the Waffen SS), but let's look at one of the other means used to kill the Jews:
A number of police battalions (part of the army) were deployed to the east, in order to deal with the Jewish question. Well guess what? On a percentage basis there were markedly less members of the NSDAP (nazi party) in these units than what should have been expected based on the national avarage.
There is a good reason for this: The police battalions were on avarage a number of years older than the other troops. This was because most of them had a number of years' experience in the police force and the units were far from designed for frontline duty, so there was no need to have superfit youngsters.
These older men, with a police background and as such with a good sense of right and wrong, were not as easily suckered in by the propaganda as the impressionable youth was. These were men that had life experience and thet were not easy to impress.
Yet when we zoom in on one particular unit, Police Battalion 101, we find out something disturbing:
When ordered to clear out one of the ghettoes in Poland by killing all inside, these men were given the chance to step away from it without any reprisal (so much for the myth of everybody being forced at gunpoint). These were non political soldiers, being ordered to do the unthinkable, killing defenseless men, women and children. They were given the opportunity to say no and instead do administrative jobs during that terrible day...

Not one said no.

During later clearings, some men decided not to participate. The reasons they gave had nothing to do with feeling it was wrong to kill these people. They felt that the job itself was just to gruesome, they just couldn't stand the gore, but had no problems with what was being done and why.

Again, these were older, wiser men. Not the young crowd, whipped into a frenzy by nazi rethorics.
And some of these men send pictures home end to friends. In fact, a few of the officers had their wives come and watch... Keeping things a secret? My ass...

People should think about that before they excuse the avarage German.

In a twisted sort of way, the German obsession with destroying the Jews (which they considered more important than the actual war itself), may well have lost them the war. Or at least helped them lose.
The destruction of the Jews drained gargantuan amounts of manpower from the frontlines. It has been said that if all those people had been sent to the front instead, Germany would have beaten Russia. Personally I find that to be a bit of a bold claim, it's just another what if scenario.

 

[Buddha 3]

Jay, you almost seem to be saying that events that unfolded in the second world war, such as the holocaust, were independent of Hitler and he was merely the conduit .... do i understand this correctly?

More or less Pete. Sure, he has done certain things that would have gone differently had he not been there, but by and large, the same things would have happened.

I mean, let's be real here. If he personally would have dreamed op the holocaust, other people would just have gone "you're f*cking nuts". Turned out that many felt the same way and that there was already a strong sense of antisemitism in Germany, creating fertile soil for this kind of talk.
In fact, the true holocaust was no plan of Hitler at all. It was suggested to him (and implemented by) Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Sicherheidsdienst and the Gestapo. He also hosted the Wannsee conference, where the "Final Solution to the Jewish question" was decided upon.

Hitler didn't create the nazi party. He even joined it relatively late. None of the goals he set for the party were exclusively his own. He merely voiced what many Germans felt at that time: The Jews betrayed us, the French f*cked us over with the "Versailles Dictate" and threw us into economic misery.
Hitler was asked to join the NSDAP, because some of it's founding members knew him to be a great orator. So in that sense, if he hadn't been there as that great orator, the NSDAP might not have been as popular as it was. On the other hand, they probably would have found somebody else and Hitler didn't write most of his speeches himself anyway. That was often done by Reichsminister Josef Göbbels with his wonky foot. Like I said, Hitler invented nothing. He and his other Nazis just expanded on feelings that were already there, some of which had been around for generations.

Many people look at me funny when these things are said, kinda like I'm making Hitler out to be less evil than he was. I'm not. All I'm saying is that he wasn't alone in his evil and that he was just a mere mortal like all of us. And that if hadn't survived WW1, there probably would have been somebody else in his place. Meaning that people as a whole are capable of great evils. And for that reason, we should learn from the past and not try to blame just a select few.

The price for righteousness is eternal vigilance...

 

[ReservoirFrog]

Hey all,
While we're on this subject, I'd just like to drop a mention for my old battalion, 2Para, who returned this week from Afghanistan having suffered the greatest losses of any unit since the start of the war on terror in 2001.
I had the honour of serving with them in Macedonia, NI, Afghanistan and Iraq and would ask everyone to join me in extending condolence for their losses, wishing a swift recovery to their wounded and all of them the best of luck in the difficult task of re-adjusting to home life. Thank you for your sacrifices.


AIRBORNE!!!!!

RF

Thanks for indulging me people...

 

[Robbo]

Jay, my historical knowledge is nowhere near as extensive as yours and as a consequence, I have tended to have a somewhat blinkered view of proceedings but your points bring up some curious ideas, well curious for me that is.

