|
Since lots of people are making ask me threads about historical topics and periods, I thought I'd throw one up. Hi, I'm Seven Hundred Bee and I know too much about Nazi Germany. I'm currently a graduate student studying History and finishing up my thesis, and much of my undergraduate and graduate work has been about Nazi Germany, the Holocaust and 20th c. history, with a special emphasis on intellectual history. I've sadly read too many books on these subjects. I'm happy to answer any questions I can, because this would be a lot more fun than rereading my boring chapters for the fiftieth time. Topics I know a lot about : The Holocaust German intellectual history/emigre intellectual history Democratic and legal responses to fascism and World War II The American response to the Holocaust (Should we have bombed Auschwitz? Was Roosevelt the worst?) Function and organization of the Nazi state Battlefield conditions Hitler if you ever wanted to know what the camps were like, watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2rXhWeMzTo be warned it is extraordinary graphic. i have seen people vomit while watching. I also know a fair bit about World War I. What I don't know about : specific technical military questions. But I'm sure there's probably other posters here who do know lots about that stuff. Sadly most of my knowledge is pretty firmly in the academic camp. My thesis advisor is also one of the leading experts on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so if there's a particularly difficult question I can probably run it up the flagpole to him, Ask away! Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Apr 2, 2013 |
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
SERPUS posted:Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz? In early 1944 the advancing Allied forces in Italy captured airfields that would have allowed longrange bombers to reach Auschwitz in Poland. The debate in question is if, after this date, the US should have bombed the camp in order to prevent the extermination of the remaining Jews. Historiographically, this question was first posed by a historian named David Wyman in the early 1980s, and was extraordinarily controversial at the time. During 1943 and 1944, when information about the extermination camps began to leak out, Jewish refugee committees in the United States began to pressure the Roosevelt administration to do something to prevent the extermination from continuing. It wasn't until '44, when those airfields were captured, that the US could realistically do something. After the US had the capability, Roosevelt ordered the military to investigate the feasibility of the bombing. The military leadership quickly returned and said no, it's not feasible, and that it would interfere with the war effort. Now, the question about why we didn't bomb Auschwitz is really two questions: 1. Did the military actually investigate the feasibility of bombing? and 2. Would it have been feasible? Research has shown that not only would the bombing have been feasible, but that the military never even bothered to investigate the question. As far as feasibility, the classic argument against the bombing has been that by bombing the camps the US would've actually killed more Jews then it would have saved, and that they knew nothing about the layout of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We know now that both of these arguments are false. First, the US had considerable knowledge of not only the layout of the camp, but of the location of the gas chambers and the rail tracks that brought prisoners into the camp. This knowledge came from escapees from the camp, who by 1944 had worked their way out of Nazi territory and through the immigrant pipeline to Israel, and from reconnaissance photos of the area, which included a rubber plant that US bombed throughout 1944 and 1945. Second, studies have shown that by this date the Nazi rail system was close to overload and collapse, and if even one rail line had been damaged, it would have taken months to repair and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There's also a persistent argument that if the Nazis thought that the US would act to stop the Holocaust (and an attack would should this), they would have slowed down the rate of killing to leave more Jews alive as potential bargaining chips. Now, to the question of investigation, which renders feasibility somewhat irrelevant. Documents now show that the military never even bothered to look into bombing. This was because of the fact that during the war, the American military leadership was virulently anti-Semitic. That's not to say they applauded the extermination of the Jews, but to them the war effort was to restrain Hitler and liberate France - rescuing Jews was a waste of time and resources: why bother saving a population of criminals and communists? Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
Lumius posted:How prevalent were foreign workers during the war? I know my polish grandmother worked on a farm during the war and had official documentation for it. Short answer: very prevalent. I assume by foreign workers you're not talking about Jews (who were used as slave labor throughout) or Russian prisoners (the same). Long answer: Depends on the what time period. Up until late '41, the German economy wasn't on a 'total war' footing (all production devoted to the war effort). Hitler was vey cognizant of public morale, and didn't want to impact the life of the average German to that extent until it was absolutely necessary. It's one of the reasons behind the eventual failure of the attack on Russia. After '41, when more and more men were needed for the the front, labor needs became acute. As the war dragged on, the Nazi government conscripted large numbers of civilians. For example, one of the key issues of contention between Vichy (technically independent) and Nazi Germany was that from '42 - '44, Germany kept demanding labor forces from France to be sent to Germany to work in factories.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
