Germans = Nazis?!?
Germans = Nazis?!?
My 10 yr old asked me the other day "Are all Germans Nazis?" referring to Germans fighting in WWII. Any thoughts?...........Bruce
-
- Associate
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 3:26 am
- Location: Sweden
- Einsamer_Wolf
- Banned
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: New York, NY
One thing you might want to keep in mind is that anybody assessing the Nazi state and Nazi ideology have a perspective enhanced by hindsight which was not available to those at the time. Some suggest that, like the author of Hitlers Willing Executioners, that all that we loath Nazi ideology for was foreseeable. But I do not think it was. Besides this, the people in question lived in a much different time, under fundamentally different circumstances. Many who served in the German armed Forces and followed Hitler grew up under the auspices of the Treaty of Versailles and a perception of perpetual, grave injustice against Germany. That sentiment was not without merit. Additionally, most all accounts of life in the Reich before the war were of very good times. Hitler had rebuilt Germany. Germany was strong again. Folks were no longer paying 5 million marks for a loaf of bread. In essence, I think it is untenable to suggest that you and I would not have done the same thing if we lived under identical circumstances, and without the advantage of hindsight.
Mögen die Flammen unserer Begeisterung niemals zum Erlöschen kommen.
- Jason Pipes
- Patron
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2002 4:06 pm
- Location: CA & WI
The suggestion that all Germans were Nazis is a common misunderstanding. For one thing, the term Nazi was never used in Germany. For another, it refered to someone in the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers Party, which controlled Germany during the era of WWII. I don't have the exact numbers but more people were NOT members of the NSDAP than were. Most soldiers in the Wehrmacht never joined the NSDAP in fact. Refering to them as Nazis is a gross oversimplification,. It's funny to note that your 10 year old makes that assumption at his age, yet some historians, researchers and journalists as adults continue to do the same their entire lives.
This question is a central question. Some remarks from German born in 1961 with parents who were 15 and the end of the war and relatives, i. e. uncles who served in the Army:
My parents, they were children in this period, told me that they believed in this period that Germany was fighting on the right side, that the enemies were really evil etc. They heard something about KZs but nobody told or know details and it was not clear to them what really happened there. They heard the propaganda about Jews but did not care. So, I think, they were very nationalistic and patriotic but no Nazis.
Regarding my uncles, the situation becomes more complicated. For example, one of them wanted to join the SS, if I am in formed correctly mainly for career reasons. This was totally unacceptable for my grandfather who simply forbide him to do this. The uncle served in Russia as a blacksmith and survived Stalingrad. I think, this took away any illusions from him.
Another uncle gave always very bitter comments on the Nazis. He was clearly not a Nazi. He served in the Army from the beginning of the war and survived it. He noticed directly during the Poland campaign that the Jews were selected after the war for special treatment. But how unclear the situation was shows for example that he tried to join the military police. He was in an armored recon unit and tried to avoid the "combat zone". He was not allowed to "change the branch" and was glad afterwards because he learned later that the military police was involved in the holocaust.
A third uncle joined the Waffen-SS and served in the 6. SS Gebirgsjäger Division. He was a proud soldier but did not told much about the period. It is possible that he was much more a Nazi than the other ones. He wanted to join the Bundeswehr after the war but was not accepted. I do not know whether this was caused by political reasons or because his militarical performance was not good enough.
So, these examples show that reality is very complex
My parents, they were children in this period, told me that they believed in this period that Germany was fighting on the right side, that the enemies were really evil etc. They heard something about KZs but nobody told or know details and it was not clear to them what really happened there. They heard the propaganda about Jews but did not care. So, I think, they were very nationalistic and patriotic but no Nazis.
Regarding my uncles, the situation becomes more complicated. For example, one of them wanted to join the SS, if I am in formed correctly mainly for career reasons. This was totally unacceptable for my grandfather who simply forbide him to do this. The uncle served in Russia as a blacksmith and survived Stalingrad. I think, this took away any illusions from him.
