PDA

View Full Version : Why was support for Nazis in post-1945 Germany so high?



Tomenable
12-04-18, 02:49
I found this data:

"In eleven surveys between November 1945 and December 1946, an average of 47 per cent [of Germans] expressed their feeling that National Socialism was a good idea badly carried out; by August 1947 this figure had risen to 55 per cent remaining fairly constant throughout the remainder of the occupation. Meanwhile, the share of respondents thinking it was a bad idea dropped from 41 to about 30 per cent (...)."

Source, "Public opinion in occupied Germany, the OMGUS surveys 1945-1949":

https://archive.org/details/publicopinionino00merr

https://archive.org/stream/publicopinionino00merr/publicopinionino00merr_djvu.txt

Angela
12-04-18, 02:55
I found this data:

"In eleven surveys between November 1945 and December 1946, an average of 47 per cent [of Germans] expressed their feeling that National Socialism was a good idea badly carried out; by August 1947 this figure had risen to 55 per cent remaining fairly constant throughout the remainder of the occupation. Meanwhile, the share of respondents thinking it was a bad idea dropped from 41 to about 30 per cent (...)."

Source, "Public opinion in occupied Germany, the OMGUS surveys 1945-1949":

https://archive.org/details/publicopinionino00merr

https://archive.org/stream/publicopinionino00merr/publicopinionino00merr_djvu.txt

Partly because they were less well off than when they were living off the purloined wealth of all the countries they had occupied and looted.

Partly because if they thought otherwise, all the deaths of their young men would have been in vain.

Mostly because they always believed it. Why would they renounce it just because they lost? They voted Hitler and the Nazis in: no one forced it on them.

Tutkun Arnaut
12-04-18, 14:59
I found this data:

"In eleven surveys between November 1945 and December 1946, an average of 47 per cent [of Germans] expressed their feeling that National Socialism was a good idea badly carried out; by August 1947 this figure had risen to 55 per cent remaining fairly constant throughout the remainder of the occupation. Meanwhile, the share of respondents thinking it was a bad idea dropped from 41 to about 30 per cent (...)."

Source, "Public opinion in occupied Germany, the OMGUS surveys 1945-1949":

https://archive.org/details/publicopinionino00merr

https://archive.org/stream/publicopinionino00merr/publicopinionino00merr_djvu.txt

They believed in their racial superiority even after they lost the war. Now that other countries have surpassed their level of development racial superiority is harder to sell.

exceededminimumso..
12-04-18, 19:55
Partly because they were less well off than when they were living off the purloined wealth of all the countries they had occupied and looted.

Partly because if they thought otherwise, all the deaths of their young men would have been in vain.

Mostly because they always believed it. Why would they renounce it just because they lost? They voted Hitler and the Nazis in: no one forced it on them.

Wasn't Nazi party 3rd in free elections?

dominique_nuit
12-04-18, 21:32
Rather than consult only victors' narratives, perhaps a more sympathetic study might shed some light on the question

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18682659-hitler-s-revolution

LeBrok
12-04-18, 21:54
Wasn't Nazi party 3rd in free elections?
Yes, Hitler party became a ruling one as a compromise or rather lack of will to compromise to create minority government by 2 leading parties. IIRC
Hitler quickly took this chance, unleashed terror, burned parliament building and touched with common man with his charisma, social programs and strong hand.

Angela
12-04-18, 23:36
Rather than consult only victors' narratives, perhaps a more sympathetic study might shed some light on the question

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18682659-hitler-s-revolution

Maybe you should consult the survivors of the wars he unleashed, and which he openly promised to unleash from the very beginning, or their descendants, not just those with uniforms on, but maybe of the women and children and old people strafed from the air as they fled the cities, like Paris, or the same non-combattants burned alive in their churches because their men didn't like being "occupied", or the many who practically starved when all their good food, and clothes, and art, and anything else worth having was shipped to Germany, or the young men shipped as slave labor to make the German factories hum, or most of all, the survivors of the camps where those he and his followers believed were "sub-human" or even just those who objected to their brutal rule, were killed.