I Fought The Mom posted:How can somebody who doesn't know nearly as much about nazi Germany as you do crazy respond to people saying that Obamacare/gun control/a black man being president of the USA are comparable to stuff that happened during the nazification of the country? These people are stupid, and I wouldn't try to engage with them. I'd probably point out that as soon as Obama came to office he didn't fire everyone who wasn't of a certain race, unlike Hitler.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Awesome thread idea, Seven Hundred Bee. This was the focus of my undergraduate history degree, and I interned at a Holocaust museum. Hope you don't mind if I chime in sometime, although it's been a few years and my knowledge is admittedly rusty. My main areas of focus have been the occupied East, the extermination camps, the post-war American far right and, in an exercise in masochism, Holocaust denial. I considered pursuing graduate-level studies but a lackluster GPA dissuaded me. What's the state of the field from your perspective? I know Christopher Browning and others are rightfully putting emphasis on studies of ethnic minorities in the East and in Axis minors. MothraAttack posted:Awesome thread idea, Seven Hundred Bee. This was the focus of my undergraduate history degree, and I interned at a Holocaust museum. Hope you don't mind if I chime in sometime, although it's been a few years and my knowledge is admittedly rusty. My main areas of focus have been the occupied East, the extermination camps, the post-war American far right and, in an exercise in masochism, Holocaust denial. I considered pursuing graduate-level studies but a lackluster GPA dissuaded me. What's the state of the field from your perspective? I know Christopher Browning and others are rightfully putting emphasis on studies of ethnic minorities in the East and in Axis minors. Please chime in! Hm. State of the field. Beyond my own issues with post-modernism and an over emphasis on gender/race as an the analytical jumping off point for historical research, I think the field is in a good place. I think Christopher Browning does great work. As far as new research, with the collapse of the USSR there's been a lot more access to information about the Eastern Front. Looking forward, I expect to see some great works coming out on the Holocaust in Russia, as well as more comparative work in genocide studies as a whole. As to functionalism vs intentionalism, I'd say I'm in the middle (for those who don't know, functionalism is the idea is that the Holocaust came about not because of a plan by Hitler, but rather the conditions and indoctrination surrounding the SS, intentionalism is the opposite). My views most align with David Kershaw. While Hitler definitely didn't plan each step of the Holocaust (there's no evidence that he did), he clearly knew and approved of the directives coming out of the SS, and probably at an early stage. I also believe that he gave his verbal approval for the construction fo the Death Camps, probably very early in the process. That said, I think the day-to-day development and spread of the Holocaust was more the combination of the three factors: (1) the deep indoctrination of anti-Semitism in the SS and Wehrmacht, which inclined them to participate in shooting/on the spot massacres; (2) a hardcore "core" of fervent believers who followed Hitler's prescribed plan to eliminate the Jews and perpetuated it out of this belief; and (3) a large and efficient mid-level leadership that, while by no means as anti-Semitic as the SS leadership, recognized that the higher ups did believe these things, and that expanding the Holocaust was an excellent way to make a name for themselves. Eichmann is an example of this third type.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Did the Western Allies ever attempt to demand political concessions from the Soviet Union in exchange for lend-lease aid, like restoration of the pre-war borders of Poland and Finland and the independence of the Baltic states, and if not - why? In retrospect it seems hypocritical to declare war on Germany when they invade Poland, yet neglect to do so when the Soviet Union does the same from the other direction, plus the threat of cutting off lend-lease should have given them some leverage over Stalin's regime. Yes and no. One of the major criticisms of Roosevelt was that he failed to appreciate Stalin's designs for Eastern Europe, and during Yalta and the other conferences allowed Stalin to convince him that he would allow free elections in Poland despite evidence to the contrary. With that said, by the time Hitler invaded Russia, the Alies were in such poor shape that they would take any help they could get, and do what they could to defeat Hitler -- and lendlease was part of that. The relationship between Russia and the rest of the Allies was born more out of necessity than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:How close did the western allies come to allying with Hitler? What were the sun worship groups about? An earnest religious setup, or was it more like a kitsch attempt to do something the ancient germans did? Note: Going to multi-quote now that I figured out how. 1. Not close at all. 2. I don't know a ton about them, but from what I gather they have been way overplayed today. They were less of an outright 'let's worshop the sun!' than a vague appreciate for volkisch (the idea of old Germania race) thought. This goes with most of the runic/History channel stuff. ArchangeI posted:I have a great number of questions that I'm still curious about although I got the full dose of public German education, which understandably uses a lot of time on the Holocaust. It is a disturbing thought that one's own grandparents were probably at least quietly complicit in such a giant crime. 1. Depends on which Nazis. For some, especially the midlevel officials, it wasn't particularly important. For Hitler and the true ideological Nazis, it was everything. It was an essential product of their worldview. If you read Mein Kampf (which I wouldn't suggest), you'll see that anti-Semitism is fundamental to Hitler. The Madagascar Dream (exporting the Jews to Madagascar) was a pipedream from the start. They almost immediately realized that it was impractical, and improbable. Hitler encouraged its perpetuation as much to sow dissension among his subordinates (thus leading to competition) more than anything else. 2. A big part of it was an almost messianic belief in the ability of Hitler (and this belief extended to most Germans). Up until the final days, most Germans partially believed that Hitler had hidden, secret armies and wonder weapons that would rescue the German people. Large groups of Nazis also believed that it would possible to come to an accommodation with America, and help the West fight the Russians. And they kept going because systems develop a certain... momentum, and at some point, Nazi Germany had enough inertia to continue until it was forcefully destroyed. 