Your stance seems to be that somebody like ulrich, ooops, sorry Hitler, is but a product of the socio/political/cultural environment they find themselves in.
And if we take the Holocaust as an example of an 'atrocity to be explained' then you'd suggest Hitler was instrumental but not the focus.

The thinking behind this is presumably, Hitler was already influenced by the pervading anti-semitic ideologies pervading Germany at the time and
all he did was then tap into that madness to facilitate what a lot of people wanted anyway.

I, on the other hand think that Hitler had an obsession with Jews and i read somewhere some time ago that he actually went to some (learning) institution somewhere (Austria I think) and one of his fellow students was Wittgenstein, the Jewish philosopher.
Not a good guy to be sitting alongside in any academic environment because of his genius.
It is during this period, it is suggested, Hitler developed his hatred for Jews on the back of Wittgenstein obviously starring as an academic in whatever institution those two were at the time.

I suppose my point is, I think Hitler's personal obsession did fall on fertile ground as you say but I don't think i could go as far as suggesting that the Holocaust would have happened no matter who rose to the top.
But my view could well be due to the fact I am nowhere near up to speed in understanding the anti Jewish feeling in Germany at the time.

I suppose when I think about it in terms of historical explanation, it's easier to blame one person rather than introduce the notion of a whole nation indulging themselves in racism and then genocide.
If you are right, and I got a horrible feeling you could be, then it casts a terrible shadow over all of us because if a whole nation's ideologies can decline so far, then we are all susceptible.
Wrap it all up as one man's fault and we can sleep easier at night, especially when he's long gone ....hmmmm......

 

[House]

WW2 story if that's ok.

My Grandad was a fighter pilot, he was 19 at the time, he was shot in the lung by small arms fire, somewhere over France, managed to land his plane, got operated on by an american surgeon who said "you'll probably die during this operation but you'll definately die if I don't do it"

So Grandad had his lung removed and survived.

Two years later he Re-joined the RAF as a tail gunner and went back out there again.

He went on to be the longest surviving one lung patient in Britain when he died at the age of 72, he tripped up a step in his back garden and broke both his legs and the shock killed him.

But he was a real Hero to us. Can you imagine all that at the age of 19.

I will be standing in silence for their 2 minutes at 11.11am on the 11-11-08 remembering everyone who has given their life to allow me to sit here now typing this message.

 

[Buddha 3]

1)The thinking behind this is presumably, Hitler was already influenced by the pervading anti-semitic ideologies pervading Germany at the time and
all he did was then tap into that madness to facilitate what a lot of people wanted anyway.

I, on the other hand think that Hitler had an obsession with Jews and i read somewhere some time ago that he actually went to some (learning) institution somewhere (Austria I think) and one of his fellow students was Wittgenstein, the Jewish philosopher.
Not a good guy to be sitting alongside in any academic environment because of his genius.
It is during this period, it is suggested, Hitler developed his hatred for Jews on the back of Wittgenstein obviously starring as an academic in whatever institution those two were at the time.

2)I suppose my point is, I think Hitler's personal obsession did fall on fertile ground as you say but I don't think i could go as far as suggesting that the Holocaust would have happened no matter who rose to the top.
But my view could well be due to the fact I am nowhere near up to speed in understanding the anti Jewish feeling in Germany at the time.

3)I suppose when I think about it in terms of historical explanation, it's easier to blame one person rather than introduce the notion of a whole nation indulging themselves in racism and then genocide.
If you are right, and I got a horrible feeling you could be, then it casts a terrible shadow over all of us because if a whole nation's ideologies can decline so far, then we are all susceptible.
Wrap it all up as one man's fault and we can sleep easier at night, especially when he's long gone ....hmmmm......

1) Whilst Hitler's antisemitism was extreme compared to most Germans, it was sadly not unique. He is also not the one that introduced it as a spearpoint to the Nazi party.
I hope I'm not coming across as saying that the "poor man was just a product of his environment", but his basic antisemitism was passed on to him by his parents and family, just like most Germans. Undoubtebly it was increased by certain things that happened to him and his personal idiosyncracies.
Like you said, he indeed had an obsession with them, but again, he was not the only one. I think there is a good chance though that his obsession was reinforced by finding a group of likeminded people(the nazis) that cheered him on when he said these crazy things.

2) I do think it would have happened, no matter who got the top, as long as this person was a Nazi. So the real question probably is would the nazis have been as succesful with somebody else as a figurehead? I personally do think so, as there was a whole team of very smart (in a sick and twisted sort of way) behind him that turned the man into a myth and an icon. I see no reason to believe they couldn't have found somebody else to so the same thing with. But that is offcourse debatable.

