Were the Germany average citzens bad guys in 1941?
- Thread starter FredLC
- Start date
Lucky:
I don't want you to feel defensive about this subject (or at least how I'm treating it). My point was not to point a finger at the Germans - quite the opposite. My point was to say that civilization experienced a major moral collapse, a major failure when a fanatical regime came to power (that caught not only 1930s German but many others' fancy as well), and its evil intent was facilitated by the direct involvement through passive acquiescence of the occupied territories' larger populations. Germans were the main driving force behind the Holocaust, but many others took part as well, through the means I've described. I see the Holocaust as a failure of Western Civilization, not something specifically German (or better put, exclusively German). Allied histories of the war have since emphasized the heroes who resisted, ignoring or minimizing the stories of those who collaborated. As Keegan points out, we all still have skeletons in our collective closets from WW II that require airing. An example would be the 1966 Bishops' Letter in which collectively the Polish bishphoric of the Roman Catholic Church signed a letter of apology to all the Germans who suffered in the mass expulsion of some 10 million German civilians from the ziemie odzyskane, the "Recovered Territories" in 1944-46 of East Prussia, Silesia and eastern Pomerania. The Polish communist government denounced this letter and it was also very unpopular among Poles, but the Church stood by the apology and it stands for Poland as the first attempt to step and back and really assess what happened in the war - a process that still continues today.
As for the Mein Kampf argument, few anywhere took it seriously. It's easy in retrospect to see that Hitler meant it all, but who in 1933 or even 1939 would have believed that a madman would create a mass manufactruring-style death machine? They would call you a madman if you went back and tried to warn everyone. Westerners such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and "Lord Haw Haw" in Britain all publically admired Hitler in the 30s.
I have a personal situation similar to Willemvanoranje's, where I recently learned that a relative (whom I'd been told was a policeman in communist Poland) was actually a member of the UB/SB in the 1950s and 60s, the communist secret police - the Polish KGB. I was furious and still haven't dealt with this well. I've been raised with a family that resisted the communists - and now this? I was assured that this person "only did this for the survival of his family" and anyway "just worked a desk job", but even if that's true this person was still party to a great evil. I spent the late 1980s and early 90s visiting newly-opened mass graves of communist victims; the thought that a family member - however distant - may have participated in any of this enrages me and makes me sick. The best we can do is learn from the past, and it perhaps isn't fair for me to judge someone when I haven't been in their situation - I can't imagine endangering my wife because of my own principals - but I really can't swallow this.
There's an entire generation of Europeans, East and West, who have some unpleasant things to swallow.
I don't want you to feel defensive about this subject (or at least how I'm treating it). My point was not to point a finger at the Germans - quite the opposite. My point was to say that civilization experienced a major moral collapse, a major failure when a fanatical regime came to power (that caught not only 1930s German but many others' fancy as well), and its evil intent was facilitated by the direct involvement through passive acquiescence of the occupied territories' larger populations. Germans were the main driving force behind the Holocaust, but many others took part as well, through the means I've described. I see the Holocaust as a failure of Western Civilization, not something specifically German (or better put, exclusively German). Allied histories of the war have since emphasized the heroes who resisted, ignoring or minimizing the stories of those who collaborated. As Keegan points out, we all still have skeletons in our collective closets from WW II that require airing. An example would be the 1966 Bishops' Letter in which collectively the Polish bishphoric of the Roman Catholic Church signed a letter of apology to all the Germans who suffered in the mass expulsion of some 10 million German civilians from the ziemie odzyskane, the "Recovered Territories" in 1944-46 of East Prussia, Silesia and eastern Pomerania. The Polish communist government denounced this letter and it was also very unpopular among Poles, but the Church stood by the apology and it stands for Poland as the first attempt to step and back and really assess what happened in the war - a process that still continues today.
As for the Mein Kampf argument, few anywhere took it seriously. It's easy in retrospect to see that Hitler meant it all, but who in 1933 or even 1939 would have believed that a madman would create a mass manufactruring-style death machine? They would call you a madman if you went back and tried to warn everyone. Westerners such as Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and "Lord Haw Haw" in Britain all publically admired Hitler in the 30s.