3. My thesis isn't about the Holocaust. I'm researching two German emigre intellectuals and how they proposed democracy and America should fight fascism. There's lots of research on the Holocaust, but I promise you there are many thousands of unresearched topics just waiting for an eager graduate student. gradenko_2000 posted:If you know about it, how much support did the Morgenthau Plan have before it was leaked, and do we know why it was leaked in the first place? Not a ton. I don't think it was ever a realistic possibility, although the large number of German emigres (who fled Germany after Hitler came to power) supported similar retribution-style plans, and Morgenthau's plan definitely represented the thinking of more than a few on the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Gumby posted:I'd say that the amount of modern-day interest in Nazi völkisch religion and rituals (incidents of which are grossly overestimated) is probably an unconscious attempt by people to otherize the Nazis into non-Christian pagans. What's scary about the Nazis is how mundane they were and how close any population can be to fascism, racial hatred, militarism, etc. at any given time. 1. I'd believe that. 2. I think it was important in the careerist sense, but it wasn't the ideological axis around which the world turned as it was for the high-level Nazis. I'm sure even the mid-level careerists were anti-Semitic to some degree. 3. For the Madagascar Plan, I refer back to Kershaw's work on Hitler. Kershaw doesn't believe that it was ever a legitimate plan -- it was clear that it was unworkable, and ideologically it ran counter to Hitler's line of thinking. The continued existence of it (it bounced around for awhile) has as much to do with the chaos and competitive structure of the Nazi state, and Kershaw alludes to the fact that Hitler, in the case of the plan, encouraged it. 4. True, Hitler was pretty publicly reviled, but still, even in the end, you find diary entries from soldiers talking about how they've heard rumors about the wonder weapons and Hitler is going to save them all. The "Hitler Myth" was pervasive, and even three years of setbacks and slaughter hadn't completely eradicated it from the average German, and especially hadn't for the indoctrinated soldier. With that said, the biggest motivating factor for the average Wehrmact soldier was probably to head off the Russians as long as possible to give civilians more time to flee. MrBling posted:In the academic world is "The Holocaust" as a topic mostly centred on the extermination of the Jews as it is in mainstream media or is there acknowledgement of all the millions of other people that were killed in the camps as well? It just seems odd to ignore that at least as many Slavs, Romani, Poles, Russian POWs, Freemasons, Homosexuals and Freemasons were killed as Jews. No, it's not ignored at all, although obviously there's been much more work on the Jewish victims than others. The biggest 'fault' with genocide studies as a field is probably how the Holocaust is written about to a much higher degree than any other genocide, although again, not very surprising why. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why on earth would you think that it's ignored in the academic world? And the 'mainstream media' generally acknowledges the other groups too. This is one of the curious idiosyncrasies about Nazi Germany - on one hand, a part of Hitler's ideology was a return to historic Germany and historic values, on the other hand he wasn't a moron and recognized the importance of science, especially military research. There were lots of smart scientists working in Germany through the war, and with government support. That said, the Nazi state was extraordinarily chaotic, so there was never a single, well articulated scientific policy. Kicking out all the Jewish scientists (or gassing them) isn't why they lost the war.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Here's a question, why didnt the rank and file of the german communist party (i.e. Ernst Thalmann and the gang) put up a fight against the Nazi's when they started instituting a dictatorship? Whatever happened to all the other parties? was Hitler's allure so great that all of these civil society members/ parties just magically faded away into the dark after 1933? Good question. Couple of reasons: German society in 1933 was conservative, and a big appeal of Hitler and the Nazi Party was that they were an alternative to communism. Hitler was able to use the threat of an impending communist revolt (similar to those that happened in 1919 in the wake of the German defeat in World War I) as justification to seize more and more power, and eventually force through the Enabling Act. A large reason that the communists never, say, staged an uprising immediately, was because society was hostile in general to them. That said, there was communist opposition to Hitler, but he was able to stamp it out, either arresting, executing or exiling communist party members. After the first wave of arrests, most fled the country for Russia or the West. In 1933 and 1934 Hitler dissolved competing political parties. This was done under the guise of legality (the enabling act), but in actuality was a product of intimidation, coercion and violence. You also have to bear in mind that during the first seven years of his rule (until 1940), Hitler was immensely popular. It was extremely difficult for any political part, underground or otherwise, to mount an opposition to him when he enjoyed the support of 90%+ of German citizens. Look at his accomplishments in the 1930s: he helped turn around the economy; he remilitarized the Rhineland, thereby standing up to the Allies and abrogating the Treaty of Versailles, which was a source of deep German anger; he merged Germany with Austria, which was long a dream of many German nationalists; he successfully annexed portions of Czechoslovakia; and, most impressive of all, he defeated France, the country that Germans despised more than any. Throughout the 1930s the Nazi party would occasionally hold 'elections' or 'plebiscites' (there was really only one way you could vote) but historians have shown that during these periods, Hitler really did enjoy an astronomically high approval rate. In fact, the 'genius' of Hitler in the 1930s in regards to foreign politics was that many of the issues he pressed were completely legitimate. He, in a sense, was on the 'right' and even moral side. Why should Germany, a sovereign nation, not be allowed to defend its borders? How could the Allies, who supposedly supported Wilson's Fourteen Points and preached the necessity of self-determination, deny Germany a chance to incorporate German nationals trapped abroad? The British especially felt guilty about how harsh Versailles was, and they legitimately approved of many of the things Hitler was doing. Also bear in mind that the West in general (especially England and the US) looked on Hitler as an excellent bulwark against communism, which they feared far more than fascism. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Gumby posted:Yeah, that sounds plausible. It's just hard to tell what was truly believed based on what the primary sources thought was evidence at the time, and what's "we've gotta win, we just have to or we're screwed." I've got a copy of Kershaw's The End sitting on my shelf, where it's been for the last I don't know how long. Really got to start that. Let me know if you like it. I've been meaning to read it but have been too bust. Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin is decent too, if for nothing more than it's good use of primary sources.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Gumby posted:
That efficient German bureaucracy. It's crazy how corrupt and inefficient the Nazi state was. The only parallel I can think of is maybe Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. One of the things that's always fascinated me is that after the war in the East began, Hitler virtually stopped governing, and focused all of his energy on the minutiae of military battles. That's not to say he was ever an involved leader, but in '43 and '44 he spent all of his time moving tanks on a map, and not planning the economy or directing foreign policy. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I am interested in Hitler's court. Was there any formal system of succession for the Führer in place? I know how it ended up in practice (with the crazy guy who airdropped in Scotland as the first expected second in command if I recall correctly) but I wonder if the Nazi state had survived whether there were plans (or even laws already) for Hitler's succession. Different people were treated as heir presumptive at different times. Hitler's 'court' involved the high officials (Goering, Bormann, Goebbeles, Speer) competing with each other for power and prestige, and, by extension the right to take over after Hitler died. It was extraordinarily chaotic, and actually encouraged by Hitler. In line with his philosophy of Social Darwinism, he believed that competition among his subordinates would: a. encourage them to do better; ie: survival of the fittest, and b. prevent them allying against him. Randler posted:Were the effects of the "Preußenschlag" an important factor in Hitler's rise to power? I actually can't answer this. I remember reading about it, and I even know what book it was is, so I'll go and check. Clayton Bigsby posted:Why did Göring treat his pilots like poo poo? Goring was a loving fat corrupt douchebag. He sucked at everything (although he was kind of responsible for the Anschluss). He treated his pilots like poo poo because he was an awful, awful person. SlenderWhore posted:Why didn't anyone question why Hitler had brown eyes and brown hair? There were always rumors about Hitler's ancestors, but there were lots of Aryans with brown eyes and brown hair. They invented a whole psuedo-science for determining ethnicity, including measuring skulls, ear shapes, nose shapes, etc. As far as we can tell, Hitler really was an Aryan. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:About trying to bomb Auschwitz, wasn't the wildly inaccurate method of strategic bombing at the time another factor in deciding whether to attempt to destroy it? The gas chambers were pretty small buildings relative to the rest of the camp, and the only way to ensure hitting them would have been to just wipe out the entire camp, killing up to 100,000 prisoners in the process. And even after all that it was still possible that the gas chamber buildings would still be standing. You run into the same type of problem attempting to bomb the correct rail lines leading into the camp, and those are much easier to rebuild afterwards. No, feel free! Debate is always welcome. The question of accuracy has been debated (really to death) over the last ten years. The consensus that has emerged, at least in my eyes, is that the Allies could have successfully bombed the rail junctures, even if they lacked the capability to target the crematoriums, and that even the appearance of attempting to bomb the camp would function to warn the Nazis off, and to take further precautions when transporting prisoners, which would make transport slower and therefore save lives. As to the late date, even bombing in 1944 would have saved lives, and it could have, by extension, saved lives in other camps. It would also have served as a powerful symbol to the remaining prisoners. If you'd like to read more about this, I can provide you with some books and articles to look up. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:If nobody minds, I'm not near the expert that the OP is, but I know a little about the situation and thought I might chime in: A big part of the Nazis holding on in the East was to by time to for civilians to flee to the American lines. When the Russians captured German territory, especially in Prussia, they looted everything and raped everyone. There are estimates that literally millions of women were raped (dozens if not hundreds of times) by the Russians. The abortion rate in Germany in 1945 and 1946 was astronomical. When you examine some of the battles in the closing days of the war, ie: Berlin, Seelow Heights, you see under equipped German armies filled with old men and children fighting against impossible odds. Surrender wasn't really an option - most of the Germans who surrendered to the Russians never returned to Germany and died in camps. Also, you have to remember just how indoctrinated many soldiers were. Your average soldier was in his early 20s, and had been educated his entire life under the Nazi regime. He regarded Hitler with awe -- when the assassination attempt on Hitler failed in 1944, most Germans were horrified that someone would have tried to kill Hitler. It was despicable. Even at the end, when logic dictated that the war was lost, many held at an irrational belief that Hitler would forge an alliance with the West and save them at the last minute. Stalin was afraid of that too actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
