What is a Nazi?

[Kyriakos]

I'll reiterate my stance that only someone having fun with you by being pedantic would ever bother to deny that use of the term "Nazi" is an appropriate descriptor for any member of any fascist political movement whatsoever because most people aren't going to have a deep enough knowledge of the particulars of Nazi ideology which may have distinguished them from other fascist movements. That's just not what normal people are thinking about when you use that word.

If you're writing an academic paper then knock yourself out with the ridiculous technicalities. Professionals love that ****. In casual conversation it's completely unnecessary.

"Nazi" can be anything between a very loose metaphor and something literal. A question would be if at some point in that progression which nears the literal end, the characterization gains more gravity. Eg, is someone who is just obnoxious and vaguely right-wing, a nazi? And if so, how do they compare to someone who has actually killed a member of a minority specifically due to hatred of that minority. The latter isn't typically (literally) a nazi either, but certainly the characterization would have more value.

 

[El_Machinae]

Dude, I couldn't use the word 'organize' usefully in a casual discussion.

 

[Samson]

I'll reiterate my stance that only someone having fun with you by being pedantic would ever bother to deny that use of the term "Nazi" is an appropriate descriptor for any member of any fascist political movement whatsoever because most people aren't going to have a deep enough knowledge of the particulars of Nazi ideology which may have distinguished them from other fascist movements. That's just not what normal people are thinking about when you use that word.

If you're writing an academic paper then knock yourself out with the ridiculous technicalities. Professionals love that ****. In casual conversation it's completely unnecessary.

I am not convinced one way or another, but there is an argument that the crimes of the actual Nazi party are so bad that any time you use it to refer to something that is bad but not that bad you are in effect playing down how bad the real Nazis were. I think this would be what the Archbishop of Canterbury was getting at when he said it was "never right to make comparisons with the atrocities brought by the Nazis", and what was bad about that wrestler comparing cancel culture to the holocaust.

 

[Angst]

So, similar to how the Pope can expand what it means to be 'Christian', we allow later (self-identifying) Nazis to define what being a Nazi is? His interpretation becomes the new standard?
Honestly, I'm not at all familiar with the culture of the movement after Hitler died, so I don't know how developed it is.

I think part of what makes Nazism now include people that have no wish for expansion is that the movement evolved and branched since Germany, where organized and self-identifying Nazis sometimes do not wish for expansion. That said, they do wish for a great Other, they do wish for institutionalized violence, and they do wish for the kind of behavior OP described when rooting out undesirables. Nazi organization is not reserved for the German model. Rule of thumb - if it's a fascist talking about "international jewry" and being more race based, it's Nazism. Weird reference, but you seen Starship Troopers? That's a movie about fascism, not Nazism.

But really, to OP's credit, it can be seen as unnecessary muddle. Whether it's a form of fascism or an inherently Nazi movement, it maybe doesn't really matter that much. Both are heinous.

 

[El_Machinae]

they do wish for the kind of behavior OP described when rooting out undesirables.

I've noticed that this is a common theme that I butt up against now that Trumpism is its own brand of talking points, where to make 'the whole' strong we need to weed out the members that are dragging down the whole. Meanwhile, my more liberal friends just easily integrate the counterpoint "If you want to make 'the whole' stronger, you just need to make the weak stronger. That's the point of the strength".

Now, every community eventually feels the need to protect itself from 'the Other', and that will be true as long as there is an Other that identifies as such. Turtling will always happen. So, when using strength for defense, some might see that we cannot 'afford' to uplift the weak when excising them is more efficient. There's the subset bias towards purity, so it's not just about weakness, but I have less insight into that because it's a bias rather than part of Game Theory.

 

[Angst]

I've noticed that this is a common theme that I butt up against now that Trumpism is its own brand of talking points, where to make 'the whole' strong* we need to weed out the members that are dragging down the whole. Meanwhile, my more liberal friends just easily integrate the counterpoint "If you want to make 'the whole' stronger, you just need to make the weak stronger. That's the point of the strength".