You know, never mind, I'm sure you'd deny it all anyway. Don't peddle it to me, though: I'm the descendant of some of those people. I heard of what happened from their lips. You can't fool me. Oh, and for the record, we didn't win anything.

markozd
12-04-18, 23:42
It is difficult to appreciate the extent of the devotion to Hitler in large parts of the German population if you aren't proficient in German and haven't read some of the primary sources. He received fanmail that reads much like something a contemporary movie star or singer would get. Even before his rise to power, he managed to become a protégé of several aristocratic women who showered him with lavish gifts (sports cars, clothes). Considering how vulgar and boorish he comes off in his speeches, I still do not quite understand what they saw in him. There must have been something about the Zeitgeist that he understood and knew to exploit.

After his first victories the general opinion in Germany saw Hitler as the greatest German in history, only rivalled by Luther perhaps. Even after it became evident that the war was lost, many Germans saw the fate their country as being so intertwined with the figure of the Führer that a Germany without Hitler became more or less unthinkable. Nazi scholars promulgated the doctrine of a 'heroic realism', in which a fight with little hope for victory was to be considered some kind of noble ideal - this might have contributed to the kind of fanaticism vis-à-vis the invading red army that one saw in many places. I think there's a quote by Stalin pertaining to that particular phenomenon.

Of course the race idea was very much gospel in the general population too, especially among the younger generations considering 'race science' had been part of the curriculum for some time by the end of the war. Naturally, the idea that every German could consider himself special only by virtue of his race irrespective of class & wealth was appealing to many. No David Reich to tell them that Poles & Russians might technically be considered a bit more 'Aryan' than Germans back then ;).

Angela
12-04-18, 23:57
It is difficult to appreciate the extent of the devotion to Hitler in large parts of the German population if you aren't proficient in German and haven't read some of the primary sources. He received fanmail that reads much like something a contemporary movie star or singer would get. Even before his rise to power, he managed to become a protégé of several aristocratic women who showered him with lavish gifts (sports cars, clothes). Considering how vulgar and boorish he comes off in his speeches, I still do not quite understand what they saw in him. There must have been something about the Zeitgeist that he understood and knew to exploit.

After his first victories the general opinion in Germany saw Hitler as the greatest German in history, only rivalled by Luther perhaps. Even after it became evident that the war was lost, many Germans saw the fate their country as being so intertwined with the figure of the Führer that a Germany without Hitler became more or less unthinkable. Nazi scholars promulgated the doctrine of a 'heroic realism', in which a fight with little hope for victory was to be considered some kind of noble ideal - this might have contributed to the kind of fanaticism vis-à-vis the invading red army that one saw in many places. I think there's a quote by Stalin pertaining to that particular phenomenon.

Of course the race idea was very much gospel in the general population too, especially among the younger generations considering 'race science' had been part of the curriculum for some time by the end of the war. Naturally, the idea that every German could consider himself special only by virtue of his race irrespective of class & wealth was appealing to many. No David Reich to tell them that Poles & Russians might technically be considered a bit more 'Aryan' than Germans back then ;).

Wrong cranial and facial measurements. It's too horrific to smile about it. Slavs were "sub-humans" too, next on the chopping block once they got rid of Jews and gypsies and of course anyone who challenged their rule or their policies. All that nice, flat farmland was going to waste and needed the industry of the German "volk".

That's what makes some of the rhetoric coming out of the east so blackly humorous. The "philosophy" wasn't wrong, they just should at least have been included in the "cluster of ubermensch"

To some extent that almost erotic fascination with "The Leader" also existed in Italy. However, at least with Mussolini he gave women some reason to believe he was a figure of virility: there was a swinging door for women maybe even more active than there was for Jack Kennedy. Whereas, Hitler, well, did he even have sex? It's bizarre, all of it.

dominique_nuit
13-04-18, 11:33
Maybe you should consult the survivors of the wars he unleashed, and which he openly promised to unleash from the very beginning, or their descendants, not just those with uniforms on, but maybe of the women and children and old people strafed from the air as they fled the cities, like Paris, or the same non-combattants burned alive in their churches because their men didn't like being "occupied", or the many who practically starved when all their good food, and clothes, and art, and anything else worth having was shipped to Germany, or the young men shipped as slave labor to make the German factories hum, or most of all, the survivors of the camps where those he and his followers believed were "sub-human" or even just those who objected to their brutal rule, were killed.