If you want to actually see what concentration camps were like, see this film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2rXhWeMzTo produced by Alfred Hitchcock for the BBC/British Military but never released. IT IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC! BE WARNED! I've been in classes where this has been shown and students have vomited.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Uberskooper posted:I don't get how there are SS men still alive and admit who they were. Aren't there organizations that hunt these guys like dogs? What do they do with themselves after the war? Who wants to hire an SS guy? No. Only a small number of SS are considered war criminals and actively sought. The rank-and-file SS member is not about to arrested. The SS did a couple things after the war. After they realized everything was falling apart, they took efforts to destroy any evidence that they had been in the SS - burning off their blood type tattoos (a tattoo in their armpit with their blood type that all members of the SS had), destroying their papers, changing their uniforms, etc. After the war was over, Germany was split into four 'zones' controlled by the four Allied countries - France, Britain, Russia and the US. The three Western zones basically merged, and soon after the war ended, they began to implement 'denazification,' or efforts to identify and punish those who had participated in Hitler's war crimes. As part of this process, anyone in the Nazi party was classified as either a Major Offender (war criminal), Offender (participant who was not allowed to work in certain areas) or Follower. All three categories could be given jail time, probation, etc, depending on the discretion of the denazification boards. Unfortunately, these boards were extraordinarily ineffective. Intimidated by the Nazis and operated by German citizens who wanted nothing more than put the entire Nazi episode behind them, and overseen by American Military Government officials who were far more concerned about increasing tensions between the West and the Soviets, the vast majority of Nazis, including members of the SS, were never punished and allowed to go back to their jobs (if they still existed). In the Russian zone, the story was a little different. If you were in the SS and captured by the Russians you were most likely shot on the spot, or sent to a labor camp in Siberia to be worked to death. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Maybe he was talking about the Waffen-SS? As far as I know they had their fair share of draftees who didn't have much of a choice regarding the matter. Most people in the German military, regardless of if they volunteered to be in the SS, were drafted into the SS or were in the Wehrmacht (regular army) participated, at least to some extent, in war crimes and the Holocaust. The myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht,' that the regular German army was only concerned with fighting the war, not exterminating the Jews, has been pretty thoroughly debunked. That's not to say that everyone in the German military was a war criminal (there's clearly a difference between the commandant at Auschwitz and a lowly SS soldier), but the point has to be made. Historical example: One of the guys I'm writing my thesis about is Karl Loewenstein, who was a Jewish German emigre who fled from Germany in 1933 after losing his job. He, like most of the intellectuals who immigrated to the US, ended up working for the government during the war, and was part of the team of experts brought over to Germany in 1945 to help staff the Military Government and aid in denazification. He, like most of them, was disgusted with the entire process, coming to believe that America could care less about punishing Nazis and was only concerned with putting the entire incident in the past in order to rush towards a war with the Soviets. In 1946 most of these intellectuals were purged from the Military Government (for being too negative!), and sent stateside. After returning to the US, he received a letter from a friend who was still in Germany, stating that the risk was not that the Americans were going to pursue denazification too zealously, as many had feared; rather, people should be concerned that the Americans, in the process of denazification, were going to become nazified themselves. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Randler posted:Regarding the lack of consequences for members of the SS, there is something I'd like to add. Not to be picky, but during most of denazification the denazification boards operated not under German Common Law, but rather under "The Law for Liberation from National Socialism and Militarism," issued on March 5, 1946. This law created the denazification boards and laid out the categories. In this law, it was technically illegal to be part of the SS, but amendments over the next 3 years gradually removed this statute. Today it is technically illegal to be a member of the SS. The current German constitution (the Basic Law) contains two specific provisions, Article 21, section 2 and Article 18, which empower the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) to outlaw political parties if the purpose of this party is judged to be counter to democracy, and to deprive persons of their fundamental rights (speech, assembly, etc.) if they abuse these rights for the purpose of overthrowing democracy. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:Yeah, he was Waffen-SS, not a concentration camp guard or something along those lines. He was 18 when Hitler killed himself at the end of the war, so maybe 17 when he went into the organisation, but IIRC he wasn't specifically drafted into the SS; it was more that he was getting drafted and then ended up going with some friends to them (on the basis that they were supposed to be the best soldiers or something). In terms of what he did after the war, he worked as a mechanic. I have no idea whether he kept his past under wraps or something after the war, and even when I talked to him it was entirely possible that he was downplaying any possible involvement in war crimes. Other interesting fact, they let him in even though they didn't consider him an "Aryan". He was called "Latin" or "Roman" or something along those lines. The racial categories employed by the Nazis are fascinating. My favorite example of this occurred on the Eastern Front, around the time of the Battle of Stalingrad. Large portions of the German line were held not by Germans, but by German 'allies' - Italians, Hungarians, etc. These units were terrible for a variety of reasons. They were ill-trained, understaffed, had no weapons, no cold weather gear, didn't care about the war, were not paid, etc. The German units near these foreign armies were aware of this, and kept harassing them, to the point where high command had to issue directives to the men at the front stating that it's not fair to be hard on our allies, as they are from inferior races ("Latin" as opposed to Aryan), and that commanding officers should plan events to foster friendship between the Germans and their allies that appeal to the Latin races - for examples dances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 21:35
|
|
.
