(I wasn't sure if this was other topics or Wolrd History, so I just put it in World history). Let's say you were 100% German, living in Germany in the early 1930s. Hitler comes to power. You do not like him at all (you're not anti-semetic,etc.), but the Nazis have absolutely nothing against you and there is a 0% chance that they will try to harm you-unless you try to harm him,of course. Do you leave, or stay?

0% chance of the Nazis harming me? I'd just hand out unbiased newpapers, with list of Jews that have gone missing and Jews that we've heard from after words:p

More seriously: I'd most likely stay. Sooner or later I'd probably try and vote from the rooftops though:sniper:

Leave. I take my liberty seriously.

Move to Britain. Or throw a bomb at Hitler. Or both.

I would try and get as many jews with me out as possible before leaving too.

(I wasn't sure if this was other topics or Wolrd History, so I just put it in World history). Let's say you were 100% German, living in Germany in the early 1930s. Hitler comes to power. You do not like him at all (you're not anti-semetic,etc.), but the Nazis have absolutely nothing against you and there is a 0% chance that they will try to harm you-unless you try to harm him,of course. Do you leave, or stay?
Since I'm apparently invincible, I'd go shoot Hitler in the face.

Seriously? I'd probably stick around for awhile, but by the time Germany invaded Poland, I'd run to America. ;) I wouldn't want to stick around on a continent that had another Great War brewing.

Well if I'm German, then I'd head for Switzerland, where I could live in a place where people still speak my language, I'd be relatively close to home, I'd be in a place secure from war, and I'd be able to easily move back home when the Nazis fall from power. Also, Switzerland is really cool.

I'd probably stay and get killed on the Russian Front.

(I wasn't sure if this was other topics or Wolrd History, so I just put it in World history). Let's say you were 100% German, living in Germany in the early 1930s. Hitler comes to power. You do not like him at all (you're not anti-semetic,etc.), but the Nazis have absolutely nothing against you and there is a 0% chance that they will try to harm you-unless you try to harm him,of course. Do you leave, or stay?
Considering that Germany would sort of slide into totalitarianism, the odds are very good that we would all gradually adjust to the new conditions.

While the Nazis did explicitly state what they wanted to do, the actual process of remaking Germany in their image was gradual. In the mean time the Nazis did at least take credit for a massive economic uspwing (partly financed by borrowing like crazy), for bringing parts of Germany "heim ins Reich", and eventually for a series of quick and relatively bloodless military conquests, while at the same time pumping out consumer goods in bulk to keep the home-front happy (they were worried people would turn against them if they didn't). The competent propaganda would help too.

By the time most of us, like the German public in general, would wake up to the country having taken a wrong turn, we and Germany would already be heavily involved in a world war. As soon as the war was on, that's when the "final solution" and outright repression could be brought to bear. A great national crisis makes all kinds of otherwise unthinkable options available, even if the crisis was manufactured at home.

I would try and get as many jews with me out as possible before leaving too.
And the Nazi party would smilingly wave goodbye as you left, and then walk laughing to the bank.

"The final solution" wasn't implimented until well into the war. Up until then the policy was to squeeze the Jews into leaving the country. 60% of the German Jews did so prior to the outbreak of the war. Those who stayed did so in the belief that these insane policies wouldn't be maintained for long. Somehow the German society would come to its senses and repeal them. That could have happened, unless the Nazis had made Germany go to war, as they planned all along, at which point they could pretty much implement any wartime measures they wanted.

And the Nazi party would smilingly wave goodbye as you left, and then walk laughing to the bank.

"The final solution" wasn't implimented until well into the war. Up until then the policy was to squeeze the Jews into leaving the country. 60% of the German Jews did so prior to the outbreak of the war. Those who stayed did so in the belief that these insane policies wouldn't be maintained for long. Somehow the German society would come to its senses and repeal them. That could have happened, unless the Nazis had made Germany go to war, as they planned all along, at which point they could pretty much implement any wartime measures they wanted.

They can smile and laugh as much as they want as long as it means all those lives were saved. If I could've saved all those lives I would have.

Realistically, a lot more of us would end up going along with them than we care to admit. As was said they didn't just jump from taking power to killing jews, it was gardual and marked by measures with a lot of popular support. I have no way of knowing what I would do. And the OP says we were born and raised there, which means we wouldn't have any of the atitudes we have as a result of our actual background.

I asked myself multiple times that question. And indeed I do not lay my hands in the fire and say I would have done other things. It belongs much courage to act against a totalitarian system. Much more than just saying. Would I act like my great grand father and bring Jews out of Hamburg to escape to Sweden? Would I know at least anything about the Holocaust? Would I act or just try to survive? We all can't be sure answering that. Also Hitler didn't make everything at once. Before knowing what was really going on it might be too late. If Hitler was in my room just now, I would kill him at once! But in that days? No one can be really sure.
I can only hope I acted in an honourable way. That means trying to kill him or trying to help Jews. Or both.

Adler

Leave, rather than giving tacit approval by staying. No real good can be done from within.

They can smile and laugh as much as they want as long as it means all those lives were saved. If I could've saved all those lives I would have.
Sure.
The things is just that prior to the start of the war, the German Jews remaining in Germany, about 40% of the original number, were determined to hunker down and wait for sanity to return. They weren't leaving because they were hindered from doing so, but because for the time being they had decided to remain in Germany.

Of the 60% who had left the majority had shacked up in France. In order to save the greatest number of German Jews from the holocaust, getting them out of France in 1940 would probably be more important.

I'd probably stay and get killed on the Russian Front.
I'd probably have joined the Wehrmacht too. If I was a German citizen born in Germany, I wouldn't doubt my patriotism would force me to stay in my homeland.

Well if I'm German, then I'd head for Switzerland, where I could live in a place where people still speak my language, I'd be relatively close to home, I'd be in a place secure from war, and I'd be able to easily move back home when the Nazis fall from power. Also, Switzerland is really cool.
This wouldn't be that bad of an idea, but I'm sure the Germans still had a fairly large influence there. I'd think (even if it was just Gestapo/Secret Police and the like).

If I were 100% German, I would have helped get as many local Jews out of the country as I could, "Underground Railroad" style.

There would be no reason for me to leave myself, but I couldn't just stand around and watch what they were doing to the innocents, and I couldn't live with sticking my head in the stand. I would learn to be much more discreet than I am here, though. The nazis were pretty ruthless when you got on their bad side.

Good question.
I remember a Nazi-tets on the internet some months ago and my results was "Der Kommandant".
I would have stayed in Germany and advanced in the hierarchy.
It said I am not a supporter of Nazi ideology but I am sufficiently ruthless and power-osessed and very intelligent (for a Nazi, that is).

Leave, rather than giving tacit approval by staying. No real good can be done from within.

So killing Hitler or helping the Jews out is not good?

Adler

Well, the OP implies that you grew up in Kaiserine Germany, and then lived through the Weimar Republic. Under those circumstances you would have very different views from the ones you do now.

Realistically, a lot more of us would end up going along with them than we care to admit. As was said they didn't just jump from taking power to killing jews, it was gardual and marked by measures with a lot of popular support. I have no way of knowing what I would do. And the OP says we were born and raised there, which means we wouldn't have any of the atitudes we have as a result of our actual background.

Since day one Hitler was quite clear with his anti-semitism, his contempt for democracy and his aggressive policies.

Even if we accept that most people did not know that Germany was surely preparing for war and the economy was beign severely mismanaged (though people with a vision did know all along), fact is the regime was still pretty insane. I'd emmigrate for much less.

Most people didn't. Was there a freak concentration of people of low moral fiber in Germany at that time, or are our values a greater product of our circumstances than we realize?

I mean, sure, take me as I am now and put me in Germany in 1933, and I will act differently. But raise me from infancy and the result will be different.

Since the odds of being killed by an allied air-drop bomb are higher than zero, I'd be on the first steamship to Portugal, or maybe a nice scenic drive to Bern.

Join the Resistance.
In real life, though, I'm transsexual, bisexual, very liberal and have Jewish blood, and therefore would be on the list of first to die.

So killing Hitler or helping the Jews out is not good?

Adler
Simply a case of fools gold as compared to real good.

The first was not accomplished in 25 years and the second was not done in any significant way. I know that the 'German Resistance' is fetishised beyond its import and impact by some in this day and age but things need to be viewed dispassionately and objectively.
Real good is more than mere drops in the ocean to assuage the guilty consciences of assorted types.
Real good in this circumstance requires the utter destruction of the regime, which first requires other steps.