Another uncle gave always very bitter comments on the Nazis. He was clearly not a Nazi. He served in the Army from the beginning of the war and survived it. He noticed directly during the Poland campaign that the Jews were selected after the war for special treatment. But how unclear the situation was shows for example that he tried to join the military police. He was in an armored recon unit and tried to avoid the "combat zone". He was not allowed to "change the branch" and was glad afterwards because he learned later that the military police was involved in the holocaust.
A third uncle joined the Waffen-SS and served in the 6. SS Gebirgsjäger Division. He was a proud soldier but did not told much about the period. It is possible that he was much more a Nazi than the other ones. He wanted to join the Bundeswehr after the war but was not accepted. I do not know whether this was caused by political reasons or because his militarical performance was not good enough.
So, these examples show that reality is very complex
-
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Just look at Goldhiggin
Just look at Goldhagen and the people promoting his nonsense, or the New York Times, esp. William Safire. While most Americans are sane enough to see racism, incl. when used against Germans, it is different among the opinion-makers.
Most Germans supported aspects of the Nazi regime for perfectly sane and moral reasons. The regime was no democracy, but then, which country was perfect then? Until 1941, Jews, while oppressed, were less so than Negroes in Alabama, miscegenation laws in Germany had definitions of Jews much less strict than those applied to Black people in Virginia, with its "one drop rule" since 1924, there were no lynchings in front of thousands of whites munching popcorn. Also Hitler, while brutal, had killed at most 100,000 people yet (bad, but on the lines of Somoza or Castro) while Stalin had murdered 20 million and had not stopped yet. So as of Summer 1941, who was the, relatively speaking, more moral side was clear. It is after Hitler's decision to murder all Jews in Europe that the regime became as murderous as Stalin's. Most Germans could not have known that in 1933. Even Hitler seems not to have planned that till the war.
Now a logic point must be applied to all equally to be valid. If Germans are all Nazis merely because the Nazis ruled Germany, are all Americans by nature lynchers of Negroes and holocasters of Indians? This would be the logical conclusion of adopting the view that Germans are natural Nazis.
So you can tell your 10 year old that, in the same way that despite Jim Crow, public lynchings, and the holocaust of the Indians, white Americans are not natural-born killers of colored people, and despite the holocaust of the Jews, Germans are not Nazis either. I know your feelings. My 12 year is confronted with self-righteous, racist holocaust propaganda in MIDDLE SCHOOL! But I looked at his textbook--no Gulag, no Stalin, no Mao. All these dozens of millions of victims are now gone with the wind in the American memory. So I'm giving him extracurricular information.
Most Germans supported aspects of the Nazi regime for perfectly sane and moral reasons. The regime was no democracy, but then, which country was perfect then? Until 1941, Jews, while oppressed, were less so than Negroes in Alabama, miscegenation laws in Germany had definitions of Jews much less strict than those applied to Black people in Virginia, with its "one drop rule" since 1924, there were no lynchings in front of thousands of whites munching popcorn. Also Hitler, while brutal, had killed at most 100,000 people yet (bad, but on the lines of Somoza or Castro) while Stalin had murdered 20 million and had not stopped yet. So as of Summer 1941, who was the, relatively speaking, more moral side was clear. It is after Hitler's decision to murder all Jews in Europe that the regime became as murderous as Stalin's. Most Germans could not have known that in 1933. Even Hitler seems not to have planned that till the war.
Now a logic point must be applied to all equally to be valid. If Germans are all Nazis merely because the Nazis ruled Germany, are all Americans by nature lynchers of Negroes and holocasters of Indians? This would be the logical conclusion of adopting the view that Germans are natural Nazis.
