The Sinking of the RMS Titanic and other ships.

[Phil H]

It's easy to under-estimate some of the Nazis, through hindsight.

Goering for instance, in the early days was ruthless, possessed both amazing charm and dynamism, and was convincing to many democratic politicians and to reactionaries. He took to drugs and the hedonistic lifestyle degraded his abilities. But his intellect at Nuremburg (when he had been wened off his addictions) was amazing.

Reindadt Heidrich had amazing organisational talents, an aptitide for intelligence work and a malevolence and cunning that was fearsome. One may not warm to him, but one should not deinigrate his abilities. Had he not been assassinated, he could have been extremely powerful in the last years of the Reich.

Himmler had great organisational and bureaucratic ability. His personal "Volkisch" views and arcane obsessions do not, for me, overshadow the fact that it was he who constructed in the SS one of the most sinister, effective and powerful organisations intra-national organisation ever seen. (A modern equivalent of a state-within-a-state might be the Chinese People's Army.)

Goebbels, as has already been pointed out, was a master of propaganda, invented many of the modern methods and processes, and proved an effective leader at the war's end, as Gauleiter of Berlin.

I would also comment that while von Rundstedt was old and cynical, and disdainful of Hitler, he was an able commander in Russia and in the west around - at least at a strategic level - D-Day. His approach differed markedly from Rommel's, but was perhaps more practical.

Phil

[Adam Went]

Errata:

Yup. For me that's the most interesting part of the Nazi era to study, the early days through to the Munich Putsch and up until 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor, just to see how it all unfolded. One must not forget that Hitler was still in prison just a few years before that, writing Mein Kampf and apparently being treated quite well.

Phil:

Agree with your assessments. The Luftwaffe was very powerful at one point, but was mis-managed by Goering who was often more interested in personal gains - see the art collection found amongst his possessions after the war.

As for D-Day, wasn't it Von Rundstedt who was demanding the Panzer reserves which Hitler wouldn't allow? Can't recall the exact details off the top of my head but the Germans were expecting the invasion at or around Pas De Calais and many in the high command thought for some time that the Normandy invasion was nothing more than a diversionary attack to get the bulk of the forces away from Pas De Calais. Rommel was back in Germany with his wife for her 50th birthday when the invasion came.

Of course it's a risky business giving ANY credit to ANY Nazi leaders, that's still a sore point with many, but there's no doubt that some of them were quite capable and were even respected by their enemy commanders at the time, especially the likes of Rommel.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

Of course it's a risky business giving ANY credit to ANY Nazi leaders, that's still a sore point with many, but there's no doubt that some of them were quite capable and were even respected by their enemy commanders at the time, especially the likes of Rommel.

But UNLESS we give them credit, we will never understand how and why the Nazi party achieved power and was able to do what it did. As historians we must strive to analyse and perceive the Nazis just as we would any other political regime - that was how they were seen for the first half, if not more, of their period in power. World statesmen treated them as equals...

Demonising the regime, making the Nazis out to be something extraordinaary, an exception, blinds us to utter banality of much of what they did. Hitler was NOT the anti-Christ, evil incarnate or a devil - he was simply an unstable man, with marked talents as a speaker and organiser who gained power. And their approach, their abilities could be copied and adopted by others, if we are not crystal clear in our perceptions and understanding of their methods.

On Goering - in some ways I see the Luftwaffe as the least of his achievements. It was his role in the 20s and early 30s, as a go-between between Hitler and the German military and aristocracy that helped make Hitler a force. No coward - he held the Por Le Merite and had been last commander of the Richtoffen Squadron - he was acceptable to the military. Look at the range of offices he held in the late 30s - Minister-President of Prussia, 5 Year Plan supremo, founder of the Gestapo and a major hand in the Night of the Long Knives, crucial in the downfall of Blomberg and Fritsch, Master Huntsman of the Reich and the attraction for Halifax in visiting Germany in late 1937.... in some ways he was the social pivot of the regime, a role Hitler eschewed.

Rundstedt as Rommel's superior took a long view of the invasion in 43/44 and looked to allow the landings, then role them back. Rommel thought the allies had to be stopped on the beaches on D-Day.

Rommel, I think, is now perceived by many as a self-publicisit and an ardent supporter of Hitler (if no Nazi) right up to the July plot. Rommel became well known because rommel ensured he did - he had a PR team with him at all times...

Few Nazi generals were not respected by their opponents and it would have been a fool who underestimated them - with the Wehrmacht behind them.