Well, the OP implies that you grew up in Kaiserine Germany, and then lived through the Weimar Republic. Under those circumstances you would have very different views from the ones you do now.

No. That depends on your character, your education, your family and so on, as well as time and place. Thus this has to be considered as well. However then we all would be different in character. And then we could never answer that question. If at all.
Nevertheless it is not necessary to assume we became nazis from the beginning.

Adler

Simply a case of fools gold as compared to real good.

The first was not accomplished in 25 years and the second was not done in any significant way. I know that the 'German Resistance' is fetishised beyond its import and impact by some in this day and age but things need to be viewed dispassionately and objectively.
Real good is more than mere drops in the ocean to assuage the guilty consciences of assorted types.
Real good in this circumstance requires the utter destruction of the regime, which first requires other steps.

They tried it. Also Hitler ruled "only" 12 years. Why 25? Nevertheless they failed. But do you critize them because the fate was against them? They paid a bloody price for the failing. But, as Stauffenberg said, it had to be done, côute que côute. That they needed so long? For a coup you need support. And that was difficult to get in the time he could celebrate "his" successes. That they all prepared. And in contrast of all resistance groups: They could stop the mess on one day.
Also isn't it good to save the lives of even a single Jew? I see more reasons to stay than to immigrate.

Adler

Well then, I'd gather around all the local Jews, throw a bomb at Hitler, and jump on the next goods train to Paris. (If I get that far.)

@adler: My point was, there is nor eason to assume we would be any different or do any better than everyone else did. All this talk of getting out or fighting or saving Jews or whatever assumes that we would have information or an outlook that according to the OP we wouldn't have. Sure, there were some Germans who did but the overwhelming majority didn't.

If I had been born in The Second Reich, been through World War I, saw the country suffer humilating defeat and massive economic collapse, and then had a new powerful leader who reversed all of that I would have remained in Germany and supported the Nazi's wholeheartedly.

People who say they wouldn't have done so are deluding themselves. You would have been a good little German and done what you were told.

If I had been born in The Second Reich, been through World War I, saw the country suffer humilating defeat and massive economic collapse, and then had a new powerful leader who reversed all of that I would have remained in Germany and supported the Nazi's wholeheartedly.

People who say they wouldn't have done so are deluding themselves. You would have been a good little German and done what you were told.

That's a good point.

I have ancestors who, it is said, helped get blacks into Canada from Detroit, back in the days before slavery was destroyed. Great, great, great grandfathers served for the Union fighting slavery, and more recently, we had family supporting civil rights movements for Blacks, Mexicans and Indians only a generation ago.

Without that upbringing, would I have the same conviction to help the Jews as if I was raised in Germany between the wars?

Eran, I think there was a misunderstanding. I agree. No one can't be sure to become the next Eichmann in such a situation!

Adler

If I was in Germany in the time before WWII would leave and join up with the American's because of the chance that when they come to Europe to stop the Nazi's I would be one of the one's knocking on the door to take my country back. In all honesty, if I were in Germany back then, I would choose America because it has a large German community and generally treats people well that wants to give it an honest go at life.

Of course, since I am not German I would probably end up being there with the American special forces gathering intelligence for invasion:D .

They tried it. Also Hitler ruled "only" 12 years. Why 25? Nevertheless they failed.
But do you critize them because the fate was against them? They paid a bloody price for the failing. But, as Stauffenberg said, it had to be done, côute que côute. That they needed so long? For a coup you need support. And that was difficult to get in the time he could celebrate "his" successes. That they all prepared. And in contrast of all resistance groups: They could stop the mess on one day.
Also isn't it good to save the lives of even a single Jew? I see more reasons to stay than to immigrate.

Adler

25 is the number of years from 1920 to 1945. There was plenty of time for something to be done before 1933.

I do not criticize them, but simply do not see it as the optimum method of opposition. They failed because of what they were up against, among other reasons. The German Resistance did take its time. Setting up a coup is a difficult thing.

More can be saved with what can be arranged from elsewhere prior to the war, and the best way of saving them during the war is hastening the defeat of Nazi Germany. How can that defeat be hastened? Read on

One said one would leave initially. There was no mention of not coming back in a particular manner at the pertinent time.

In the years before 1933 killing Hitler would be another murder. Yes, we know what he did. But in that time there was no hindsight. That years you can hardly blame anyone not to kill him. To talk to Hindenburg and warn him never ever elect him as chancellor is another thing.
Also the years after 33 were asked. In that time there are two stages where a coup could be successful. The first is in 1938 before Munich. Indeed there was a coup plan, which failed because the assassins had scruples to kill also Mussolini, who suddenly drove with Hitler, the other from 1942 on, when the war became that cruel one we know. And from that date on there were multiple attempts all failed. Once a wagon full of new uniforms Hitler wanted to see, was bombed. Then a bomb in his plane did not detonate because of the Russian winter, then he flew to another place, where no "welcome committee" waited, ...
Bad luck. But perhaps, if someone stayed, he could fire the bullet to save millions of lives.

Adler

Yes, it was clear what he was doing. As such, the 20s were the lost decade for dealing with him, and by that I do mean terminating him with extreme prejudice. Call it murder, call it a chocolate cake - it is taking advantage of the opportunity.

Post 33 was specified; I simply observed that the writing was on the wall before the Beer Hall Putsch that this was a fellow who could do with the old Rosa Luxemburg treatment. No hindsight needed. It can even be passed off as internal squabbling.

By the time power is assumed, it is too late for all but the most sophisticated plots, given the advantage of the apparatus of the state.
The attempts all had a few things in common. They failed miserably and they were internal jobs.

If I had been born in The Second Reich, been through World War I, saw the country suffer humilating defeat and massive economic collapse, and then had a new powerful leader who reversed all of that I would have remained in Germany and supported the Nazi's wholeheartedly.

People who say they wouldn't have done so are deluding themselves. You would have been a good little German and done what you were told.

This post is an insult to people like Sophie Scholl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

I am shocked by how many people who thinks that they can't think for themselves.

This post is an insult to people like Sophie Scholl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Scholl

People like her were few and far between. The overwhelming majority went along with it, and I don't see how we are any different.

I am shocked by how many people who thinks that they can't think for themselves.

Could the citizens of the Third Reich think for themselves?

People like her were few and far between. The overwhelming majority went along with it, and I don't see how we are any different.

They went along with it because they wanted to. There's ALWAYS a choice.

Could the citizens of the Third Reich think for themselves?

Yes.

I don't know if any of you have seen this but you should watch it: http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/shoah/

You'll see that people weren't powerless as you think. They didn't do anything because they didn't want to. They knew what was happening, they knew it was wrong and yet they didn't do anything because it was their choice. They made a choice to let it happen and NOT do anything.

You are right. People like Sophie Scholl were rare. I think what sets people like her apart from others is not the background but courage. Whether one has the courage to act as one's conscience dictates. Obviously many didn't. They chose what was easier.

But please, let's not mistake cowardice for upbringing.

So, the, the vast majority of Germans were simply immoral compared to the posters of CFC? Is that why they went along with it? Was it just a huge coincidence that the sort of people who are likely to let this happen, who are rare here, were common then?

I am not trying to exonerate them, even, just saying that we are not likely to have done better. And we shouldn't be so confident as to assume that we would.

Well, I would probably support Hitler before the war and in the first years of the war while Germany was winning, then after news of the battle of Stalingrad reached home, I would realize that it was the beginning of the end and move to Switzerland with the paphetic excuse of only going there to visit my poor old mother's funeral. That is, if I was brought up in the before-war Germany and lived through post-WW1 Germany.

I don't think anyone who didn't actually live through the conditions that pervaded between 1918 and 1945 could answer such a question accurately. Adler probably got the closest so far in saying (in essence) that whilst he would like to think he would know about what was happening, and do something about it, he just doesn't know.

I think you could do much worse than to watch the opening and closing credits to the Downfall. Traudl Junge remarks along the lines of that she used to think that she had no opportunity to know what was happening, especially given her youth, and was not in any position to do anything about it anyway. She then relates how she passed a memorial to Sophie Scholl and realises that they were the same age, and questions her previous views.

I think that we'd all like to think that we'd act against the regime, but like Traudl Junge too many of us would not do so, and only later come to realise what a great mistake that was.