3) You want to know what's really sickening? The German people had the power to stop it all...
The Jews were not the first people they started killing wholesale. They started killing off the mentally ill first, but eventually stopped doing so after public outcry. There have been other examples where certain people were saved because the avarage man said "this ain't right". When it came to the Jews, the avarage man just shrugged his shoulders and went about his business...

If anybody wants to know more about this stuff, there is a book that I can recommend. Hitler's Willing Executioners by Daniel Goldhagen.
It is quite a tough read though, as the first chapters explain how this strong antisemitism came to be and as such deals with a lot of psychological processes, which can be quite boring if you're not into that.
The later chapters deal with the actual acts of exterminations and are quite violent and graphic. This book is not for the faint hearted and can make some people feel depressed...

 

[Buddha 3]

WW2 story if that's ok.

My Grandad was a fighter pilot, he was 19 at the time, he was shot in the lung by small arms fire, somewhere over France, managed to land his plane, got operated on by an american surgeon who said "you'll probably die during this operation but you'll definately die if I don't do it"

So Grandad had his lung removed and survived.

Two years later he Re-joined the RAF as a tail gunner and went back out there again.

He went on to be the longest surviving one lung patient in Britain when he died at the age of 72, he tripped up a step in his back garden and broke both his legs and the shock killed him.

But he was a real Hero to us. Can you imagine all that at the age of 19.

I will be standing in silence for their 2 minutes at 11.11am on the 11-11-08 remembering everyone who has given their life to allow me to sit here now typing this message.

The man sounds like a hero to me as well. Beautiful story. Reminds me of Douglas Bader, who lost both legs before the war but still flew Spitfires until shot down in 1941.
The most beautiful thing about Bader is that his great nemesis, the German ace Adolf Galland, became one of his best friends after the war.

 

[Robbo]

WW2 story if that's ok.

My Grandad was a fighter pilot, he was 19 at the time, he was shot in the lung by small arms fire, somewhere over France, managed to land his plane, got operated on by an american surgeon who said "you'll probably die during this operation but you'll definately die if I don't do it"

So Grandad had his lung removed and survived.

Two years later he Re-joined the RAF as a tail gunner and went back out there again.

He went on to be the longest surviving one lung patient in Britain when he died at the age of 72, he tripped up a step in his back garden and broke both his legs and the shock killed him.

But he was a real Hero to us. Can you imagine all that at the age of 19.

I will be standing in silence for their 2 minutes at 11.11am on the 11-11-08 remembering everyone who has given their life to allow me to sit here now typing this message.

House, I read your post with great interest but it did provoke a question in my old befuddled mind and I hope you won't mind me asking......with your grandfather being a pilot and getting shot over France, you mention it was by small arms fire ...... musta been some shot mate.
I just got this vision of some German aiming his Luger at a Wellington bomber and hitting the jackpot.

 

[Robbo]

1)
The later chapters deal with the actual acts of exterminations and are quite violent and graphic. This book is not for the faint hearted and can make some people feel depressed...

I'll give that a miss mate, not for any other reason than having a weak stomach for stuff like that.
I know men are capabale of such evil and wicked things, but things like that go beyond my imagination and leave me sick inside.

 

[chuckwood]

Buddha's points are excellent and completely spot on.

One thing: checks and balances.
This is what was removed from German political life, no one could call the government to account for what it did. Hitler surrounded himself with some of the richest right wing sycophants possible and allowed them to build their own personal empires.

He also allowed soldiers to be promoted and also civilians into powerful positions that normally they would never reach. The powerful protect their protégés and indulge their fanaticisms. This lead to the rise of the SS over the SA as well as the dreaded Gestapo.
How do you control a country as a dictator? FEAR. These are the systems of government that attract the worst of humanity and they then control the press, schools and workplaces so that their message is heard.

Hitler created the framework of Nazi Germany and encouraged his minions to pursue the weak, intellectuals, communists, gays and other 'undesirable' races. His troops such as Himmler, Heydreich & Eichman devised the final solution because they had joined a system that believed life was of no value. This was encouraged to believe themselves the chosen peoples and to treat all others with disdain.
These beliefs were also part of the Japanese mentality at the time leading to their barbarise.


Germans were part of this system and supported it-there is no doubt of this. Resistance really only started when Germany started losing the war and half hearted at that.

France in the 30s had its share of anti semitism as did many European countries. It had reared its head in the 1912-1914 Balklans massacres as it did in the 1990's Balklans & Rwanda.