Look at the fighting retreat in Italy in 1943/44 (Casino etc); they came within an ace of seizing Moscow in 1941, had Hitler not determined that oil was more of a prioity; France was rolled up in days; Rommel rolled back the british after their successes against the Italiands in N Africa, with a tiny force (Stephen Bungay has written a brilliant book on Alamein analysing the German approach from a management perspective - if you haven't read Bungay's definitive book on the Battle of Britain, you have missed a treat.)

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

[B]

Demonising the regime, making the Nazis out to be something extraordinaary, an exception, blinds us to utter banality of much of what they did.

Phil,

One of my first essays written at university expanded upon a question handed down from one of our lecturers: "Hitler's foreign policy: continuation or change?"

Were they an exception? German Jews had prospered within Germany (when compared with say Poland, Russia, Eastern Europe). And the record of marriages between Jews and Gentiles was relatively high within Germany (by means of comparison with neighbouring countries).

The Nazi policy towards Jews was certainly exceptional.

Also, there is one feature of the Nazis that was highly unusual among the Western nations: they made race the absolute fundamental driving force underpinning policy.

I think 'Peace and Order', a principle dear to Germans stretching back centuries, was all consuming and meant a blind eye was turned to the worst excesses of authoritatarianism. I suppose it has to be remembered that Germany had no history of democracy.

There certainly are parts of Nazi policy that were a continuation of German principles, but others were radical in their nature. Nietzsche was taken on board as one of their fathers of philosophy, but he would have despised them had he been alive, just as he despised Wagner for similar reasons. So, they may have had some sort of common ground with earlier German thought, and to be honest some British thought, e.g. Darwin, but they certainly did cynically manipulate the thoughts of such people, or simply did not possess the wherewithal to understand what they were saying.

Edited to add: Ian Kershaw did a very good job of showing that war or no war, the Nazi regime would have crumbled by 1950, for economic reasons. Put simply, the foundations weren't in place for effective government: because they really were a pack of idiots.

[Phil H]

FM

My point was less about continuity than about treating the nazi's as in some way exceptional because of their morality. We may all have views on that, but IMHO any approach that starts off from a black v White/good v evil stand-point (i.e. that Hitler and his regime were eceptionally EVIL) will mislead in its conclusions.

One can always point to political continuities and discontinuities - as in any country. But take german aggression - Bismarck was hardly pacific, at least not until he had fulfilled all his territorial ambitions.

The Wilhelminian constitution - created to be operated by and reinforce the Iron Chancellor - put little emphasis on democratic accountability. But the replacement, Weimar constitution was widely perceived as a failure. In any case, Hitler ruled from 1934 under emergency powers, so did not need the Reichstag except as a rubber-stamp. In the mid-30s dictatorship was seen as effective, modern and to be copied (Edward VIII considered, it seems, ruling rather than just reigning to achieve a similar effect in Britain.) Not until the war years was Mussolini seen as a fool - in the early and mid 30s he was seen as the senior dictator and to be courted and feared. Chamberlain - for all his modern image - was an autocratic Prime Minister.

Pre-war (1939-45, I mean) Europe was almost inherently racist and anti-semitic by today's standards. In some countries this was milder than in others, but pogroms had been common in Russia and Poland (which was itself not a pleasant regime).

Many of the eugenic policies introduced by the Nazis had also been put into practice - earlier - in some US states. Racial segregation remained in place in the USA until the 60s and in S Africa until the end of the century.

Some of Hitler's policies are spelled out in his strange autobiography "Mein Kampf", and some of them - while taking an extreme stance - are not inconsistent with polcies of previous European powers - take Lebensraum; Poland had been partitioned several times over the last few hundred years, why not again? Bismarck had annexed territory - Schlezweig-Holstein and Alsace-Lorraine, so why could not Hitler do the same in the east? The Slav countries were seen as weak and with little basis in self-determination? As recently as 1981 the Treaty of brest-Litovsk has seen territory taken from the post-Tsarist Russian regime.

So, while I don't see Hitler as being inconsistent with his predecessors, or historically ungrounded, he did bring a new vehemance and threat to the issues.

The nazis were nasty - no mistake - but only in retrospect are they evil, and for that reason I believe we should see them without anachronism.

I think, basically, we agree though, FM.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

FM

My point was less about continuity than about treating the nazi's as in some way exceptional because of their morality. We may all have views on that, but IMHO any approach that starts off from a black v White/good v evil stand-point (i.e. that Hitler and his regime were eceptionally EVIL) will mislead in its conclusions.

The nazis were nasty - no mistake - but only in retrospect are they evil, and for that reason I believe we should see them without anachronism.