If you are 100% German and didn't leave, by the end you would have been conscripted as either a soldier or forced laborer. If you failed to hide your dislike of the government well enough, more likely the latter.

If you are 100% German and didn't leave, by the end you would have been conscripted as either a soldier or forced laborer. If you failed to hide your dislike of the government well enough, more likely the latter.

Then who ran the corner store?

So, the, the vast majority of Germans were simply immoral compared to the posters of CFC? Is that why they went along with it? Was it just a huge coincidence that the sort of people who are likely to let this happen, who are rare here, were common then?

I am not trying to exonerate them, even, just saying that we are not likely to have done better. And we shouldn't be so confident as to assume that we would.

I don't think morals have to do with anything. The whole morality thing is very subjective anyway.

My main problem is that people were blaming their upbringing as the reason why they let it happen. I have trouble believing this. If we're going to use that line of argument nothing in the world would ever happen. There would be no reformers.

That documentary I gave the link to, watch it. You'll see that a lot of people watched and let it happen even though they knew it shouldn't happening because they thought they could get something out it.

They weren't stupid, they were opportunists and/or prejudiced themselves.

Well, set aside the fact that I used the word "moral" (you seem to be defining it differently from me) your central claim remains, that all these Germans chose to allow this to happen, but that you think that most non-Germans (or at least most CFCers) wouldn't. You still seem to be saying that the Germans were somehow fundamentally different, and that they all chose to make a bad decision that few others would. And it still makes no sense to me, whether you want to redefine the word "moral" so that it doesn't fit here, or not. I am not saying that what they did was acceptable, I am saying that the vast majority of us, given the same set of circumstances, would do the same.

Well, set aside the fact that I used the word "moral" (you seem to be defining it differently from me) your central claim remains, that all these Germans chose to allow this to happen, but that you think that most non-Germans (or at least most CFCers) wouldn't. You still seem to be saying that the Germans were somehow fundamentally different, and that they all chose to make a bad decision that few others would. And it still makes no sense to me, whether you want to redefine the word "moral" so that it doesn't fit here, or not. I am not saying that what they did was acceptable, I am saying that the vast majority of us, given the same set of circumstances, would do the same.

I can't speak for "the vast majority of us". I don't know there might be a lot of anti-semitism on this board or in the world.

That's not my argument.

My argument is that their background and upbringing had nothing to do with it. If they want to do something they could have. They didn't.

Why did Sophie Scholl and the others stand up to the Nazis? It's not because they were more intelligent or more moral. It was because they wanted to act on their conscience.

That's the question we need to ask ourselves: am I going to act on my conscience or am I going to be a coward?

Don't say I'm going to go along with the others because that was what was in fashion. It wasn't. They all knew it was wrong.

Why was Sophie Scholl in the minority? She is almost irrelevant to the discussion. Why was the opposite in the majority? For every School there were thousands who went along.

Admit it or not, you are saying that the vast majority of Germans would act differently from the vast majority of everyone else in the exact same circumstances.

Why was Sophie Scholl in the minority? She is almost irrelevant to the discussion. Why was the opposite in the majority? For every School there were thousands who went along.

Admit it or not, you are saying that the vast majority of Germans would act differently from the vast majority of everyone else in the exact same circumstances.

Actually, that documentary I was talking about was set in and interviewed Polish people who were around during WWII. The actions of Nazi Germany wasn't exclusive to Germany. The Poles, the French, the Italians among others all went along with it.

So no you're actually going off on a different plane altogether.

On the contrary, it further proves my point. If not just Germans but Italians, Poles, et al went along with the regime in most cases, so would we.

You seem to be under the impression that I have something against Germans. Not so! I'm currently learning German and adore their literature and culture and music of course.

On the contrary, it further proves my point. If not just Germans but Italians, Poles, et al went along with the regime in most cases, so would we.

This isn't about nationalities. It's about individuals. You either have strength to stand up for what you believe in or you don't.

This isn't about nationalities. It's about individuals. You either have strength to stand up for what you believe in or you don't.

I am not saying it is about nationalities. I have, in fact, been saying quite the opposite. That most of us, whether it is right or wrong, would have gone along with the regime. I suspect you haven't understood my argument at all, based on your last two posts. So let me reiterate:

Most people, if they were in the same circumstances as those who, historically, supported the regime, would have acted the same way. In other words, it isn't something inherent to the German race (whatever that is) but the result of the years prior to the rise of Nazism that got it so much support. And (as the OP implies) if we were in those circumstances, we would have acted the same way. I am not talking about exceptions like Scholl or even Schindler (although their heroism should be an example to all of us) but what the majority of people did.

I am not saying it is right. It is to their shame that they supported the regime, at least as long as they knew what it was really about. But I would be fooling myself to say that I, or anyone else here, could be expected to do much better.

Most people, if they were in the same circumstances as those who, historically, supported the regime, would have acted the same way. In other words, it isn't something inherent to the German race (whatever that is) but the result of the years prior to the rise of Nazism that got it so much support.

I don't get it. Antisemitism didn't start with the Nazis and didn't end with them either. We all know this. What is your point?


And (as the OP implies) if we were in those circumstances, we would have acted the same way. I am not talking about exceptions like Scholl or even Schindler (although their heroism should be an example to all of us) but what the majority of people did.

It's not about what they did. It's about what they didn't do. They knew it was wrong but failed to act because of their cowardice but of course some were opportunists and prejudiced anyway like I said.

I am not saying it is right. It is to their shame that they supported the regime, at least as long as they knew what it was really about. But I would be fooling myself to say that I, or anyone else here, could be expected to do much better.

Like I said, I can't speak for others. There might be antisemitic people right here in this thread who loved Hitler and would have supported him all the way. I don't see what you are upset about.

I don't get it. Antisemitism didn't start with the Nazis and didn't end with them either. We all know this. What is your point?

Support for the Third Reich was about a lot more than antisemitism.

It's not about what they did. It's about what they didn't do. They knew it was wrong but failed to act because of their cowardice but of course some were opportunists and prejudiced anyway like I said.

I don't dispute that. I have said several times that I don't. I am just saying that we shouldn't think that we would do better, because most likely we wouldn't.

Like I said, I can't speak for others. There might be antisemitic people right here in this thread who loved Hitler and would have supported him all the way. I don't see what you are upset about.

Again, it's not antisemitism, it's a lot of other things. I am not upset, I just think it is foolish to assume we are better than people, or would have done better in the same situation, when in all probability we wouldn't.

As for you doubting modern people, well actions speak louder than words. I can say, "I'll kill Hitler". But in reality, it might be a lot harder when you're faced with the prospect of killing a person. It's still a sin I will carry. Thou shalt not kill.

But maybe there's a lesson here too. They failed to act despite their conscience. Are we going to fail to act despite our conscience too? Should we take action with whatever we feel strongly about?

But maybe there's a lesson here too. They failed to act despite their conscience. Are we going to fail to act despite our conscience too? Should we take action with whatever we feel strongly about?

That's my point. if we think something is wrong, we need to do something about it.

That's my point. if we think something is wrong, we need to do something about it.

That's my point too!

Seriously, watch that documentary Shoah. It talks to Polish people who lived through WWII and ALL of them said that they were upset and they felt it was wrong - when it all happened - but they didn't do anything about it. Inaction. It also showed them accepting a Jewish man that survived the Holocaust in their modern day communities.

I don't know if I would've done better than them or if I'm better than them but it did teach me that I need to act on my conscience whatever it may be.

This isn't a competition of who are better people. This isn't us vs. them.

I came into this thread and I said I would help as many Jewish people to get out of the country before leaving myself. I don't think myself better than them because I would do something noble - in my view - like that. But again actions speak louder than words. I can try and get jews out but what if there was a nazi pointing his gun in my head what would I do, what would I say? I don't know as my life depends on it. BUT I would absolutely try to save as lives as possible as well as saving my own.

It wouldn't matter whether I'm German, Italian or catholic or protestant.