|
Kopijeger posted:About Austria specifically: how popular or resented was the Anschluss at the time it occurred? Were Austrian soldiers who had served in the Bundesheer before the annexation ever considered less reliable than their Reich counterparts or Austrians recruited after 1938? After the war, was there a consensus in favour of pretending that the country had been a mere victim of National Socialist aggression instead of (arguably) being a partner, what with Hitler and several prominent Nazis beings Austrians and so on? Was there any significant support in favour of becoming part of the new Federal Republic? Good question! 1. In Germany, the Anschluss was very popular. Many Germans saw it as a step for the creation of a new German Empire. In Austria, not so much. Austria by and large was a conservative country like Germany, but most Austrians were not National Socialists. That said, many of them supported Hitler, and would rather be Nazis than communists. 2. I've never seen any evidence of this, although I'm not especially knowledgeable about technical aspects of the Nazi military. Many Austrian units fought with distinction on the front lines. 3. There was absolutely a consensus about presenting Austria as a 'victim.' By and large most Austrians (like most Germans), wanted to move past the Nazi years, and by pretending that they were not complicit in the crimes of Hitler when they absolutely were, they were able to avoid the lengthy denazification process and administrative oversight that took place in Germany. A professor once put it me this way: Austria's greatest accomplishment was turning Beethoven into an Austrian and Hitler into a German. 4. Not that I've seen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Is there any substance to the idea that Germany would have won the war or at least been in a strong enough position to negotiate a ceasefire had Hitler been taken out early in the war (say, at the '39 Bürgerbräukeller attempt) and hadn't been able to make stupid decisions like attacking the Soviet Union or the North African campaign, ordering Rommel to commit suicide, not cutting Musolini off after he and pretty much the entire Italian military were proven time and again to be inept and constantly had to be bailed out or wasting resources on weapons and technology that while cutting-edge at the time were of little practical use or were delivered too late in the war and/or in insufficient numbers to make a real difference? Or is this just wild speculation on the part of alt-history buffs? It's really hard to know, but if Hitler had been deposed in '39, by say, a group of traditional conservatives and the military, then yes Germany probably would've won the war. Once Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in my eyes it was pretty much over - even if Rommel had lived, even if North Africa was better managed, they still would've lost. Propaganda question: it's a long response and I'll type it up soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I would go further and argue that Germany had no chance of winning the war as soon as it set foot on Polish soil, no matter what. The Germans had no way to force the British to surrender and it was a matter of time before the US got involved in the war. The invasion of the Soviet Union 2 years later just assured that the war would end in the complete annihilation of the German state. I think that if Germany had continued to bomb England, that England would have eventually come to some sort or agreement with Germany. In Hitler's 'plan', he never envisioned conquering England; rather, he hoped to ally with Britain (as a fellow Anglo-Saxon state) to wage war on the Soviets. I actually don't know a lot about current rightwing politics, but I'd say that even the most conservative Republican is still very liberal by the standards of 1950. Our government has progressed to the point where even conservatives are reliant on a 'welfare' state - although our brand of socialism (not really socialist at all) is much more conservative than Europe currently. As far as hate speech goes, I think our society is more tolerant today than any society that has ever existed. It's significant that we even identify statements against homosexuals as hate speech - 25 years ago (perhaps even 10) these categories didn't even exist. Our society is much more progressive than most people think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:One thing that gets talked about is the Nazi mastery of propaganda. I know this is subjective, but to what extent is this true, to what extent did they do something new or better in the area of propaganda? I have been surprised by talking to WWII-era folk that they said while they, the 20-something generation were very patriotic and rah-rah, their parents were very cynical and unpersuaded by propaganda, which I take to be the aftermath from WWI propaganda. Hm. Complex question. Propaganda in the Nazi state functioned on two levels. Propaganda was most effective for those who grew up in the Nazi state. If you were, say, 10 when Hitler came to power (and thus 20 in 1943 and probably on the front) you'd have been thoroughly indoctrinated. For most people, they looked on Nazi propaganda with a fair bit of skepticism. Germans wern't stupid, and, for example, while Goebbel's was pretending the disaster at Stalingrad was actually a victory for Germany, German civilians had already recognized the catastrophe for what it was. There was also a sharp delineation between Hitler and the Nazi party in the eyes of most Germans (historically it's called "The Hitler Myth.") The majority of Germans genuinely supported Hitler until '41 or '42. They looked on him as a military genius and a visionary leader that was guiding Germany towards a bright future. And, fascinatingly, they held this opinion while regarding the Nazi Party in general -- especially after 1935 when they were confronted with constant examples of corruption and abuse -- with disgust. There was also a pervasive belief that Hitler didn't know about the excesses of his party members, and that, once he found out, he would act quickly to stop them and punish the guilty. This is why, for example, Germans applauded Hitler for the "Night of the Long Knives." They saw it as proof of Hitler's morality and righteousness. As far as support for the war, Germans were extremely wary of entering the war. After victory in France most people believed that the war was over, and were horrified to learn about the invasion of Russia. They originally looked on the invasion of Poland with similar dread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Akratic Method posted:Thanks for doing this thread! I was wondering, though, if you would mind sprinkling in links to primary sources or good books when you happen to think of some relevant ones. I assume like most graduate students you've read eleventy billion books on your thesis subject and countless historical documents, and while a lot of the latter may not be anywhere online to link to, it would be cool if you pointed us to any that are as people ask about related topics. Definitely. I think Ian Kershaw is the