I think, basically, we agree though, FM.

Phil

I think we do agree for the most part, Phil.

Although I would say that the Nazis made race their very reason for being, and that ensures they stand apart from previous German regimes or any other in Western Europe.

On the evil question: I would largely agree that good and evil is a false dichotomy. That said, however, they were evil according to the general consensus of that which constitutes evil. Pick up any book on the holocaust, e.g. Sobibor, and you have a regime devoid of compassion and empathy, which ensures they lie firmly in the 'worst excesses of human existence' camp.

[Phil H]

Pick up any book on the holocaust, e.g. Sobibor, and you have a regime devoid of compassion and empathy, which ensures they lie firmly in the 'worst excesses of human existence' camp.

I wouldn;t disagree with that.

But the Final Solution was not decided upon until well after the war began (The Wansee Conference) and the concentration camp - per se - was not a Nazi invention. As Goebbels was always pleased to point out, that was a British invention during the Boer War.

Looking back, one can see the depths to which the Nazi's sunk and any judgement on the regime must be based (at least in part) on that.

For my own part, I am less interested in making judgements than I am in ascertaining and understanding HOW and WHY they were able to come to power, and stay there. That, for me, means looking at the personalities and the party as it was in the 20s and 30s - and that means a period when a man like Goering was a "force" - part of the conspiracy that brought the Nazi's to power notwithstanding their failure to achieve that goal through the ballot box. Goering was able to convince the generals, the industrialists and the reactionary politicians (like von Papen) that Hitler would act in their interests, thathe would keep the social democrats and the communists out, and perhaps even restore the monarchy - none true, but Goering's charm, presteige and personality did the trick.

Rohm designed and built a very powerful and highly effeective alternative army in the SA. For all his faults he seemed to be a good leader - enough of one to become a threat that the generals and Hitler had to counter. Himmler did something similar, but more subtley, with the SS.

We can see these men as monsters, but that would be like trying to understand a cartoon character as a real person. Hitler and his followers were REAL and all to dangerous, but they wriggled their way into power and came to control the levers of state and the hearts and minds of an entire nation for 12 years. People would say - "oh, they make mistakes, but if the Fuhrer knew he would put things right". How wrong could they have been.

What I find the enigma is precisely HOW Hitler controlled his associates - reducing powerful personalities like Goering or intelligent, confident men like Goebbels, to cowering push-overs in his presence. He surrounded himself with known sycophants like Keitel, Ribbentrop, hess and others, yet could still dictate the agenda, and never really faced an internal threat from the Party (the Army was a different matter). He could remove himself from Berlin for lengthy periods of Bavarian retreat, but never lost control of affairs.

We know Hitler was poorly educated (though he had an excellent and retentive, memory); he was unstable (increasingly so as the war dragged on into defeat); had no military training except at the lowest level, least of all in grand strategy; and before 1919 when he gained confidence as a public speaker, seems never to have impressed anyone with his charisma. He may even have been "gay" and had a past to cover-up. For all that, he retained his grip on affairs until the day in 1945 when he put a bullet through his brain. Remarkable - and quite unrecoverable to anyone who believes Hitler was the devil incarnate, so unique and horrific that he is beyond explanation.

Take that approach and we may fail to prevent a repetition of the same horrors at some future time.

The post is not intended to refute anything you have written, FM, just to make my stance clear.

Phil

[Errata]

Well, I was always taught that idea and actions are evil, but rarely are people evil. Whether or not Hitler was evil is probably a valid debate, and a few other Nazi leaders could be questioned, but as a Jew, I was taught that Germans were not evil. German soldiers were not evil. They were misled, they were human, they made understandable mistakes. But there is no point in blaming them. Not that blame isn't to be had, but blame is to be had by everyone at some point.

The Nazi's did not invent concentration camps. Nor did they invent death camps. Nor did they invent anti-semitism. They certainly took all of these things to new heights of efficiency and zeal, but certainly didn't invent them. Nor were they the only practitioners. In Hebrew school, anytime someone tried to make Germany exceptional in it's treatment of Jews, we were given a grim history lesson. When Jews started fleeing the region, the US would take exceptional Jews, like Einstein, but refused to take people like my great uncle Itzaak. Great Britain would take the children, but not the parents. France under German occupation opened it's own camps, and not exactly at the order of their German occupiers.

Stalin murdered hundred of thousands of Jews, Yemen expelled the Jews, as did Ethiopia. and the Swiss confiscated every single piece of property and every single cent deposited in their banks by the Jews. Whether they had died in the camps or not. And lest we seen as blameless, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and their territories can at best be seen as a ghetto similar to the Warsaw Ghetto, and at worst as a large concentration camp.