I think you both are talking the very same.
Indeed Antisemitism was the lowest reason to follow the Nazis for the Germans. And even until the turn of 1941/42 no Holocaust was in sight. Did he do wrong things? Yes. But if Hitler died suddenly before the Holocaust happened he might be remembered as great man! The things he did, well, Napoleon was also a tyrant but is still celebrated in France! I know, he wasn't by far as cruel, but for the first cruel actions of the Nazis the people indeed blamed not Hitler but the SA/SS! (As for the Reichskristallnacht they are right, as this was planned by Goebbels alone. Hitler was furious and Goebbels was out of the power for years!). Many people said, if the Führer knew that. It is estimated that about 200.000 Germans and Austrians were involved into crimes in that time. Too many. But 79.800.000 not. Of them only max. 10% knew about the crimes! I heard the story of one man, who listened at Christmas 1942 BBC and the only broadcast about the Holocaust. He wasn't a friend of Hitler. He thought he was able to do anything. But THAT? That was pure British propaganda like in ww1, with babies being slaughtered with bayonets! He thought. However in contrast to most that did not believe, he made researches. He needed a year to get the last proof!
So would we know about that crimes? Or would we be shocked after the war with the truth?
But even that are not the most important questions. I saw at school movies of testing, how a man could become similar to the Nazis. Terrifyingly it is not much! Even today.
There was once a student being chained to a chair. He would get an electric shock in the case of telling a wrong answer. Then the dose would be made higher. A civilian, who was just asked at the street to help at a scientific experiment, should give the shocks. Most of them did it until a lethal dose would have been used, even when the one was not replying! Few aborted earlier, and only 2 were denying to do that from the beginning. That experiment was made in the US and Germany. No differences.
Another experiment was also conducted in the US. Students were coincidentally elected to become prisoners and guards in a prison. It was planned for a month or so. After a week the experiment had to be aborted. It became too cruel. Even the professor became more a prison director.
All persons knew about ww2 and the Holocaust!
Power can change people. And if there is a cruel/ crazy/ totalitarian regime...

Adler

Help the Nazi's. Because that was a very good government.

Help the Nazi's. Because that was a very good government.

I hope that was meant sarcastic!

Adler

I hope that was meant sarcastic!

Adler

I hope that was sarcasm as well.

I would stay like most of you would.

Seeing that us Germans are a quite ordinary set of people today, aswell as before 1933 and that the internal resistance to the 3. Reich was quite minimal, I really don't want to make a prognosis.

Assuming I do not retain my future knowledge of the Holocaust or how the war went, I'd probably join the Nazi Party.

I wouldn't really give a damn one way or another about Jews being in Germany, but if I was German at the time, I'd be angry at the state Germany was in. Germany lost land in WWI, is forbidden from building defenses or having soldiers in the Rhineland, the army is reduced to a microscopic number incapable of defending the country, is paying exorbitant reparations, the money is worthless, unemployment is rampant, and Germany is humiliated before it's enemies. Can you tell me that, if this is the state of your country, you would be happy? I wouldn't, I'd be pissed, and I'd join a movement that isn't afraid to do something about the situation. A movement that promises to restore Germany to it's former strength and glory. Yes, I'd be a Nazi, or at the least pro Nazi, and tolerate their obsession with Jews. I'd probably only become disillusioned late in the war. But by then there would be nothing to do but stay at the front, keep fighting, and hope for the best.

But even that are not the most important questions. I saw at school movies of testing, how a man could become similar to the Nazis. Terrifyingly it is not much! Even today.
There was once a student being chained to a chair. He would get an electric shock in the case of telling a wrong answer. Then the dose would be made higher. A civilian, who was just asked at the street to help at a scientific experiment, should give the shocks. Most of them did it until a lethal dose would have been used, even when the one was not replying! Few aborted earlier, and only 2 were denying to do that from the beginning. That experiment was made in the US and Germany. No differences.
Another experiment was also conducted in the US. Students were coincidentally elected to become prisoners and guards in a prison. It was planned for a month or so. After a week the experiment had to be aborted. It became too cruel. Even the professor became more a prison director.
All persons knew about ww2 and the Holocaust!


You're refering to the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) and the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment), scary stuff for those who believe in the moral backbone of the average citizen. I think far more CFCers would have gone along with the Nazi's than we'd like to admit to ourselves. Hence free press, checks and balances, and inefficent goverment is necessary so those few who do object from the start have time and space to make a case.

Kill Hitler? But that means Himmler would have taken over instead, and Germany would have won the war!

No, the nazis had to be defeated on a larger scale. I would join Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg in their attempt to rally the masses of the working class against the fascist elements, to deny the nazis winning that election in the first place.

Assuming I do not retain my future knowledge of the Holocaust or how the war went, I'd probably join the Nazi Party.

I wouldn't really give a damn one way or another about Jews being in Germany, but if I was German at the time, I'd be angry at the state Germany was in. Germany lost land in WWI, is forbidden from building defenses or having soldiers in the Rhineland, the army is reduced to a microscopic number incapable of defending the country, is paying exorbitant reparations, the money is worthless, unemployment is rampant, and Germany is humiliated before it's enemies. Can you tell me that, if this is the state of your country, you would be happy? I wouldn't, I'd be pissed, and I'd join a movement that isn't afraid to do something about the situation. A movement that promises to restore Germany to it's former strength and glory. Yes, I'd be a Nazi, or at the least pro Nazi, and tolerate their obsession with Jews. I'd probably only become disillusioned late in the war. But by then there would be nothing to do but stay at the front, keep fighting, and hope for the best.

The best thing about your post is that you spoke for yourself. Thinking back, that's the problem I had with certain posters. They weren't speaking for themselves, they were guessing what others would do.

The OP asked for a personal opinion. This is a personal journey and thought process. Not group think.

See, even if I didn't retain my future knowledge of the Holocaust and world history I still would not have gone along with them.

Aside from their persecutions of Jews, they also persecute Germans that were different in any way like gays and mentally retarded. Not to mention the book burning - now THAT is absolutely where I draw the line. ;)

So please people, SPEAK YOUR YOURSELF!

fight communism.

The best thing about your post is that you spoke for yourself. Thinking back, that's the problem I had with certain posters. They weren't speaking for themselves, they were guessing what others would do.

Are you referring to me? I said I didn't know what I would do but that it is likely that I would go along. But I said that not because I have a pro-Nazi personality but because I think that most people would, myself included. I still think that.

Are you referring to me? I said I didn't know what I would do but that it is likely that I would go along. But I said that not because I have a pro-Nazi personality but because I think that most people would, myself included. I still think that.

The post that prompted me to post a second time in this thread was by silver 2039 - so no, I was referring more specifically to that poster. But I think you could take my advice as to just speaking for yourself too. I mean look at the OP. It's about WHAT YOU WOULD DO, NOT what you think others would do.

The reason why I say this is that to doubt people is to insult people like Scholl. Also, I'm very pro-Jewish although I'm not one and only have a few acquaintances who are Jewish. So if I won't stand for that sh!t in today's world, no way I would stand for it in the 30's.

I still doubt that. Seriously. You are pro-Jewish laregly, I assume, because of life experiences you would have had, that you wouldn't have had if your life were as the OP assumed. We would all be very different people.

I still doubt that. Seriously. You are pro-Jewish laregly, I assume, because of life experiences you would have had, that you wouldn't have had if your life were as the OP assumed. We would all be very different people.

Well if we're going to take things literally like that then clearly you can't answer the OP's question.

In essence, what you're answering is what people in the modern world would do if they were in 30's Germany. Not what you as an individual would do.

If we're going to assume that we'll be different people, there's no use answering that question.

So . . . you think that our life experiences have no bearing on who we are as individuals? That if we were born and raised in completely different circumstances, we would still be the exact same people we are now?

So . . . you think that our life experiences have no bearing on who we are as individuals? That if we were born and raised in completely different circumstances, we would still be the exact same people we are now?

Yes, well that's why I'm saying this question cannot work. We might as well close this thread because the scenario doesn't work.

If you were born in a different time you'll be a different person, so no use talking about what-ifs.

So blame the OP, not me for pointing out the obvious.

Perhaps a better question would be, if you were transported as you are now to 1933 Berlin, what would you do?

In my case, I would get out. I doubt my ability to do much.

Kill Hitler? But that means Himmler would have taken over instead, and Germany would have won the war!

No, the nazis had to be defeated on a larger scale. I would join Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg in their attempt to rally the masses of the working class against the fascist elements, to deny the nazis winning that election in the first place.