best scholar for Hitler. His biography on Hitler, published in two volumes (Hitler: Hubris and Hitler: Nemsis) is excellent, although very extensive and detailed. It's a great synthesis of a lot of the research that's been done on Hitler. He also wrote a great book on how Hitler was regarded by German citizens (The Hitler Myth). Antony Beevor is... decent for military history. Stalingard is his best book, and his work on the Battle of Berlin is worth a read as well. Sir Alistair Horne wrote one of the best accounts of the invasion of France, To Lose a Battle: France 1940, and his work on Verdun (The Price of Glory) is excellent as well. For the Holocaust, you should check out Christopher Brownings Ordinary Men. It's a very approachable introduction into how complicit the Wehrmact was in the Holocaust. I'd also recommend Omer Bartov's Hitler's Army. It's academic, but an excellent work on how the German army functioned on the Eastern Front. To learn about what it was like to be an American solider in the war, check out Paul Fussel's Wartime. If you have specific areas of interest I can recommend books and articles as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Have you done any reading on Esoteric Nazism/Hitlerism? I find it to be one of the most interesting things to have come out of the whole Hitler thing. I have not, although that sounds really interesting and I'll definitely be looking it up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
raven4267 posted:This is a question about the politics/economy of nazi Germany. I got into a big argument with a family member when he referred to President Obama as a commie/nazi, and I told him that statement was ignorant and stupid. He swears that the nazi's were left wing socialists and that the only reason that Hitler and Stalin were rivals was due to them being power hungry. After much argument I got him to admit that the nazi's were right leaning socialists??? I don't really know the much about the details of Nazi Germany's politics or economy, and I felt I was wasting my breath, so I pretty much just gave up the argument. I was hoping you could give me some insight into this issue. nazism was a combination of conservatism and socialism. it was born out of the push towards ultra conservative German nationalism in the wake of world war i. the 'socialist' elements (universal health care for example) were intended to make the party appealing to the average german worker, and were a product of the recognition of the economic realities of the 1920s and 1930s. many economists believed that the only way for countries to rise out of the great depression was through a planned, government-led economy. the first nazis were extraordinarily conservative, and a fundamental tenet of nazi ideology was the idea of volkisch thought -- the supremacy of the german (aryan) race within the competition between races. the reason hitler and stalin were rivals were because they were fundamentally opposed. hitler looked at communism as a vile, jewish ideology that must be stamped out. he viewed the russian people as a mass of slavic hordes who were poised to invade europe and destroy the gory of german civilization and 'kultur'. the reason the war on the eastern front was so harsh was because it was more than a simple conflict, it was a clash of two competing ideologies which were mutually exclusive. only one could survive. hitler's 'vision' of the world involved a german sphere of influence that would extend over france and east into russia up to the urals. the captured eastern european territory would be converted into farm land, and the existing populations would be worked to death constructing german towns. these towns would act as collection points for crops, allowing germany to be agriculturally self sufficient, and act as a bulwark against the slavic hordes east of the urals. britain would remain independent, but would be a trade partner and ally of germany. the united states would conceivably be a part of this anglo-saxon coalition. the jews would be wiped out. i'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it sounds like your family member is a moron. if obama was a 'commie/nazi' then your relative would be put up against a wall and shot. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Wootcannon posted:On that note, what's your opinion on Guy Sajer? I always saw it as a group of historians used to fervently examining every detail getting pissy that someone who was actually there didn't double-check every recollection of uniform minutiae. i've never read the forgotten soldier so i don't have an opinion on it one way or another, other than in general memoirs are poor historical resources.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Well there was this detail were besides for any economical stuff, Hitler was responsible for murdering almost 6,000,000 Jews and a few million homosexuals, communists, socialists, democrats, mentally or physically disabled children, Jehova's witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, and of course over 20,000,000 Russians (over half civilians). That kind of sets him apart from Obama, in my mind! i promise you that hitler wasn't ok with gay people getting married. and in a large sense tax rates in nazi germany were irrelevant, as the government reaped huge financial benefits from seizing jewish property and wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:How large of a factor was that, actually? I can't believe the wealth of the comparatively small Jewish population (even if it included some rich individuals) could by itself support the devastating effects, including isolation, war economy and war itself, for long. well, it didn't pay for the war, but it was a lot of money. they also looted the territories they controlled (france, poland, etc). that said, yes the war bankrupted the state, just like any other total war.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Did the Allies know enough about Hitler's whereabouts to directly target him with bombing? Did they ever try? towards the end of the war, they knew he was in berlin, and that was in a bunker, but he was extremely well protected so there was little chance that he could have ever been killed in a bombing. the reich chancellory was severely damaged by shelling/bombing, and the bunker was fine. before that he was in various instillations in the east there were very well hidden and protected. apparently actually living with hitler was horrible - he kept a crazy schedule, he was an extremely boring person who would take any opportunity to turn a conversation into a monologue and would spend hours talking about the same topics every night. he was a teetotaler and wouldn't allow drinking or smoking around him. his diet was vegetarian. the command installations he occupied in the east were very barren too - concrete pillboxes and bunkers with no decorations. there were some crazy plans dreamed up to send in assassins to kill hitler, but nothing ever came of them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