Now, every community eventually feels the need to protect itself from 'the Other', and that will be true as long as there is an Other that identifies as such. Turtling will always happen. So, when using strength for defense, some might see that we cannot 'afford' to uplift the weak when excising them is more efficient. There's the subset bias towards purity, so it's not just about weakness, but I have less insight into that because it's a bias rather than part of Game Theory.

On the point about the Other, it's why I wrote "great" Other, Nazis have fundamentally ingrained an Other that is necessary to destroy and both overpowering and fundamentally weak. Which is why btw the ideology self-cannibalizes and doesn't really work, even if you look past the inhumanity. Part of the Nazi argument is that the totalitarianism is necessary to defeat the Other, so that Other either needs to substantially survive or they will look elsewhere towards new Others, and if it's succesful and runs out, it either needs to target old consistuents or will lose part of its fundamental purposes, and it's quite uncertain what the future is then, as no Nazi movement has ever made it that far - luckily.

The fact that we all have an Other regardless of how hard we try not to is why fascist ideologies can always tantalize a population.

And yes, Trumpism is pretty fashy, to put it shortly. Great Truth that make talking points legitimate regardless of falsehood or impracticality. Great Other. Militancy and strength as legitimate and glorious in themselves.

It's interesting I guess how liberals also want strength in a way. There's nothing wrong with a competent government. The question is what it does with its resources. The ideal of having the ability to project power is not reserved to fascists.

 

[Joij21]

On the point about the Other, it's why I wrote "great" Other, Nazis have fundamentally ingrained an Other that is necessary to destroy and both overpowering and fundamentally weak. Which is why btw the ideology self-cannibalizes and doesn't really work, even if you look past the inhumanity. Part of the Nazi argument is that the totalitarianism is necessary to defeat the Other, so that Other either needs to substantially survive or they will look elsewhere towards new Others, and if it's succesful and runs out, it either needs to target old consistuents or will lose part of its fundamental purposes, and it's quite uncertain what the future is then, as no Nazi movement has ever made it that far - luckily.

The fact that we all have an Other regardless of how hard we try not to is why fascist ideologies can always tantalize a population.

And yes, Trumpism is pretty fashy, to put it shortly.

I don't think it would nesessarily cannibalize itself. Because at the end of the day Nazis think their the protagonists of this world by getting rid of what they believe to be the "evil races".

Killing some other group all the time is not necessary for the ideology to survive. It could easily survive after having killed all it's intended targets and instead evolve into a "victor writes history" type ideology that takes pride in how long ago they killed off said group and how said group was an ultimate evil which was heroically defeated.

 

[Fippy]

I am not convinced one way or another, but there is an argument that the crimes of the actual Nazi party are so bad that any time you use it to refer to something that is bad but not that bad you are in effect playing down how bad the real Nazis were. I think this would be what the Archbishop of Canterbury was getting at when he said it was "never right to make comparisons with the atrocities brought by the Nazis", and what was bad about that wrestler comparing cancel culture to the holocaust.

Good post. Nazis were not "just" the Holocaust..they terrorized everybody.
Underground police made sure nobody can speak up against them, and if they did..well you know.
Most of the german population were victims themselves. Some brave souls tried to assassinate Hitler or fight them in other ways, as we know they sadly failed.

In school i had to visit a death camp with my class. Deep in winter this was an especially depressing (but valuable) experience.
I don't use the term Nazi much, realizing those crimes went far beyond what most peoples have in their imagination (when they call somebody Nazi).
Everybody can choose for themselves, so not much point in arguing about when this term should be used..however i strongly suspect many who use it lightly are not fully informed.

 

[Lexicus]

Most of the german population were victims themselves.

Hard disagree.

 

[stinkubus]

Dude, I couldn't use the word 'organize' usefully in a casual discussion.

This really ought to tell you that at least some of the participants are not posting in good faith or have such distorted views of politics that they aren't worth conversing with.

 

[Angst]

I don't think it would nesessarily cannibalize itself. Because at the end of the day Nazis think their the protagonists of this world by getting rid of what they believe to be the "evil races".