This thread began with the question of how most Germans in the aftermath of the war could believe that Nazism was a "good idea badly carried out." My suggestion, in reply, is that one should read Richard Tedor's book for a fair-minded treatment of National Socialist goals and accomplishments. Doing so might make German attitudes after the war less mystifying. One could even say that Tedor openly sympathizes with Hitler's program, if the policy toward Jews is bracketed, and which he in fact barely discusses. Such imaginative sympathy makes for a far more enlightening read, in my view, than standard accounts, which are heavy-handed in their demonization of the Nazis. Roughly 80 years have passed since the era, before it was consumed by war, and surely there is much to be learned from what the Nazis attempted, their successes and their abject failures, especially if one is seeking an alternative to the globalist-capitalist order.

Angela serves up a litany of Nazi crimes. She refers to the wars Hitler "unleashed." She ignores the injustices of Versailles, the great suffering of the German people at the hands of the Allies. What is more, she ignores the role of Churchill. Yes, Hitler was a military adventurist who overplayed his cards--though arguably his greatest strategic errors were due to his conservative "siege" mentality aimed at securing & defending resources rather than the forward drive of a swift kill--but he also made many overtures for peace, before Poland, after Poland, and after the fall of France. It was Churchill who was dead-set on war, and who resorted to all manner of treachery to get war.

Angela refers, too, to innocents "strafed from the air as they fled cities," of non-combatants burned alive in churches, and people "practically starved" to death. Well, I can assure Angela that the British blockade (with Churchill its most forceful advocate) worked to starve millions to death in Germany after the Armistice of 1918 until the signing of the Versailles treaty in June 1919, and even points beyond; and that many more would starve again in Germany in the course of World War II. As for bombing innocents from the air, need I even mention the fire-bombing of Dresden, of Hamburg, of countless German cities. Read Sebald's "A Natural History of Destruction."

And then we have the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is not my wish to defend or trivialize the concentration camps, though I must say that I am skeptical of the gas chambers story. Skeptical, which is to say, unconvinced. Perhaps if we could have open scholarly debate on the subject, then certain conclusions might be reached. Instead, we have "eye witness" accounts that are rife with contradiction and discredited by absurd tales long since abandoned (lamp shades & soap made from human flesh, etc). And as for physical evidence of gas chambers, let's just say that it is scant. However, I also recognize that Himmler & the Waffen SS would have gone to any lengths to eradicate the Jews, so perhaps something truly horrific did happen at Treblinka, Chelmno, Belzec, et al. Or maybe these camps were just transfer points. I don't know. I am no expert. I have merely read a few books, conventional and revisionist. But if I were to go by historical hunch, I would say roughly 500,000 Jews died in concentration camps, not from gassing, but from starvation and typhus. And perhaps another 1 million died in extremely vicious partisan warfare behind the lines of the Eastern front.

So, yes, the Jews suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis. But things need to be put in proper perspective. First, we have Eisenhower and the POW camps after the close of the war. A million German POWs deliberately made to die. And, in general, see the book "Savage Continent." Second, the fire-bombings of German cities, but also the fire-bombing of Tokyo. Third, Hiroshima & Nagasaki. All crimes committed by the Allies, and which, if you do not buy the gas chamber narrative (and, granted, this is a big if), far outweigh Nazi crimes.

And then, to gain further perspective, we must consider Jewish crimes, for not all Jews were innocents. Jews were heavily over-represented and extremely prominent among the Bolsheviks, especially the NKVD. The Russian Revolution was in many respects a war of the Jews against the Russian people. Marxist ideology in the service of virulent racial animus. Jews have much more Russian blood on their hands from the 1920s and 30s than Germans ever had of Jewish blood in the 40s. (See Yuri Slezkine, "The Jewish Century"). Throughout the 1920s, Germany was very much in peril of falling to the Communists, who were disproportionately Jews, and murderous in their methods. Rosa Luxemburg and Berlin, Kurt Eisner and Munich, Bela Kun and Hungary.

Again, none of this is to whitewash Nazi crimes, but perspective is in order. Hitler and the Nazis were not uniquely evil. On the contrary, they were typical of their era.