brozozo posted:What's your opinion on Shirer's Rise and Fall? I know it's been criticized for not being an academic work, but do you have any or know of any specific criticisms? Anything Shirer got totally wrong? i've never worked with shirer (which probably says something in and of itself). i believe the major criticism is that his understanding of fascism as a political movement was wrong. it was also written in the 60s, which means it's particularly outdated both theoretically and in terms of newer document discoveries.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Whats your opinion on Richard Evans? good historian, although i haven't personally read much by him. i do know that he was with bertov during the historikerstreit and he is well regarded by kershaw, who cites him frequently. as to my particular place in that debate, i'd again say 'somewhere in the middle'. i don't know if i believe in sonderweg. ~ also gently caress goldhagen ~
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Thats good since I just started reading the first part of his Third Reich Trilogy, which is apparently the definitive narrative account of the Nazis. good luck! after that you should read kershaw's two-part hitler biography. then you can dazzle people at cocktail parties with your knowledge of nazi germany.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Tojai posted:I believe I read somewhere (Mein Kampf excerpt?) that Hitler really liked how the US had handled the Native Americans in terms of things like forced migrations and such. Was this actually the case, and was any inspiration taken from the Native American or any other historical genocides? hitler 'hated' religion in the sense that he believed it acted as an outside power within the state, thereby encouraging people to worship something other than volkisch Nazism. I don't remember reading that in mein kampf, but mein kampf is a clusterfuck of a book. the impetus (for hitler at least) for the holocaust was his understanding of race. he, like many people in the 1930s, believed in scientific racism -- that the rise and fall of civilizations was a product of a competition among races, equivalent to the competition among species. within this model, each race has particular 'qualities' (think of them as evolved traits) that led them to succeed over the years. the aryans were brave and the source of culture. the latins were artistic. the slavs, while not intelligent, were capable of physical endurance and manual labor. jews were equivalent to a virus or a parasite, and were successful in integrating themselves and leeching off the success of other, superior races. the races could also be placed into a hierarchy, with aryan/anglo saxons at top, and jews at the bottom. so to hitler, the consequence of not wiping out the jews was the potential destruction of the aryan race. thus, the holocaust to him wasn't born of a radical anti-semitism as much as it was a product of his belief that jews were inimical to the existence of the aryan race (which i guess is in and of itself anti-semitism). edit: also great explanation of functionalism vs. intentionalism above. while hitler definitely plan the holocaust step-by-step, at some point had to at least verbally aprove of what was being. despite the rampant illegality of the nazi regime, there was a surprising dedication to observing the forms of legal government. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Avocados posted:Oh this film again. Had to watch it in my honors history class in highschool. The lack of soundtrack and excess of white noise made the thing even worse. One of the most repulsive things I've watched. I remember everyone's expression after the film ended. We were all in shock and disbelief. Crazy way to end the last class on Friday. I don't know if your version had the original narration, but this one does. but yea no actual sound was recorded, just added in after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Avocados posted:Ours was part of the PBS Frontline special recorded on a DVD. It didn't have any 'music' like other documentaries, but it had the narration. Looks like they're both the same though, especially with the memorable narrator. it's not an exaggeration. they would frequently take local officials from nearby towns and force them to move bodies. you can see examples of it in the video linked above. there's a couple school of thoughts on how much the average german knew about the holocaust. immediately after the war most germans pretended to know nothing. we now know that a large number of germans probably knew that something was going on, but likely didn't know the full extent of the holocaust. a better question in my eyes has always been, what could they have done about it? imagine germany in 1943 and 1944. the war in the east is a disaster. the allies could invade in the west at anytime. germany is under constant bombardment. you're probably female, and your father, your brother, your boyfriend are all at the front fighting, home injured, or dead. travel throughout the country was difficult. the nazi regime was oppressive, and had no hesitation in jailing and executing germans. what could you have done? while there are isolated examples of germans protesting the holocaust (the jehovah's witnesses are a fascinating and courageous example) by and large most germans did nothing. the german reaction to the holocaust is a complex one. immediately after the war people were disgusted with hitler, but wanted more than anything to move on, and there was no deep public reflection on the holocaust and the legacy of nazism. in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s germany went through a process called the Vergangenheitsbewältigung, which involved a coming to term with the holocaust, and a public accounting. similar processes have been ongoing over the last 50 years. today germany has some of the best holocaust education in the west.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
if you have the stomach (or really if anyone reading does), watch the youtube video i linked above. IIRC it's not from a death camp, but rather a labor camp, so most of the people who died there died from starvation or disease. it's.. sobering and moving to see bodies thrown around like cardboard. also your post was by no mean a derail.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 04:18
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:When were camps like Treblinka and Sobibor discovered and understood by the Allies? Since they were completely dismantled and hidden well in 1943 it had to have been post war. while I can't answer specifically, I'd imagine it was either from captured records, or the allies were informed of the location by captured nazis or perhaps by local civilians.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:10 |
|
|
Base Emitter posted:This is way back from page 1, but I just found the thread. there was a big controversy in germany in the 60s (IIRC) when it was discovered that one of the government-funded german research institutes was staffed by a bunch of ex-nazi psuedoscientists. statistically, about 12,000 intellectuals fled germany from 1933 - 1940.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 05:22
|
|