So you can tell your 10 year old that, in the same way that despite Jim Crow, public lynchings, and the holocaust of the Indians, white Americans are not natural-born killers of colored people, and despite the holocaust of the Jews, Germans are not Nazis either. I know your feelings. My 12 year is confronted with self-righteous, racist holocaust propaganda in MIDDLE SCHOOL! But I looked at his textbook--no Gulag, no Stalin, no Mao. All these dozens of millions of victims are now gone with the wind in the American memory. So I'm giving him extracurricular information.
Honny soit qui mal y pense!
-
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Opa,
It is a month since I asked for a quote from published sources in which Nazi and German are equated, but no one has posted one.
Where do Goldhagen and Safire equate Germans and Nazis? A sourced quote, please. I know Goldhagen contends that anti-Semtic sentiments and actions ran far deeper in German society than merely the Nazi Party membership, but where does he say that all Germans were Nazis?
One can freeze frame history to prove anything. One year-old Alexander the Great showed no inclination to conquer the known world. So what? He still went on to do so. Teenage Stalin was training as a priest. So what? He still became an atheistic mass murderer. 52 year old Hitler's regime had only been responsible for about 100,000 deaths. So what? He went on to be responsible for the murder of some 6,000,000 Jews alone, let alone other war deaths. It is only by looking at the whole that one can arrive at a considered judgement.
Your proposition about the race laws in the southern states of the USA is a case in point. It is only accurate so far as it goes. To the USA's credit this internal ethnic issue was not resolved by massacring the entire minority population of the country. Germany's was.
This said, although I think your presentation is unballanced in the first part, I can only agree with your last paragraph.
Cheers,
Sid.
It is a month since I asked for a quote from published sources in which Nazi and German are equated, but no one has posted one.
Where do Goldhagen and Safire equate Germans and Nazis? A sourced quote, please. I know Goldhagen contends that anti-Semtic sentiments and actions ran far deeper in German society than merely the Nazi Party membership, but where does he say that all Germans were Nazis?
One can freeze frame history to prove anything. One year-old Alexander the Great showed no inclination to conquer the known world. So what? He still went on to do so. Teenage Stalin was training as a priest. So what? He still became an atheistic mass murderer. 52 year old Hitler's regime had only been responsible for about 100,000 deaths. So what? He went on to be responsible for the murder of some 6,000,000 Jews alone, let alone other war deaths. It is only by looking at the whole that one can arrive at a considered judgement.
Your proposition about the race laws in the southern states of the USA is a case in point. It is only accurate so far as it goes. To the USA's credit this internal ethnic issue was not resolved by massacring the entire minority population of the country. Germany's was.
This said, although I think your presentation is unballanced in the first part, I can only agree with your last paragraph.
Cheers,
Sid.
If you read accounts from people who lived at the time of german nazism, most germans seem to have been divided 50/50 with one half seeing Hitler as a great national leader, if not the savior of Germany, the other half thought of him as a bit of a comical figure with his overly emotional speeches, "pimp" haircut and moustache, and his gang of SA street-thugs. However, many of the leading nazi´s like Hitler, Hess, Goebbels and Göring were young and bore the spirit of renewal, as compared to the representatives of more moderate political parties who were at least in their 50´s or 60´s and had to bear the burden of being in one way or another associated with the humiliation of the Versailles treaty and the collapse of Germany´s economy.
Nazism was not unique to Germany, the italian Fascism of Mussolini seized power much earlier, and both Spain, Japan, and Argentina had governments who were strongly nationalistic and many individuals and governments supported Hitler and his Nazism because they were anti-communist and communism was sometimes seen as the worse of two evils by people who might not be too happy about Hitler either.
Racism towards jews, the burning of synagogues, and the murder of jews, has been common to the jews for litterally thousands of years and was definitely not Hitlers invention, maybe he personally had a patological hatred towards jews, but mainly he played on a general suspicion against jews which can be found in any country that has a jewish minority, which might explain why the Nazis could allways find help in occupied countries when it came to rounding up jews.