Too bad it backfired in real life, when the Reichstag building was set on fire and they found an independent Communist in the building. Government called it a Communist plot and suspended your right to personal freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree), among other rights enumerated below. It's hard to fight them when you're in jail, unable to communicate with the outside world. ;)

Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Surely most people in the world would not have supported the late Nazi regime, but can you say the same for the beginning? Todays image of the Nazi years is mostly influenced by the late and most cruel excessions: The Holocaust and the Total War.
Both were already outlined in Hitlers "Mein Kampf" written in the early twenties, so in theory everyone could have known what Hitlers main ideas were like.
But the two things you remember the Nazi party the most for, were secondary or irrelevant topics for their supporters. The Nazis were not elected for the Anti-Semitism or for their war-politics. They were elected for their social and political concepts, which seemed absolutely modern, convincing and fitted to the historic situation better than any other ideology. It consisted of these main elements:
1. National unity and security instead of social fraction, disorder and civil war of the classes (a civil war in Germany was a realistic scenario in 1932)
2. Neither communism nor capitalism, but a bit of both
3. Strong Leadership of one charismatic person with the peoples support instead of the particularism and self-blockade of democracy (democracy had absolutely lost the support of the masses)
4. Symbolic and active politics against the hated Versailles-Treaty
5. The appeal of the masses and modernism: Look at the Torch-Processions, light installations (Leni Rieffenstahl-films), the uniforms or at the modern propaganda system via radio and airplane: This party was more than up to date.
Look at all these facts and ignore war preparation or concentration camps (this is what many people did) and ask yourself again what you would have done as German in the 1930s.
This is no excusion, because there can't be one for what happened later, but it was not that clear in November 1932, when you had the last free elections.

Perhaps a better question would be, if you were transported as you are now to 1933 Berlin, what would you do?


Maybe. When I started the thread, I was thinking of Leni Riefenstahl and Wilhelm Furtwängler, who collaberated with the nazis and spent the rest of their lives denying that they were nazis. Basically, they said that they had simply kept their jobs after the nazis came to power and saw no reason to leave.

The reason why I say this is that to doubt people is to insult people like Scholl. Also, I'm very pro-Jewish although I'm not one and only have a few acquaintances who are Jewish.

Very pro Jewish? What the hell does that mean? Does that then make you anti Palestinian?

I'd probably do what 99% of non Jewish, non communist, non gay and non disabled people did. Stay in Germany and do as I'm told.

would depend on my actual age at the time i guess, either getting caught and executed while preparing some insane act of sabotage/terror or get the hell out of the country in 33...
(considering i'd still end up on the far left, which isnt that unrealistic during that time...)

fight communism.

little nazi baby keeps crying for attention wherever he thinks it suits...
al, you're neither original, nor do you know what your talking about, but i have to admitt it gets annoying...

Very pro Jewish? What the hell does that mean? Does that then make you anti Palestinian?

Considering that the majority of Jews in the world don't even live in Israel, I can't see how Palestine comes into the equation at all.

It means I'm interested in their history, religion and culture.

??
I'm interested in the history and culture of christianity, but i wouldnt call myself pro-christian..

Flee, if I could, probably to the US. Too spineless to attempt actual resistance, but not quite spineless enough to live in a fascist state.

I'd leave, I don't think there's much I could do from inside.

In this day and age, we are all taught that everyone has a right to freedom and liberty and blahblahblah, so of course most of us will say we would leave, including myself, but if we were born into the Nazi regime, I'm sure only a few would actually leave, rather then risk being killed for sympathizing or some such.

??
I'm interested in the history and culture of christianity, but i wouldnt call myself pro-christian..

Judaism is different because it's more than a religion.

In this day and age, we are all taught that everyone has a right to freedom and liberty and blahblahblah, so of course most of us will say we would leave, including myself, but if we were born into the Nazi regime, I'm sure only a few would actually leave, rather then risk being killed for sympathizing or some such.

That's funny. I thought freedom and liberty was around at least since the French Revolution. :p

I would have helped Leni Riefenstahl make propaganda movies for Das III. Reich, specifically specializing in the kind that shows all those well-built athletic German Über-Babes doing various stretching & calisthenic exercises in really, REALLY short skirts.

You guys go have fun getting shelled by the Russian artillery on the Ostfront in the name of some Empire that's never gonna last. I've gotta get to work doing some hands-on coaching of the actresses.

I would have helped Leni Riefenstahl make propaganda movies for Das III. Reich, specifically specializing in the kind that shows all those well-built athletic German Über-Babes doing various stretching & calisthenic exercises in really, REALLY short skirts.

You guys go have fun getting shelled by the Russian artillery on the Ostfront in the name of some Empire that's never gonna last. I've gotta get to work doing some hands-on coaching of the actresses.
I imagine that would depend on Leni. She was fond of big, sculpted atheletic men, so you'd better be one.;)

Otherwise you'll just get drafted with the rest of the film-makers, journalists etc. into the "Operative Presse", and lug your cameras wherever Goebbels thinks appropriate.

I'm starting to think Europe is too crowded & restrictive. First I can't escape from East Germany, now I can't follow my own destiny in Nazi-land. Screw it. I need some place where I can live a little bit... time to defect to America. Oh wait, that's what some of my family actually did during this time.

As put once:

"After all, it is a human right for any European to go to America and have a better life." - Hugo Pratt.
:D

I'm starting to think Europe is too crowded & restrictive. First I can't escape from East Germany, now I can't follow my own destiny in Nazi-land.

:lol:

If I had to live in Nazi Germany... eh... hm... if possible, I´d try to become Führer, skip the whole holocaust and world war sh*t and concentrate on getting lots of people very drunk and I would take care of the negative demographic trend all by myself ^^... if not, then I´d prefer to emigrate.

To be honest if i'd grown up in Germany I would of joined the armed forces. You can look on everything with hindsight and try to be cool saying you'd attempt sabotage, help the jews or leave but to be honest I think that most people would go along with it and people who say they aren't, are trying to step up to a high moral ground for absolutely no reason.

To be honest if i'd grown up in Germany I would of joined the armed forces. You can look on everything with hindsight and try to be cool saying you'd attempt sabotage, help the jews or leave but to be honest I think that most people would go along with it and people who say they aren't, are trying to step up to a high moral ground for absolutely no reason.

Yes, of course. My purpose in life is to get the moral high ground.

I am flabbergasted by how many people in this thread thinks that people can't think for themselves. You have such rosy views of the world. Where can I buy these rose-coloured glasses?

Except that history has shown that people often don't think for themselves. I mean, how much of your support of liberty and personal freedom did you arrive at yourself without the fact that you grew up in a society that encourages it?

Except that history has shown that people often don't think for themselves. I mean, how much of your support of liberty and personal freedom did you arrive at yourself without the fact that you grew up in a society that encourages it?

Except we're not talking about political ideologies like free states and authoritarian states. We're talking about genocide and racism.

Also, if we can't take the moral high ground against them in the 1930's we can't against people now either.

If a KKK member hangs a black person it's because that's what they were taught as they were growing up. Likewise Iranians hanging gays and the massacring of Darfur.

Let's just all put our hands up because people grew up with these things being taught to them and nothing will change them. They can't think for themselves, we can't expect better from them.

Most Germans weren't personally responsible for the Holocaust. They allowed it to happen because they felt that either the regime had given them benefits or that on the whole it was too dangerous to argue against it.

And sure, people can change. But that doesn't mean that they are ever completely free from their circumstances.

And of course Sophie Scholl, Thomas Mann and Oscar Schindler were NOT Germans! They were Jews posing as Germans. Damn they were clever.

You know what? Since you don't seem to be listening to me, I give up.

You know what? Since you don't seem to be listening to me, I give up.

I'm not listening to you because you're telling me how to think. Sorry, I don't accept that from anyone. :rolleyes:

Let people speak for themselves and stop judging other people and stop putting words in their mouth.

If a person comes in here and says "I would support the Nazis", I'm not going to say to them, "Oh no, you're really lying you would've done things different because I know you're a better person and I know you're not a racist and besides you know they lost so why would you?". :rolleyes:

If someone wants to tell the world that they're racist let them! If someone wants to tell the world that they like the Jews let them! Why are we doubting people here?

And of course Sophie Scholl, Thomas Mann and Oscar Schindler were NOT Germans! They were Jews posing as Germans. Damn they were clever.
Oh they were Germans allright. They were also very few. Single individuals in fact.

Now, it would appear we have a choice then of either assuming them to be "normal" as in the sense of representatively average specimens of humanity, which would mean the vast, vast majority of Germans were somehow different form people in general.
That's the schtick of someone like Daniel Jonah Goldhagen for instance (as in his doctrine of German antisemitism as somehow different and inherently genocidal, unlike "ordinary" antisemitism, and virtually all German were in on it; QED).