I have a personal situation similar to Willemvanoranje's, where I recently learned that a relative (whom I'd been told was a policeman in communist Poland) was actually a member of the UB/SB in the 1950s and 60s, the communist secret police - the Polish KGB. I was furious and still haven't dealt with this well. I've been raised with a family that resisted the communists - and now this? I was assured that this person "only did this for the survival of his family" and anyway "just worked a desk job", but even if that's true this person was still party to a great evil. I spent the late 1980s and early 90s visiting newly-opened mass graves of communist victims; the thought that a family member - however distant - may have participated in any of this enrages me and makes me sick. The best we can do is learn from the past, and it perhaps isn't fair for me to judge someone when I haven't been in their situation - I can't imagine endangering my wife because of my own principals - but I really can't swallow this.
There's an entire generation of Europeans, East and West, who have some unpleasant things to swallow.
What do you understand for "principles"?
For me, they are mental rules; a standart set of behaviors that people use to guide their acts. Under that perspective, everyone have principles.
Just not all principles are moral ones.
Now, maybe the "american revolutionaries" were willing to die for their principles, or at least, some of them. But, involved in a traditional sort of war, they all could charish the hope of surviving to take the benefits of their achievements.
Those fanatic criminals that crashed planes in the World Trade Center didn't have that kind of hope.
So, they were as willing to die for their "unmoral principals" as the american citzens in their revolution. Perhaps even more, because they knew that it would be no hope of survival.
And if you say that they were believing that they would go straight to Allah, well, most americans believe that God is the ultimate destination of a good person, am i right?
People accept death for many reasons. Some sports are terribly dangerous, but people do it anyway, in the name of the thrill. Some risk their lifes for money. Some for glory.
When any army march into war, soldiers risk their lifes because they were ordered to. Now, the fact that many of them may be doing that without being defending their own "principles", does it makes them any less brave?
Within a battle (not a civilian slaughtering like some that happened in WWII), the Axis soldier that fought for opression, was he less brave than the allied soldier that fought for freedom?
In the heat of combat, it's man against man, all willing to do anything for victory, regardless each one standarts from the moral point of view.
Remember that if the American revolutioner was fighting for their principle of independence, the british soldiers were fighting for their own, of british domination. Wrong as they were, they felt rightious and justified and would also give their lives to their cause. And they did.
What i mean with all that is: Even if we admit the "willingness to die" as a factor (i tend to agree it's more of a hollywood thing, with some exceptions of course), it works for opressors as well as for opressed.
So, i don't think it would do the slightest difrerence in the history of tiranny in the world.
Regards
.
-------------------------------------------
PS.: I change my mind about the most satisfying answer to the original question. I think Richard III tought us that you don't have to speak much to say everything.
Hail, mylord
.
For me, they are mental rules; a standart set of behaviors that people use to guide their acts. Under that perspective, everyone have principles.
Just not all principles are moral ones.
Now, maybe the "american revolutionaries" were willing to die for their principles, or at least, some of them. But, involved in a traditional sort of war, they all could charish the hope of surviving to take the benefits of their achievements.
Those fanatic criminals that crashed planes in the World Trade Center didn't have that kind of hope.
So, they were as willing to die for their "unmoral principals" as the american citzens in their revolution. Perhaps even more, because they knew that it would be no hope of survival.
And if you say that they were believing that they would go straight to Allah, well, most americans believe that God is the ultimate destination of a good person, am i right?
People accept death for many reasons. Some sports are terribly dangerous, but people do it anyway, in the name of the thrill. Some risk their lifes for money. Some for glory.
When any army march into war, soldiers risk their lifes because they were ordered to. Now, the fact that many of them may be doing that without being defending their own "principles", does it makes them any less brave?
Within a battle (not a civilian slaughtering like some that happened in WWII), the Axis soldier that fought for opression, was he less brave than the allied soldier that fought for freedom?
In the heat of combat, it's man against man, all willing to do anything for victory, regardless each one standarts from the moral point of view.
Remember that if the American revolutioner was fighting for their principle of independence, the british soldiers were fighting for their own, of british domination. Wrong as they were, they felt rightious and justified and would also give their lives to their cause. And they did.