So the Nazis and Germans were not unique. Exceptional in execution perhaps, but not unique. Nor were they evil. Impressionable certainly. But Stanley Milgram I think effectively proved that good people do bad things, and the examination of that phenomenon is far more useful than any label of "evil" "monster" or "crazy". There were Nazis to be admired. Even some like Goebbels who you kind of have to admire in a Bond Villain kind of way.

And of course, the victor writes the history. The truth of the American Revolution is nothing nearly so innocent and righteous as our history books told us. Take Germany for what it was and the truth will out. Dismiss the whole because of one part and we learn nothing.

[Robert]

To me, it's a question of the stakes - the higher the stakes, the more cruel and barbaric one is going to be. If someone believes that a certain group of people carry a virus in their blood - the virus of racial inferiority - and that this virus can spread and corrupt the whole of civilization - then watch out for fireworks. Similarly if a certain teaching is deemed heretical and capable of turning men away from the true religion, resulting in the ultimate damnation of men's souls, then don't expect the heretics to be treated with any degree of gentleness. These grand concerns are a curse to mankind.

[Phil H]

One could argue, I think, that after the war it was useful to the allies to create a myth that the German people did not really follow Hitler.

The war crimes trials and dismissals of officials only went to a certain level - it would have been disastrous to go further (unless there were specific reasons to do so) because if you unpicked all the components of the state, German would have disintegrated as iraq did ten years or so ago after the US invasion.

But I see no real evidence thatthe vast majority of the German people were not enthusiastic supporters of the regime (and the Funrer personally) from around 1935 to at least 1942/43 - the years of victory, expansion, "glory" - when Hitler appeared to give Germans back their pride etc.

The BBC documentary, "The Nazis: A Warning from History" includes a telling interview with a woman who signed a denunciation of a neighbour - a woman perhaps a lesbian, but anyway an outsider. It was not the SS/Gestapo seeking out those who were "liberal" but individual Germans reporting them to the authorities.

My point is that Hitler designed and delivered a "political" message to a people that echoes precisely their fears, aspirations, rankles, needs and tailored it to the language and levers that worked best. Hitler and his chief agents were highly effective in what thyey did and how they did it - whether they ever believed they would come to achieve all they did, I do not know.

I think Speer may genuinely have been repulsed by some of the more barbaric henchmen, their methods and their aims, but there was much he was content with. So, I think, with many "decent" Germans, who were prepared to turn a blind eye to some things so long as they did not have to confront them and had delivered the things they aspired to in parallel.

Is that so different from the way the US reacted after "9/11"? Do ordinary Americans really support rendition, and Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grab prison and some of the war crimes that have been committed in their name both in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush adminsitration may not have been in the same league as the Nazis (quite), but given the latitude, how far could men like Cheney and Rumsfeld have gone?

History is there to learn from - I feel we must be honest.

Thanks for your very moving post Errata.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

But the Final Solution was not decided upon until well after the war began (The Wansee Conference) and the concentration camp - per se - was not a Nazi invention. As Goebbels was always pleased to point out, that was a British invention during the Boer War.

Yes, but the Final Solution was the tip of a much bigger iceberg. As the Nazis had made race their reason for being, then they were always on the brink of coming up with mass genocide: the principle was in place long before the Final Solution with all sorts of ideas considered to resolve 'the problem'; all that remained was the tool. It was inevitable that they would arrive at the Final Solution conclusion; it didn't simply appear out of nowhere.

Speaking of holocausts and concentration camps, the Germans tried something similar in Tanzania in 1883, which I suppose argues against my 'change' point.

For my own part, I am less interested in making judgements than I am in ascertaining and understanding HOW and WHY they were able to come to power, and stay there. That, for me, means looking at the personalities and the party as it was in the 20s and 30s - and that means a period when a man like Goering was a "force" - part of the conspiracy that brought the Nazi's to power notwithstanding their failure to achieve that goal through the ballot box. Goering was able to convince the generals, the industrialists and the reactionary politicians (like von Papen) that Hitler would act in their interests, thathe would keep the social democrats and the communists out, and perhaps even restore the monarchy - none true, but Goering's charm, presteige and personality did the trick.

In order to arrive at an acceptable standard of behaviour then a judgement call has to be made. I would agree, though, that it is a worthwhile exercise to attempt to understand what happened. The depression certainly was one factor, as was the street violence employed by the Nazis, as was the German history of authoritarianism etc.