Or they were representative of the fact that the number of human beings who will actively put themselves in harms way in the face of the kind of repression a political system like the one Nazi Germany was capable of are very few and very far between.

Which is what I think Eran was trying to put across.

If you look at the little list Mann was already in a privileged position, able to decamp from Germany and set up shop elsewhere rather easily as an already established superstar of the literary scene. He had options, unlike many others, who also had trouble with the turn of German politics under Nazism. There were slews of communists and socialists in Germany.

Schindler was a different kettle of fish. What seems to have been operative for him was the fact that he was in fact brought face-to-face with the realities of the German slave-labour and genocide system. It's to his great credit that he reacted like an "echter Mensch". Everyone sure didn't.

The problem isn't that Oscar Schindler was an average Joe, and reacted like one, but that humans seem at least as and possibly more capable of rationalising atrocities in the fashion Adolf Eichmann did. The challenge of the Holocaust is that humans seem more prone to function like Adolf Eichman as opposed to Oscar Schindler under extreme circumstances like that. We obviously are capable of both, but the tendency isn't necessarily the one we would prefer.

Sophie Scholl I would say was pure gumption. But it probably helps to be young and idealistic and frankly not quite believe yourself to be overly mortal. Young people tend not to. That quality can be used to make them risk their lives for both good and bad ends. I won't say anything other than that I have profound respect for someone like Sophie Scholl, but she still wasn't "ordinary" in the sense of "average" for her time and place.

Oh they were Germans allright. They were also very few. Single individuals in fact.

Now, it would appear we have a choice then of either assuming them to be "normal" as in the sense of representatively average specimens of humanity, which would mean the vast, vast majority of Germans were somehow different form people in general.
That's the schtick of someone like Daniel Jonah Goldhagen for instance (as in his doctrine of German antisemitism as somehow different and inherently genocidal, unlike "ordinary" antisemitism, and virtually all German were in on it; QED).

Or they were representative of the fact that the number of human beings who will actively put themselves in harms way in the face of the kind of repression a political system like the one Nazi Germany was capable of are very few and very far between.

Which is what I think Eran was trying to put across.

If you look at the little list Mann was already in a privileged position, able to decamp from Germany and set up shop elsewhere rather easily as an already established superstar of the literary scene. He had options, unlike many others, who also had trouble with the turn of German politics under Nazism. There were slews of communists and socialists in Germany.

Schindler was a different kettle of fish. What seems to have been operative for him was the fact that he was in fact brought face-to-face with the realities of the German slave-labour and genocide system. It's to his great credit that he reacted like an "echter Mensch". Everyone sure didn't.

The problem isn't that Oscar Schindler was an average Joe, and reacted like one, but that humans seem at least as and possibly more capable of rationalising atrocities in the fashion Adolf Eichmann did. The challenge of the Holocaust is that humans seem more prone to function like Adolf Eichman as opposed to Oscar Schindler under extreme circumstances like that. We obviously are capable of both, but the tendency isn't necessarily the one we would prefer.

Sophie Scholl I would say was pure gumption. But it probably helps to be young and idealistic and frankly not quite believe yourself to be overly mortal. Young people tend not to. That quality can be used to make them risk their lives for both good and bad ends. I won't say anything other than that I have profound respect for someone like Sophie Scholl, but she still wasn't "ordinary" in the sense of "average" for her time and place.

This isn't a question of whether you would die for the moral cause or not. The question actually was whether you would leave or stay. As a German you had the right to leave and no one would've stopped you. God knows, many Germans did leave.

So why do we have to get so dramatic and question people whether they'd be willing to die for the cause and if not they were just going along with the Nazis?

Anyway, this asks for an individual answer. And I've given mine. And I won't as hell stand for someone questioning me on what I would and wouldn't have done. I know who I am.

You know who you are now....but given the context of the time period you would have been a very different person, something which you seem incapable of understanding.

If someone wants to tell the world that they're racist let them!

just as long as long as they do'nt act on it.

This isn't a question of whether you would die for the moral cause or not. The question actually was whether you would leave or stay. As a German you had the right to leave and no one would've stopped you. God knows, many Germans did leave.

So why do we have to get so dramatic and question people whether they'd be willing to die for the cause and if not they were just going along with the Nazis?

Anyway, this asks for an individual answer. And I've given mine. And I won't as hell stand for someone questioning me on what I would and wouldn't have done. I know who I am.
Because you would seem to be engaging in what anthropologists refer to as a "If I were a horse"-argumentation.

I.e. you seem to assume that if you were a German, born and raised in Germany, in the 1930's, you would still have the same sentiments and respond in the same way as you would given your actual background and upbringing.

Such assumptions would be an intellectual fallacy. So you are being asked to try to put your own person, and your experiences asided, and attempt to in a sense make a form of intellectual leap to try to figure out why in fact most Germans didn't respond by fleeing, violently resisting the Nazi regime etc. What kind of experiences predisposed them to not react forcibly, and early, to Nazism?

It's a very big part of what history is about — not making "If I were a horse" assumptions. Intsead you try to understand, not yourself, but the point of view of a bunch of people living under very different circumstances far away, long ago, or both. To all intents and purposes 1930's Germany was a very alien place as compared to post-WWII western democracies.

I'm starting to think Europe is too crowded & restrictive. First I can't escape from East Germany, now I can't follow my own destiny in Nazi-land. Screw it. I need some place where I can live a little bit... time to defect to America. Oh wait, that's what some of my family actually did during this time.
Well, since you tend to pick the most repressive collectivist authoritarian dictatures around to try to make little scenarios for the expression of your very modern and western form of individualism, frankly, what the hell are you expecting?:mischief:

Nazi Germany would have asked in what way your unworthy and lowly carcass could best serve the Reich and the collective of the Grosse Nation, usually in some form involving dying for it. The DDR would have wanted to know in what way your humble person was prepared to sacrifice itself for the greater good of the collective of the workers' and farmers' state.

The kind of individualism you express, the kind all westerners express post-WWII, would have been tagged as "pathological antisocial individualism", i.e. setting your individual rights and interests above those of the collective. They might likely have packed you off to a mental asylum and electrocuted your brain to mush, making a managable vegetable in the process, since that's how dictatures operate.

This is precicely why, historically, it has to a great extent sucked to be German.;)

You know who you are now....but given the context of the time period you would have been a very different person, something which you seem incapable of understanding.

How different? Growing amongst white people? Done that. Growing up with some racism around me? Done that. Growing up by going to church? Done that. And besides look at the OP it said I won't be anti-semitic like I am now. What big differences will there be? If there were Sophie Scholls and Oscar Schindlers there can certainly be someone like me too.

Because you would seem to be engaging in what anthropologists refer to as a "If I were a horse"-argumentation.

I.e. you seem to assume that if you were a German, born and raised in Germany, in the 1930's, you would still have the same sentiments and respond in the same way as you would given your actual background and upbringing.

Such assumptions would be an intellectual fallacy. So you are being asked to try to put your own person, and your experiences asided, and attempt to in a sense make a form of intellectual leap to try to figure out why in fact most Germans didn't respond by fleeing, violently resisting the Nazi regime etc. What kind of experiences predisposed them to not react forcibly, and early, to Nazism?

It's a very big part of what history is about — not making "If I were a horse" assumptions. Intsead you try to understand, not yourself, but the point of view of a bunch of people living under very different circumstances far away, long ago, or both. To all intents and purposes 1930's Germany was a very alien place as compared to post-WWII western democracies.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This isn't a question of whether you'd be an atheist in Middle Ages Christendom. There were many people who weren't anti-semitic and didn't agree with the Nazis. I would have been one of those people.

In all reality, there are intelligent people that can see the writing (of trouble) on the wall, and act accordingly. Take another part of my family for example; my great-grandfather was high aristocracy -supposedly royalty- in Lithuania (part of the Russian Empire). They knew (before WWI even broke out) that the Russian monarchy was falling out of favor, and were preparing for the worst - which of course eventually did happen. My great-grandfather was sent over to America, by himself as a young teenager. The rest of the family was too 'entrenched' in the situation back home, so they suffered... who knows what fate. Anyway when they sent him over, it was almost like that Biblical story (baby Moses?) of the baby being sent in a basket down the river, to avoid a certainly worse fate than staying. Basically they sent him on a train to France, and from there on a steamer (notice we're not talking about 1st class anymore) to America... a sailor taught him English out of the King James Bible on the way over, so he talked funny (Old English) when he arrived.