Oh, and for the record, we didn't win anything.

By victors, I meant the British and Americans, making you unintentionally correct on this point.

If, however, by "we" you mean the Jews, well let's be honest . . . .

(1) In addition to massive reparations to Israel and individual Holocaust survivors--effectively any Jew who was alive anywhere in Europe during the war--you also won a great deal of moral capital

(2) For that segment of Jewry intimately involved with high finance, they were now able to pursue a globalist agenda (with their Anglo-American and soon other partners) unfettered by a German or European challenge or critique

(3) Jews gained in relative terms by using the specter of Nazism to discredit all nationalist & identitarian instincts & sentiments among European peoples

Angela
13-04-18, 14:41
I don't debate with Nazi apologists and anti-Semites.

You and people like you are what make me despair of humanity. Thankfully you were beaten.

Whatever happens in Europe, which I would do anything in my power to combat, all you can do here is yelp from the sidelines and post your excuses anonymously on the internet because you'd be ostracized professionally and personally if you ever had the guts to say them out loud.

Go crawl back in your hole.

For the record, I'm not Jewish. You don't have to be Jewish to be against anti-semitism.

Those women and children and old men herded into churches and burned alive, those women whose babies were ripped out of their bellies, those priests herded together with their flock and then machine gunned, those boys shipped off as slave labor to German farms and factories were my people. Innocents die in war. My people died from Allied bombing, men, women, and children. That's what happens when your idiot leader decides to get into bed with Germans. I hold no animus against them. BUT, no American or British soldiers ever did that to us. After two years of brutal occupation by the Germans, the Allies were treated as liberators.

What the Germans suffered during and after the war, after both wars, was their own fault. They chose to invade, to occupy, to loot, and to brutalize. No excuses will justify what they did.

davef
13-04-18, 15:05
I don't debate with Nazi apologists and anti-Semites.

You and people like you are what make me despair of humanity. Thankfully you were beaten.

Whatever happens in Europe, which I would do anything in my power to combat, all you can do here is yelp from the sidelines and post your excuses anonymously on the internet because you'd be ostracized professionally and personally if you ever had the guts to say them out loud.

Go crawl back in your hole.

For the record, I'm not Jewish. You don't have to be Jewish to be against anti-semitism.

Those women and children and old men herded into churches and burned alive, those women whose babies were ripped out of their bellies, those priests herded together with their flock and then machine gunned, those boys shipped off as slave labor to German farms and factories were my people. Innocents die in war. My people died from Allied bombing, men, women, and children. That's what happens when your idiot leader decides to get into bed with Germans. I hold no animus against them. BUT, no American or British soldiers ever did that to us. After two years of brutal occupation by the Germans, the Allies were treated as liberators.

What the Germans suffered during and after the war was their own fault. They chose to invade, to occupy, to loot, and to brutalize. No excuses will justify what they did.

That's spot on!

markozd
13-04-18, 18:20
This thread began with the question of how most Germans in the aftermath of the war could believe that Nazism was a "good idea badly carried out." My suggestion, in reply, is that one should read Richard Tedor's book for a fair-minded treatment of National Socialist goals and accomplishments. Doing so might make German attitudes after the war less mystifying. One could even say that Tedor openly sympathizes with Hitler's program, if the policy toward Jews is bracketed, and which he in fact barely discusses. Such imaginative sympathy makes for a far more enlightening read, in my view, than standard accounts, which are heavy-handed in their demonization of the Nazis. Roughly 80 years have passed since the era, before it was consumed by war, and surely there is much to be learned from what the Nazis attempted, their successes and their abject failures, especially if one is seeking an alternative to the globalist-capitalist order.

Angela serves up a litany of Nazi crimes. She refers to the wars Hitler "unleashed." She ignores the injustices of Versailles, the great suffering of the German people at the hands of the Allies. What is more, she ignores the role of Churchill. Yes, Hitler was a military adventurist who overplayed his cards--though arguably his greatest strategic errors were due to his conservative "siege" mentality aimed at securing & defending resources rather than the forward drive of a swift kill--but he also made many overtures for peace, before Poland, after Poland, and after the fall of France. It was Churchill who was dead-set on war, and who resorted to all manner of treachery to get war.