What i mean with all that is: Even if we admit the "willingness to die" as a factor (i tend to agree it's more of a hollywood thing, with some exceptions of course), it works for opressors as well as for opressed.
So, i don't think it would do the slightest difrerence in the history of tiranny in the world.
Regards
.-------------------------------------------
PS.: I change my mind about the most satisfying answer to the original question. I think Richard III tought us that you don't have to speak much to say everything.
Hail, mylord
.allhailIndia
Deity
People like Gandhi can rise only because they know that there is potential in a people and that can be released. THe British could have several times slaughtered thousands of Congressmen, but the death of one Congressmen brought ten others into the struggle. If somebody had had the guts to stand up to the cruelties of the Nazis in Germany, and he or she was killed by the Nazis, their actions would have made ten other people take up the cause. if the Nazis killed those ten, another hundred would have arisen.
About the several attempts I suggest you all read the RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH by William Shirer. The leading scholars, statesmen, journalists and several people had read the Mein Kampf or it would not have sold a million or so copies. My point was that the german people had all the proof of rabid Anti -Semtitsm under their noses but did not open their eyes to it.
About the several attempts I suggest you all read the RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH by William Shirer. The leading scholars, statesmen, journalists and several people had read the Mein Kampf or it would not have sold a million or so copies. My point was that the german people had all the proof of rabid Anti -Semtitsm under their noses but did not open their eyes to it.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I think no-one but the most serious fanatic would have any objection to the statement: The Nazis were evil. It would also be fair to say that the Nazis organised and carried out the holocaust. However what you must remember is that the Nazi in the 1932 elections got the more votes than any other party. This gave weight to the campaign t give Hitler the chancellory. Admittedly it was the elites who got Hindenburg to give in but they did this partly because of his party's public support. Whether or not this support could be justified in the climate at the time (economic crisis, Versailles treaty, apparent failure of democracy etc) is hard to say. It is true that the German people generally did not vote for anti-semitic reasons (Hitler toned down his anti-Jewish feelings for the election). When the Nazis were in power I think it is fair to say that they did have public support. The traditional view of a oppressed people has been significantly underminded. For example, the Gestapo (Secret police) got the majority of the denunications from the German people (more for selfish reasons like greed than a Nazi belief). So the German people generally approved of the Nazi regime, at last before the war. With regards to the holocaust issue then the decision as to whether or not the German people knew and approved becomes a lot harder. For 6 million Jews and 5 million ethnic minorities to go missing and no-one to notice seems a bit implausible. In conclusion, I think that the German people had valid reasons as to why they voted Nazi and generally supported the regime. It is probably certain that the majority of the German people were not Nazis and didn't share their beliefs. However they must share some of the blame for the holocaust and other Nazi evils.
Nahuixtelotzin
Huey Tlatoani
There is a new austrian documantary about Traudl Jung, Hitler's private secretary who confesses and describes her life near Hitler. It's an amazing artwork and a touching confession. I'm sure it wll be translated soon into english somewhere, so care to take a look. Really enlightening!
donsig
Low level intermediary
No, I don't think all German were evil in 1941.
Yes, the same could happen in America. We are only human and also have a capacity to hate. We also have the ability to recognize hate for the destructive thing it is - more so than the Germans of 1941 simply because we know about the Nazi atrocities (and the historical treatment of Native and African Americans in our own country). We can only hope that in times of hardship and adversity we will still be able to see hate for what it is.
Yes, the same could happen in America. We are only human and also have a capacity to hate. We also have the ability to recognize hate for the destructive thing it is - more so than the Germans of 1941 simply because we know about the Nazi atrocities (and the historical treatment of Native and African Americans in our own country). We can only hope that in times of hardship and adversity we will still be able to see hate for what it is.
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
My mother's uncle was captured back in I think it was 1943 by the Russians.......he didn't return 'till 1954.
A friend of my grandfathers (they were in the same unit) lived near Bergen-Belsen (or his wife did, since he was in the military) and she never knew about the camp either; not until the camp was conquered by the Allied.
Similar threads