Anyway he lied about his age (16) and joined the U.S. Army in 1917, and after Armistice he picked up a German wife before he left Europe again, and then they settled in New England - forever detached from the olden days of aristocracy/royalty in the Russian Empire (which was a total mess at that point). Point being; sometimes people in power can't just 'get up and leave', but they can still see the direction things are going. Other parts of my family, for example - were 'common folk' Germans, which left when the Nazis came to power, and then promptly bombed the 'alte Land' with American fighter-bombers a few years later. So yes, people can indeed think for themselves. If things get bad enough - you just have to leave.

Also, I had some French aristocratic blood, going back to the 1500s. They had it made in the shade until the d@mned revolution. First fleeing to eastern Canada, then made their way south, because frankly it's better down here. But, that's OT.

Anyway, this idea that you have to stay in one place, and do as you're told... meh, people like that were made to fill the ranks... so I guess they get what they deserve.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This isn't a question of whether you'd be an atheist in Middle Ages Christendom. There were many people who weren't anti-semitic and didn't agree with the Nazis. I would have been one of those people.
How do you know?

How do you know?

I just know. How do you know that you won't be helping the Jews like Schindler? How can you be sure?

In all reality, there are intelligent people that can see the writing (of trouble) on the wall, and act accordingly. Take another part of my family for example; my great-grandfather was high aristocracy -supposedly royalty- in Lithuania (part of the Russian Empire). They knew (before WWI even broke out) that the Russian monarchy was falling out of favor, and were preparing for the worst - which of course eventually did happen. My great-grandfather was sent over to America, by himself as a young teenager. The rest of the family was too 'entrenched' in the situation back home, so they suffered... who knows what fate. Anyway when they sent him over, it was almost like that Biblical story (baby Moses?) of the baby being sent in a basket down the river, to avoid a certainly worse fate than staying. Basically they sent him on a train to France, and from there on a steamer (notice we're not talking about 1st class anymore) to America... a sailor taught him English out of the King James Bible on the way over, so he talked funny (Old English) when he arrived.

Anyway he lied about his age (16) and joined the U.S. Army in 1917, and after Armistice he picked up a German wife before he left Europe again, and then they settled in New England - forever detached from the olden days of aristocracy/royalty in the Russian Empire (which was a total mess at that point). Point being; sometimes people in power can't just 'get up and leave', but they can still see the direction things are going. Other parts of my family, for example - were 'common folk' Germans, which left when the Nazis came to power, and then promptly bombed the 'alte Land' with American fighter-bombers a few years later. So yes, people can indeed think for themselves. If things get bad enough - you just have to leave.

Also, I had some French aristocratic blood, going back to the 1500s. They had it made in the shade until the d@mned revolution. First fleeing to eastern Canada, then made their way south, because frankly it's better down here. But, that's OT.

Anyway, this idea that you have to stay in one place, and do as you're told... meh, people like that were made to fill the ranks... so I guess they get what they deserve.
I find this tanget you've gone off on very interesting. Not that I agree.:D

Well, the whole "stay in your place and do as you're told" it's not my idea. It is one of the basic points of any authoritarian social system, not to mention direct autocracies, which is what the vast majority of humans have been living under for most of history. Social equality, citizenship, rule of law, individual human rights are very recent additions. You make people do what they are told, or else... You operate on groups, not individuals (corporatism) and thus you make sure the group keep theur members in line as well. Most humans for most of history have technically never been adults, no matter their age.

It's about power and coercion. You seem to be trying to make it out as if everywhere has operated like the US, i.e. a liberal democracy, and somehow it's people's own damn fault if they have been steamrolled by history because part of your family was able do dodge the on-coming train? They still had to jump, didn't they?

Now, I imagine part of the baggage behind what we are talking about here is the US foundational myth of the imigrants. Single individuals, acting on their own, boldly setting out to make a new and better life in the New World. And they did make new and better lives for themselves, most of them, which is great. It's just that if situations in the "old country" hadn't gutted them in the first place, they wouldn't have left. It's a matter of choice of perspective whether the US imigrants are to be regarded as active and taking charge of their lives (true for their new existence in the US) or reactive and getting clobbered by history (just as true for the old world).

So no, it's not my ideas that people should stay in place and do what they are told. It's the basic idea of places like Czarist Russia. And as your example of family history indicates, if you want to find someone acting in an individualistic way we can identify with, it tends to be a good idea to look to the aristocracy. But we would be kidding ourselves if we think we would all have been aristorcats, with that kind of choices and options.

And of course no one want's to identify with the downtrodden peasant masses (unless as a heroic socialist revolutionary in some cases, which is also a form of individualistic historical-scenario wishful-thinking ego-trip). It's actually rather hard for a modern individual to identify with your average lowly peasant from back in history. But seeing that being a downtrodden peasant has been the lot of 90% of humanity for most of recorded history, it's frankly naive (and slightly presumptious) to believe that the kind of repressive conditions they were living under wouldn't apply to oneself, and with the same effects.

It's not that anyone questions your, or Bast's, assertions that you would have wanted to respond to things like the conditions in Nazi Germany like you say. We all would have wanted to do the right thing. But you are being questioned as to how realistic it is that you would have been able to.

History-writing is curiously amoral in that sense. If Lotus and Bast express a normative standard of behaviour they believe would have responded in accordance with, when faced with the realities of the German Nazi regime, how does this help us understand what actually happened there? Why people responded as they did, which was almost universally in a manner contrary to the standard Lotus and Bast hold themselves to?

Answer: It doesn't help us understand anything at all. Mostly because Lotus and Bast seem to fail to take into accont the mechanisms of direct repression and indirect social control at that time, in that place. Those are the things we need to understand to work out why things could go down as they did. No one is being asked to make the actual responses of people under those circumstances into a norm to be followed.

But it would seem to be a useful exercise to try to work out why people didn't behave in the way we ourselves would like to under similar circumstances. It's strongly suggested that if we don't, something similar could sneak up on us all over again, and since we weren't paying attention to why humans can have a hard time acting in a what we consider a morally appropriate manner, we just might not notice until it is too late.

Generally Lotus, I'm happy if I am in any way bringing home the message that repressive authoritarian societies from back in (the not so distant) history make for a very different ballgame from the kind of open, liberal soceities we ourselves are living in. I'm just less concerned about telling people how well I would have responded to actual repression than I am about trying to understand what that situation was like, not least to possibly be able to recognise and avoid it.

How can anyone be sure to become Schindler? Or Eichmann? Or just a Wilhelm Müller who has no real idea what's going on and just tries to live?

Adler

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This isn't a question of whether you'd be an atheist in Middle Ages Christendom. There were many people who weren't anti-semitic and didn't agree with the Nazis. I would have been one of those people.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a black and white scheme, that doesn't fit to the 1930s. It is true, there were many people, who weren't anti-semitic, but they supported the Nazis nonetheless. Anti-semitism was not necessary for beeing a Nazi. It was important for Hitler, but not for the masses.
I said it already in my post some pages before, in 1933 it was not that evident that the Nazis were the pure evil, that we all can declare them from todays point of view. The question is not what you would do in January 1945, but what would be your decision in 1933 or maybe even before the Nazis came to power.

Regarding the resistance Sophie Scholl is probably a bad example, because she represents the marginal pure and idealistic opposition from the start, but look at other groups like the Hitler assasins from July 20th 1944 Stauffenberg, Beck, Moltke. They were active and supporting Nazis and it took along time for them to change their minds, mostly because of the inhuman excessions in the war and holocaust, but not because of a fundamental opposition to the ideology.
So my advice is to be careful with those statements like: 60 Million Germans were wrong but I would have been one of the few on the good right side.

How different? Growing amongst white people? Done that. Growing up with some racism around me? Done that. Growing up by going to church? Done that. And besides look at the OP it said I won't be anti-semitic like I am now. What big differences will there be? If there were Sophie Scholls and Oscar Schindlers there can certainly be someone like me too.

Living through World War I, seeing your country forced humiliating peace terms upon it, seeing it lose land, power, and prestige, seeing your country's economy collapse, hyperinflation which renders your money worthless, the political turmoil and weakness of the government, the inabality to do anything.