Angela refers, too, to innocents "strafed from the air as they fled cities," of non-combatants burned alive in churches, and people "practically starved" to death. Well, I can assure Angela that the British blockade (with Churchill its most forceful advocate) worked to starve millions to death in Germany after the Armistice of 1918 until the signing of the Versailles treaty in June 1919, and even points beyond; and that many more would starve again in Germany in the course of World War II. As for bombing innocents from the air, need I even mention the fire-bombing of Dresden, of Hamburg, of countless German cities. Read Sebald's "A Natural History of Destruction."

And then we have the Nazi persecution of Jews. It is not my wish to defend or trivialize the concentration camps, though I must say that I am skeptical of the gas chambers story. Skeptical, which is to say, unconvinced. Perhaps if we could have open scholarly debate on the subject, then certain conclusions might be reached. Instead, we have "eye witness" accounts that are rife with contradiction and discredited by absurd tales long since abandoned (lamp shades & soap made from human flesh, etc). And as for physical evidence of gas chambers, let's just say that it is scant. However, I also recognize that Himmler & the Waffen SS would have gone to any lengths to eradicate the Jews, so perhaps something truly horrific did happen at Treblinka, Chelmno, Belzec, et al. Or maybe these camps were just transfer points. I don't know. I am no expert. I have merely read a few books, conventional and revisionist. But if I were to go by historical hunch, I would say roughly 500,000 Jews died in concentration camps, not from gassing, but from starvation and typhus. And perhaps another 1 million died in extremely vicious partisan warfare behind the lines of the Eastern front.

So, yes, the Jews suffered greatly at the hands of the Nazis. But things need to be put in proper perspective. First, we have Eisenhower and the POW camps after the close of the war. A million German POWs deliberately made to die. And, in general, see the book "Savage Continent." Second, the fire-bombings of German cities, but also the fire-bombing of Tokyo. Third, Hiroshima & Nagasaki. All crimes committed by the Allies, and which, if you do not buy the gas chamber narrative (and, granted, this is a big if), far outweigh Nazi crimes.

And then, to gain further perspective, we must consider Jewish crimes, for not all Jews were innocents. Jews were heavily over-represented and extremely prominent among the Bolsheviks, especially the NKVD. The Russian Revolution was in many respects a war of the Jews against the Russian people. Marxist ideology in the service of virulent racial animus. Jews have much more Russian blood on their hands from the 1920s and 30s than Germans ever had of Jewish blood in the 40s. (See Yuri Slezkine, "The Jewish Century"). Throughout the 1920s, Germany was very much in peril of falling to the Communists, who were disproportionately Jews, and murderous in their methods. Rosa Luxemburg and Berlin, Kurt Eisner and Munich, Bela Kun and Hungary.

Again, none of this is to whitewash Nazi crimes, but perspective is in order. Hitler and the Nazis were not uniquely evil. On the contrary, they were typical of their era.



By victors, I meant the British and Americans, making you unintentionally correct on this point.

If, however, by "we" you mean the Jews, well let's be honest . . . .

(1) In addition to massive reparations to Israel and individual Holocaust survivors--effectively any Jew who was alive anywhere in Europe during the war--you also won a great deal of moral capital

(2) For that segment of Jewry intimately involved with high finance, they were now able to pursue a globalist agenda (with their Anglo-American and soon other partners) unfettered by a German or European challenge or critique

(3) Jews gained in relative terms by using the specter of Nazism to discredit all nationalist & identitarian instincts & sentiments among European peoples

That's an impressive compilation of right-wing revisionist talking points. It is well known that the Nazis attempted to appease the Western powers after their victory over France (especially in the case 'Germanic' England), but the fact that you think this is relevant in this context betrays your ignorance about what made the atrocities committed by Germans qualitatively different from similar events in the 20th century. In particular this would be:

(A) the explicit goal of a kind of 'racial' colonialism in the East, which was meticulously laid out by Hitler years before the war. This involved the large-scale enslavement and genocide of the peoples of Eastern Europe. To cite an example: before it became evident that the war in the east was a lost cause and the Nazi regime began the pursue a last minute 'pan-Europeanism', 80% of the inhabitants of Lithuania and Poland were deemed to be racially undesirable and hence had to be removed. Mind you, these plans were comparatively moderate - more radical voices in the Third Reich like Himmler and Globocnik devised plans for the complete destruction of the inhabitants of those regions.