Killing some other group all the time is not necessary for the ideology to survive. It could easily survive after having killed all it's intended targets and instead evolve into a "victor writes history" type ideology that takes pride in how long ago they killed off said group and how said group was an ultimate evil which was heroically defeated.

It's just that the great Other is so substantiative to fascist thought, society has to be completely redone without this element. Maybe celebrating an ancient victory could work, idk. Thing is it's just easier to pick another enemy at that point, with the status quo being as it is. I imagine if the Nazis were succesful, allowance of Jewish blood quantum would become increasingly strict until it enters the absurd, and before the point of absurdity - not that it's already absurd to begin with, mind you - they'd probably direct their ire towards another enemy. Concentration camps were industrially organized, they would probably remain for a very long time. I would guess Slavs were immediately intended to be next (they were planned to be intentionally starved after all), and after the realpolitik of the Axis collapsed, I could actually see them going into Japanese Asia. The nonsense total-danger-and-immense-weakness of the enemy is so integral to fascist thought I haven't found a single branch of it that doesn't fully embrace it.

 

[El_Machinae]

There are many political systems that don't have a functional endgame (or, at least, haven't implemented it in practical terms). I don't think I'd place this on a spectrum, since a political system that *will* look for the next cohort to exterminate is going to be entirely dissimilar to a system that refuses to acknowledge its environmental footprint while assigning levels of consumption.

This will be different from the need to invent reasons for the authoritarians to retain power. Now, these two factors intersect in Nazi Germany, but they don't actually need to.

The two factors I am distinguishing: 'able to achieve the end game, in practice' and 'able to achieve a condition such that it actually can reduce oppression and remain viable'.

 

[raystuttgart]

Hard disagree.

They were. They had run into the trap of the "rat catchers".
A lot of them were just too blind or later too brainswashed to understand it.

Just like Norther Koreans are victims of the totalitarian regime there.
A lot of them are simply not in a position to understand or change the things.

Just like many islamic extremists are vicitms of the islamic propaganda they feel for.
Many of them are simply not educated or informed enough to doubt what they hear.

So is everybody living under an oppressive totalitarian or extremist regime now automaically evil?
Just because they were stupid enough to let that regime come to power?
Or just because they start believing the propaganda they hear all day from everybody they know?

It is similar to people living in a sect are being vicitms.
They at some point got brainwashed enough to not be able anymore to doubt what they hear.

----

It is not like the Germans suddenly became evil monsters or were already evil before voting.
They fell for propaganda and lies and did very stupid things and yes, many - but not all - actually fell for that propaganda.

But just saying "All Germans" were evil just because they voted or later supported or maybe simply had to endure an evil regime is non-sense either.
Many of them in fact did not really know what happened to the Jews or simply did not want to believe the rumours they heard about the attrocities.

The Germans were vicitms of their own regime as well and got brainwashed by propaganda.
I challenge anybody to live in such a regime and at one point not get brainwashed himself.

----

Being a victim is possible even if you believe in what you do.
Humans are simply very easy to be lied to or brainwashed - especially if uneducated and poor.

 

[C0nstantG@ming]

If accurate term is not very important, we can just as well call these cops genocidal maniacs, child molesters or slave traders.
Nazi is being used today as a synonym for a "very bad guy". I'd prefer the word to be applied to literal Nazi supporters, which are still plenty.
These cops can be called criminals, abusers, whatever else is applicable, but arresting homeless man doesn't make them Nazis.

They may as well be Nazi for the way they treated a human being and his animal companion... and how they laughed about it. That stuffs not cool at all and there's no excuse where you are right for that. I don't care if you were just following orders cause that was also the Nazi's excuse as they were only following orders.

 

[Lexicus]

They were. They had run into the trap of the "rat catchers".
A lot of them were just too blind or later too brainswashed to understand it.

Just like Norther Koreans are victims of the totalitarian regime there.
A lot of them are simply not in a position to understand or change the things.

Just like many islamic extremists are vicitms of the islamic propaganda they feel for.
Many of them are simply not educated or informed enough to doubt what they hear.