In terms of how they were able to stay there, I wouldn't dispute that they had support; I would argue, though, that it isn't easy to turn back the tide of coercion and intimidation.

One thing I would say: I don't think this could ever happen in Britain, due to our history and ideas, the way we see the world and ourselves; so I wouldn't rule out altogether there being something in the German mind that made this possible.

We can see these men as monsters, but that would be like trying to understand a cartoon character as a real person.

Whatever I said above, I do agree with the general point that we are all capable of 'good' and 'evil'. But, there is such a thing as a framework within which human action takes place; I think conditions existed within Germany that simply aren't there in Britain.

What I find the enigma is precisely HOW Hitler controlled his associates - reducing powerful personalities like Goering or intelligent, confident men like Goebbels, to cowering push-overs in his presence. He surrounded himself with known sycophants like Keitel, Ribbentrop, hess and others, yet could still dictate the agenda, and never really faced an internal threat from the Party (the Army was a different matter). He could remove himself from Berlin for lengthy periods of Bavarian retreat, but never lost control of affairs.

One of his tried and tested methods was to give his subordinates the same task, and it follows engender a sense of rivalry and jealousy. The oldest trick in the book, and one you will see in many an office. Another method was that he didn't give many orders at all. He allowed his subordinates to dream up ways of doing things and spend their time trying to impress him. All of this was part of his misreading of Darwin: a survival of the fittest (which of course Darwin never said at all, at least not in the context Hitler understood it) leaning where his best men would triumph at the expense of the others.

Whether evil or not, the man really was stupid. Unbelievably stupid, and lazy. And, ultimately, full of ****.

The post is not intended to refute anything you have written, FM, just to make my stance clear.

Phil

I know that, Phil, I'm enjoying the discussion and I would imagine you or anyone else would disagree with me on something!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Phil,

As a measure of their stupidity:

Nietzsche believed, among others things, that a healthy man makes his own way; his values are his own and a statement of his own vitality; not values generated by a reaction to those whom you don't like or are in a position of power etc.

So what did the Nazis go and do? They made Nietzsche one of the fathers of their philosophy while blaming everything on 'the Jews'.

They really couldn't be more stupid and ignorant of what Nietzsche was actually saying. In the event Nietzsche had been alive, God alone knows what he would have made of it. He'd already renounced his German citizenship; I imagine he would have left the country and set up shop elsewhere.

[Robert]

I think the Nazis tried to rope in Hegel too.

Nietzsche would have been appalled to be associated with the Nazis. Unfortunately he had a rotten sister.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think the Nazis tried to rope in Hegel too.

Nietzsche would have been appalled to be associated with the Nazis. Unfortunately he had a rotten sister.

All true, Robert.

Similarly Darwin: they misunderstood what he was saying and were more in tune with Herbert Spencer.

They did manage to rope in the living Martin Heidegger, who though not particularly anti-semitic, was attracted to their anti-liberal sentiment.

Really interesting how such a radical, brilliant philosopher such as Heidegger could end up in cahoots with that lot.

[Phil H]

A lot of the "philosophy" the Nazi's used to back up their ideas was actually a screen. Sophistry rather than philosophy, I think (i.e. you choose your conclusion and then justify it).

Rosenberg (a Balt, I seem to recall, rather than a German) was the Party's chief "theoriser". He relied more of Houston Stewart Chamberlain than anyone else. H S Chamberlain (no relation to the PM as far as I know) was, I think, a theosopist (follower of Madame Blavatsky and her odd ideas).

Himmler's staring point was Volkisch ideas, but he then got into a lot of odd ideas related to the former germanenorden and the Thule Society (a progenitor of the Nazi Party in the 1918-22 period). They traded on the strange ideas of Sebbotendorf, Guido von List and other Arian followers such as Karl Maria Wiligut who was a member (Brigadier, or some such) in the SS.

In order to arrive at an acceptable standard of behaviour then a judgement call has to be made.

What is an acceptable standdard of behaviour in historical terms - where were the limits Churchill must have obeyed had the Germans invaded the Uk in 1940? When is the Taliban wrong or the French Reistance right? Surely it is all perceptual, rather than absolute, it depends on whether you regard yourself as subject or master, equals or enslaved (mentally or physically)?

Finally, "working up to the Fuhrer as it was called" - trying to ascertain his views then out do them, without orders - was certainly used by many Nazis to get their ideas across and gain favour. Yet, for all that they were never inclined to overthrow Hitler, despite his many weaknesses and their talents? Why?

Phil