(B) the industrial genocide of the Jews & Roma, most of which did not live in Germany or historically German territorries, but in the lands conquered by the Wehrmacht and the SS. You'll have to explain how the alleged influence of Western European Jews in politics and finance justifies the ruthless murder of people who were to significant extent confined to impoverished Eastern European ghettoes - among those millions of old people and innocent children, who in most camps had the lowest rates of survival because they were of no use as working slaves.

The topic of this thread the loyalty of the German population to the regime despite these crimes and the utter defeat in the war. I think this is an interesting phenomenon that's rarely discussed for obvious reasons, but there's no need to consult revisionist sources to explain this. It seems you found your reading list in one of the shadier corners of the internet, so I'd recommend you look into the works of more respected scholars or better yet into the primary sources. Your views won't hold up under scrutiny.

Mark
13-04-18, 18:51
Your views won't hold up under scrutiny.

Political views aren’t meant to be held up to scrutiny. If they were it’d be a matter of science and empiricism. “Scientifically speaking,” the only politics that matter are those of power and how power is perceived, restricted and conferred. Any measure or any organization behind it, no matter the supposed “good,” is only valued by how efficiently (and with greatest “ROI”) it can divvy power. This is why supposed representatives of a group of people will engage in power plays in international affairs, they can act predatory while still giving the impression of representing their own people by obsequiousness to the money power that feeds these same people. They can take power from the people quietly and they can take power from other nations openly (with excuses to appease some factions) but they can never take power away from the monarch of democratic “Western society,” money.

Even going after monopolies isn’t enough and doesn’t harm the money monarch, the way the system is structured and defined. Money is monarch and the spectacle is the court jester/intellectual.

^Hitler did nothing much different, really, except perhaps have less corruption in some areas but more in others. Most modern “dictators” have been not much more than politicians with a more direct line of propaganda/oratory, fancy hats and more power but doing the same shit democracies have always done while telling themselves they are doing something different.

dominique_nuit
14-04-18, 10:29
It is well known that the Nazis attempted to appease the Western powers after their victory over France (especially in the case 'Germanic' England), but the fact that you think this is relevant

I received an infraction for anti-semitic hate speech. Therefore, I am not keen to argue any of these points. I would rather use this site to learn (quietly and invisibly) about ongoing research into genomics and population history than get embroiled in un-winnable political arguments. However, it is sometimes difficult to hold one's words

I mentioned Churchill's war-mongering and rejection of all peace overtures only because Angela had referred to Hitler's "unleashing" of war. I should have added that Germany was surrounded by hostile powers, and time was not on her (Germany's) side


betrays your ignorance about what made the atrocities committed by Germans qualitatively different from similar events in the 20th century.

yes, there is a difference between explicit and implicit, open and hidden animus -- but I disagree that it rises to a "qualitative difference"


goal of a kind of 'racial' colonialism in the East, which was meticulously laid out by Hitler years before the war. This involved the large-scale enslavement and genocide of the peoples of Eastern Europe

I nowhere endorse Nazi racial theory. And I completely reject their understanding of the Slavs, if for no other reason than the Nazis would surely consider me racially inferior as well. I am G2a, half Calabrese, which is to say half Pelasgian, conquered many times over. I do not presume to belong to a master race.

I simply happen to think that 80 years after the fact we should view the murderous actions of the Nazis within the context of the other crimes of the era. No unique evil-doers, and no unique victims. If this is "revisionism," then yes, I am guilty of revisionism. I am absolutely guilty of revisionism


the industrial genocide of the Jews & Roma

again, this is what I doubt -- how much was "bullets" and how much was "industrial" -- I suspect it was mostly bullets (plus starvation & disease)


You'll have to explain how the alleged influence of Western European Jews in politics and finance justifies the ruthless murder of people who were to significant extent confined to impoverished Eastern European ghettoes - among those millions of old people and innocent children, who in most camps had the lowest rates of survival because they were of no use as working slaves