I would say those would be the big differences.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a black and white scheme, that doesn't fit to the 1930s. It is true, there were many people, who weren't anti-semitic, but they supported the Nazis nonetheless. Anti-semitism was not necessary for beeing a Nazi. It was important for Hitler, but not for the masses.
I said it already in my post some pages before, in 1933 it was not that evident that the Nazis were the pure evil, that we all can declare them from todays point of view. The question is not what you would do in January 1945, but what would be your decision in 1933 or maybe even before the Nazis came to power.

Regarding the resistance Sophie Scholl is probably a bad example, because she represents the marginal pure and idealistic opposition from the start, but look at other groups like the Hitler assasins from July 20th 1944 Stauffenberg, Beck, Moltke. They were active and supporting Nazis and it took along time for them to change their minds, mostly because of the inhuman excessions in the war and holocaust, but not because of a fundamental opposition to the ideology.
So my advice is to be careful with those statements like: 60 Million Germans were wrong but I would have been one of the few on the good right side.

What's good? What's right?

There are people in the world today that thinks America was wrong for invading Iraq. I disagree. I think they were right.

Does that make me good or bad or right or wrong? :confused:

I don't know what's good or bad but like I said I would help as many Jews out of Germany before getting out of there myself. And my opinion is NOT changing no matter how much you or anyone else try to argue with me.

Living through World War I, seeing your country forced humiliating peace terms upon it, seeing it lose land, power, and prestige, seeing your country's economy collapse, hyperinflation which renders your money worthless, the political turmoil and weakness of the government, the inabality to do anything.

I would say those would be the big differences.

Killing the Jews weren't going to help any of that so why would I go along with it? :confused:

Killing the Jews weren't going to help any of that so why would I go along with it?

Pretty much the same reason almost every German went along with it....

Pretty much the same reason almost every German went along with it....

Almost is not all.

Such assumptions would be an intellectual fallacy. So you are being asked to try to put your own person, and your experiences asided, and attempt to in a sense make a form of intellectual leap to try to figure out why in fact most Germans didn't respond by fleeing, violently resisting the Nazi regime etc. What kind of experiences predisposed them to not react forcibly, and early, to Nazism?

It's a very big part of what history is about — not making "If I were a horse" assumptions. Intsead you try to understand, not yourself, but the point of view of a bunch of people living under very different circumstances far away, long ago, or both. To all intents and purposes 1930's Germany was a very alien place as compared to post-WWII western democracies.

the task is to think about what what YOU do in nazi germany, not try to understand why most germans acted the way they did...
you cant expect people who get asked what THEY would do if THEY were a horse to answer the question what would be if they were born and raised as horses... thats the problem in the first place...

the task is to think about what what YOU do in nazi germany, not try to understand why most germans acted the way they did...


Yeah. That's what I thought. I guess some people read the OP incorrectly. :confused:

I just know. How do you know that you won't be helping the Jews like Schindler? How can you be sure?
You might behave exactly as you predict, yes. I have no way of telling either way. It's of course excellent that you are so adamant you knew exactly how you would have behaved under the circumstances.

Now, what does this tell us about 1930's Germany, and the Germans? Not a lot.

It speaks volumes about how you view yourself, and that you don't take kindly to anything approaching a questioning of your feeling of certanity here. You'll just have to bear with the rest of us who remain inherently skeptical as to how justified your conviction is.

The thing is, given the fact that you interpret the historical situation through a framework of your personal conviction how you would act under the same circumstances, it has some pretty considerable implications for your view of history.

That's actually what we are talking about: the nature of history, individual personality and systemic and structural factors in society as opposed to individual psychology. By taking it so damn personally you would seem to be missing some of the bigger picture.

I'd be real curious to see you expand a bit on your view of the reactions of ordinary Germans under Nazism, since I suspect that would be where the implications of your view of yourself would manifest itself. (I.e. "You know others as you know yourself" kind o'fing.)

the task is to think about what what YOU do in nazi germany, not try to understand why most germans acted the way they did...
you cant expect people who get asked what THEY would do if THEY were a horse to answer the question what would be if they were born and raised as horses... thats the problem in the first place...
And that's the problem with the OP. (Sorry BobBobato.)

Me, I'd rather talk about something I think actually matters.

Almost is not all.

But it is the vast majority.

Alright Verbose, here's the deal; I know for a fact that I'm smart/insightful enough to know when I'm surrounded by a bunch of craziness or evil (that is, more so than the average which you should always expect to be surrounded by when you live among the fantastic human race), and I'm not going to get caught up in it. I'll leave if able, or just take my own life (if absolutely necessary) to avoid becoming a part of the madness.

You only live once - might as well do so honorably, JUST IN CASE you are later going to be held to account for your actions, plus you'll want to be able to look back on your life and have no regrets. That's the real H3ll... being tormented forever, made miserable by your own actions, having effectively lived a pathetic/dishonorable existence.

That's all you've got, as I see it. So to heck with nationalism, or anything else along those lines. There's too many manipulative & deceptive forces out there to even count. But I INSIST there are people that are smart enough to see it, and out-flank the whole d@mned system. No matter what. EVEN 'having been born in Germany, and been proud of my heritage'.

At some point, you have to either acknowledge moral fiber, or disregard it. But some people are incapable of giving in, to this world. Because they already see past it.

See, that's being a real man. Not setting up some stinkin' concentration camps, and bullying people and being cruel, while you go around and treat your neighbors like a predator. That's being a coward. Not to mention a whole host of other psychological disorders that I'm probably not qualified to list.

But you have also to see the situation. Given you're an enlighted German patriot. You feel unjust treated by Versailles and you're no antisemit. You didn't vote for Hitler, of if you did it was only meant as a yellow card for the other parties. Hitler is now having the power. Even if you don't like him you see "his" successes (he mostly exploited that what others seed). He is reaming Germany, makes a fleet treaty with Britain, Austria and the Sudetenland as well as the Memelland. The economic crise is over. Sure you don't like the Nazis and their antisemitism, but does it mean Hitler is acting in that way? Okay, that is a bad thing, but now everything is roughly okay and the antisemitism will be over soon. Too bad it can't come.
The war and the Holocaust are far away! So keep that in mind that until 1941/42 Hitler was on the zenith of his popularity especially after the fall of France! And democracy was not very well seen in Germany and elsewhere. Fighting Hitler meant to have strong principles. Most haven't. And helping Jews, well it is hard for them but not too hard!
Would you act?

Adler

P.S.: This is not my point of view but that of the average German in the 30s without hindsight.

Alright Verbose, here's the deal; I know for a fact that I'm smart/insightful enough to know when I'm surrounded by a bunch of craziness or evil (that is, more so than the average which you should always expect to be surrounded by when you live among the fantastic human race), and I'm not going to get caught up in it. I'll leave if able, or just take my own life (if absolutely necessary) to avoid becoming a part of the madness.

You only live once - might as well do so honorably, JUST IN CASE you are later going to be held to account for your actions, plus you'll want to be able to look back on your life and have no regrets. That's the real H3ll... being tormented forever, made miserable by your own actions, having effectively lived a pathetic/dishonorable existence.

That's all you've got, as I see it. So to heck with nationalism, or anything else along those lines. There's too many manipulative & deceptive forces out there to even count. But I INSIST there are people that are smart enough to see it, and out-flank the whole d@mned system. No matter what. EVEN 'having been born in Germany, and been proud of my heritage'.

At some point, you have to either acknowledge moral fiber, or disregard it. But some people are incapable of giving in, to this world. Because they already see past it.

See, that's being a real man. Not setting up some stinkin' concentration camps, and bullying people and being cruel, while you go around and treat your neighbors like a predator. That's being a coward. Not to mention a whole host of other psychological disorders that I'm probably not qualified to list.
Yeah, and that attitude works fine to make a man stand up for what counts — which at some places and times is for the glory and power of Das Gossdeutsche Reich. Works fine for massacring Jews, just as it does for blowing up Hitler, depending on what seems to be the necessary activity at the time. You sound a bit like the people surrounding von Stauffenberg back in those days actually.

That's all I'm saying. What's honourbale and noble varies with time and place. Nothing is inherent here.

I'm not gainsaying your ideal, as you have just put it above. The thing is just that it is an ideal democrats, communists, fascits, nazis, monarchists, whatever have all been able to buy into with equal ease. It in no way determines what ideals a man will embrace.

Thing is, one is in fact required to probe for a bit into why one holds certain convictions, if one wants to figure out why these aren't universal for all times and places. You can take it or leave it of course, if it doesn't interest you, but it happens to be a major part of historical understanding.