Some highranking SS-leaders who were directly involved in the holocaust actually saw it as perhaps not a pleasant task, but simply something destiny had bestowed upon them on behalf of the aryan race, in their opinion it had fallen upon national-socialism and the german people to solve the general jewish "problem" by exterminating all jews, but it was for the benefit of all the world.
Nazism was not unique to Germany, the italian Fascism of Mussolini seized power much earlier, and both Spain, Japan, and Argentina had governments who were strongly nationalistic and many individuals and governments supported Hitler and his Nazism because they were anti-communist and communism was sometimes seen as the worse of two evils by people who might not be too happy about Hitler either.
Racism towards jews, the burning of synagogues, and the murder of jews, has been common to the jews for litterally thousands of years and was definitely not Hitlers invention, maybe he personally had a patological hatred towards jews, but mainly he played on a general suspicion against jews which can be found in any country that has a jewish minority, which might explain why the Nazis could allways find help in occupied countries when it came to rounding up jews.
Some highranking SS-leaders who were directly involved in the holocaust actually saw it as perhaps not a pleasant task, but simply something destiny had bestowed upon them on behalf of the aryan race, in their opinion it had fallen upon national-socialism and the german people to solve the general jewish "problem" by exterminating all jews, but it was for the benefit of all the world.
-
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
-
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Lennardg,
I think you will find that Nazism was unique to Germany. Unlike Communism, which purported to be Internationalist in the 1930s and 1940s, all the opposing far right regimes you mention were proudly nationalist and all had distinct and often contradictory beliefs. Thus the Legionary movement in Romania, with its mystical Romanian Orthodox faith, was very different from Italian Fascism, which had no significant anti-Semitic ideological content, unlike German Nazism with its pseudo-Nordic pseudo-religious ethos etc.
Cheers,
Sid
I think you will find that Nazism was unique to Germany. Unlike Communism, which purported to be Internationalist in the 1930s and 1940s, all the opposing far right regimes you mention were proudly nationalist and all had distinct and often contradictory beliefs. Thus the Legionary movement in Romania, with its mystical Romanian Orthodox faith, was very different from Italian Fascism, which had no significant anti-Semitic ideological content, unlike German Nazism with its pseudo-Nordic pseudo-religious ethos etc.
Cheers,
Sid
Hi Sid
Once more I find myself in a position of mainly agreeing with you, but seeing a need to argue some modifications. I'll try not to make a habit of it .
I would agree that Nazism is at least as much a specifically German phenomenon as something that belongs within a wider framework of European fascism. However, I think the latter aspect should not be ignored either. True, fascist ideology is national and not international by nature, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that relatively similar movements sprang into existence, and in many cases into power, at the same period of European history. This can hardly be coincidental. It is also the case that these movements to some degree inspired and influenced each other.
cheers
Once more I find myself in a position of mainly agreeing with you, but seeing a need to argue some modifications. I'll try not to make a habit of it .
I would agree that Nazism is at least as much a specifically German phenomenon as something that belongs within a wider framework of European fascism. However, I think the latter aspect should not be ignored either. True, fascist ideology is national and not international by nature, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that relatively similar movements sprang into existence, and in many cases into power, at the same period of European history. This can hardly be coincidental. It is also the case that these movements to some degree inspired and influenced each other.
cheers
-
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Qvist,
I can't argue wth any of that. I fully agree.
My point was a little pedantic, but I thought it necessary to clarify that what is loosely described in international terms as "Fascism" is in fact a much more complex and contradictory phenomenon than its main competitor of the times, International Communisn, and that Nazism was just one aspect of it.
Cheers,
Sid.
I can't argue wth any of that. I fully agree.
My point was a little pedantic, but I thought it necessary to clarify that what is loosely described in international terms as "Fascism" is in fact a much more complex and contradictory phenomenon than its main competitor of the times, International Communisn, and that Nazism was just one aspect of it.
Cheers,
Sid.