So is everybody living under an oppressive totalitarian or extremist regime now automaically evil?
Just because they were stupid enough to let that regime come to power?
Or just because they start believing the propaganda they hear all day from everybody they know?

It is similar to people living in a sect are being vicitms.
They at some point got brainwashed enough to not be able anymore to doubt what they hear.

----

It is not like the Germans suddenly became evil monsters or were already evil before voting.
They fell for propaganda and lies and did very stupid things and yes, many - but not all - actually fell for that propaganda.

But just saying "All Germans" were evil just because they voted or later supported or maybe simply had to endure an evil regime is non-sense either.
Many of them in fact did not really know what happened to the Jews or simply did not want to believe the rumours they heard about the attrocities.

The Germans were vicitms of their own regime as well and got brainwashed by propaganda.
I challenge anybody to live in such a regime and at one point not get brainwashed himself.

----

Being a victim is possible even if you believe in what you do.
Humans are simply very easy to be lied to or brainwashed - especially if uneducated and poor.

An incredibly defensive reaction that is putting words in my mouth.
I am not claiming that all Germans or all those who live under totalitarian regimes are "evil," but I simply do not agree that most Germans were "victims" of the Nazis, except perhaps in the most abstract sense of the word "victim" (certainly to describe the Germans as "victims" in the same sense that people in, say, occupied Poland were "victims" of the Nazis is absolute Holocaust-denying nonsense).

The historical facts show clearly that most Germans supported the Nazis and were prepared to either support or ignore the most despicable Nazi crimes. Participation in the Holocaust was actually quite widespread and involved all sectors of German society.

IMO, the discussion is not helped by creating false dichotomies between the "victims" and the "evil."

 

[raystuttgart]

@Lexicus
Just saying that commiting crimes or bad things as part of a regime does not mean you are no victim of the regime yourself.
Those two things do not exclude each other - they can perfectly co-exist.

Also Germany in the 1940 and Nazis are not identical.
It is like saying that all Americans were Trumpists, just because the US majority had voted for Trump.

----

Summary:
Germany and the Nazis commited crimes and attrocities no doubt about that.
But it is pretty easy to say "they were no vicitms themselves" by somebody who did not endure that brainwashing himself.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus
Just saying that commiting crimes or bad things as part of a regime does not mean you are no victim of the regime yourself.
Those two things do not exclude each other - they can perfectly co-exist.

Well, when you have some time, please think through the implications of using the same word "victim" to describe the person being asphyxiated in the gas chamber and the guard who forced them into it.

 

[Angst]

For whatever it's worth, Nazis were incredibly popular in Germany at the time. I think Hitler is the most popular leader (modern) Germany has ever had. Like, they may have been victims in the sense of (yes) what Lexicus noted, that they were victims of propaganda, but it's a hard sell with any sort of context. I don't care about the reasons you're supporting blood laws and genocide, you're not the victim there.

 

[raystuttgart]

Well, when you have some time, please think through the implications of using the same word "victim" to describe the person being asphyxiated in the gas chamber and the guard who forced them into it.

So you are saying that there were no Germans put into the Gas Chamber as well?
Then you have no idea how many socialist, gay, oppositionists, ... have been gased to death as well.

Or are you are saying that all Germans have been part of the SS operating the gas chambers?
In fact statistically less than 1% of the German had ever seen a death camp before end of the war.

Or are you saying that none of the Germans had to endure death of their children, parents, ... by the war?
Or is something like that not worth being considere as a victim?

----

It is kind of a strange argumentation to say "Only the people that suffered most." are allowed to be considered victims actually.
So I guess there are no victims of injustice then in the USA because nobody is been put into a gas chamber?

----

Seriously, you have a strange definition of victim ...

And to make it clear:
I am completely aware of the holocaust and do not want to defend it.
All I am saying is that there were more victims than those who died in gas chambers.
And saying "Germans themselves were no vicitms of their own regime" is a pretty non-sense argumentation.

 

[raystuttgart]

For whatever it's worth, Nazis were incredibly popular in Germany at the time.

Absolutely correct, because society had been totally brainwashed by propaganda.