Nowhere do I seek to "justify" the concentration camps. Again, I merely argued for putting things in context. The 30 years from 1918 to 1948 saw a terrible war of conflicting peoples. Jews versus Russians, Germans versus Jews, Allies versus Germans. Many innocents were bombed, persecuted, imprisoned, raped, killed, on all sides


there's no need to consult revisionist sources to explain this. It seems you found your reading list in one of the shadier corners of the internet, so I'd recommend you look into the works of more respected scholars

I've read Dawidowicz, Browning and Kershaw, as well as Griffin, Fest and Arendt. Any other suggestions? And I didn't realize that Keith Lowe ("Savage Continent"), Slezkine and Sebald were verboten. I was under the impression they were widely acclaimed. I acknowledge, however, that Richard Tedor's book is rather beyond the usual spectrum

Further, I did not realize that respectability was the measure of truth


or better yet into the primary sources

It is no longer enough to be a critical lay reader? I must now become a professional historian in the dusty archives to have an opinion on these matters?

Also, by primary sources, do you mean witness testimonies? Scientific studies of the feasibility of certain purported mechanisms of death? Presumably you have undertaken this kind of research yourself?


Your views won't hold up under scrutiny.

How sweeping and unsubstantiated!

But I really don't want to pursue this argument here. I am not a Nazi, I don't have a framed photo of Hitler on my wall. I'm just an armchair revisionist with a suspect reading list who doesn't take a Manichaean view of history

Tutkun Arnaut
14-04-18, 12:39
I received an infraction for anti-semitic hate speech. Therefore, I am not keen to argue any of these points. I would rather use this site to learn (quietly and invisibly) about ongoing research into genomics and population history than get embroiled in un-winnable political arguments. However, it is sometimes difficult to hold one's words

I mentioned Churchill's war-mongering and rejection of all peace overtures only because Angela had referred to Hitler's "unleashing" of war. I should have added that Germany was surrounded by hostile powers, and time was not on her (Germany's) side



yes, there is a difference between explicit and implicit, open and hidden animus -- but I disagree that it rises to a "qualitative difference"



I nowhere endorse Nazi racial theory. And I completely reject their understanding of the Slavs, if for no other reason than the Nazis would surely consider me racially inferior as well. I am G2a, half Calabrese, which is to say half Pelasgian, conquered many times over. I do not presume to belong to a master race.

I simply happen to think that 80 years after the fact we should view the murderous actions of the Nazis within the context of the other crimes of the era. No unique evil-doers, and no unique victims. If this is "revisionism," then yes, I am guilty of revisionism. I am absolutely guilty of revisionism



again, this is what I doubt -- how much was "bullets" and how much was "industrial" -- I suspect it was mostly bullets (plus starvation & disease)



Nowhere do I seek to "justify" the concentration camps. Again, I merely argued for putting things in context. The 30 years from 1918 to 1948 saw a terrible war of conflicting peoples. Jews versus Russians, Germans versus Jews, Allies versus Germans. Many innocents were bombed, persecuted, imprisoned, raped, killed, on all sides



I've read Dawidowicz, Browning and Kershaw, as well as Griffin, Fest and Arendt. Any other suggestions? And I didn't realize that Keith Lowe ("Savage Continent"), Slezkine and Sebald were verboten. I was under the impression they were widely acclaimed. I acknowledge, however, that Richard Tedor's book is rather beyond the usual spectrum

Further, I did not realize that respectability was the measure of truth



It is no longer enough to be a critical lay reader? I must now become a professional historian in the dusty archives to have an opinion on these matters?

Also, by primary sources, do you mean witness testimonies? Scientific studies of the feasibility of certain purported mechanisms of death? Presumably you have undertaken this kind of research yourself?



How sweeping and unsubstantiated!

But I really don't want to pursue this argument here. I am not a Nazi, I don't have a framed photo of Hitler on my wall. I'm just an armchair revisionist with a suspect reading list who doesn't take a Manichaean view of history

I would say that Nazi propaganda was very effective. It did not go away the moment they lost the war. So echoes of that propaganda continued after the war as well. But when heads cooled down the Germans saw the cost of that war. Huge territories lost, country in ruins, universally hated in Europe. Even today the ghosts of that war follow Germans. It will do so for many generations to come.