Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Roy Corduroy]

P.S. What constitutes a mild gassing? I had been under the impression that anyone who survived a gas attack was only mildly gassed.

The purpose of the book was actually to debunk the carefully cultivated myth about Hitler's war service, part of the propaganda. A fascinating book really. For instance, it was a Jewish officer who recommended Hitler for the Iron Cross decoration. Hitler was already espousing radical ideas at that time, during WWI. He almost reminds me of Lee Oswald in the US Marines. Except he lived longer.

Roy

[Errata]

Phil doesn't think that, nor do I. The idea. That's what Phil said about connecting Jews and communism. Merging the two. This was co-opted into Hitler's rant. It was not fact, it was propaganda.

Roy

Oh no I understand that. I was commenting that people (generalized people) still do believe that, not that Phil or anyone else here believes that. I don't know if it's because nobody bothered to clear that up in an accessible forum, or they used words that were too big, or nobody paid attention... but we have politicians here say crap like that, and then get off with an apology, and still get elected. And it's usually even a crap apology... like "I did not mean to suggest that ALL Jews are communists" implying that only MOST Jews are communists. But then they will point to phenomenon of the Kibbutz in Israel as an example, and that is communalism, not communism, and if a politician of all people doesn't know the difference then he needs a new job.

On the other hand my grandparents totally were Communists for a few years back in the 30s, so maybe my indignation is a little out of line.

P.S. What constitutes a mild gassing? I had been under the impression that anyone who survived a gas attack was only mildly gassed. I mean, I was maced once, and then a few years later I was slightly maced, and there was not an appreciable difference between the two experiences. But thats a contact issue, so I appreciate that an inhalation issue might have different results.

[Roy Corduroy]

Phil doesn't think that, nor do I. The idea. That's what Phil said about connecting Jews and communism. Merging the two. This was co-opted into Hitler's rant. It was not fact, it was propaganda.

-------------------------------------

Hitler suffered only a mild gassing as a soldier in WWI. In fact he was admitted to the psych ward, suffering a nervous breakdown. It is thought a doctor hypnotized him, then left that hospital and never un-hypnotized him. Thus his trance-like state and intensity. *

* Hitler's first war : Adolf Hitler, the men of the List Regiment, and the First World War / Thomas Weber 2010

Roy

[Errata]

I'm just going to pick out a couple for brevity.

I think that there are at least two explanations for the increase in anti-semisitsm in some countries after 1970 and especially after 1918:

a) look at the history of the protocols of the elders of Zion - a complete hoax, originally a satireb against Napoleon III, taken over by the Ochrana and then promoted by men like JS Chamberlain and Rosenburg;

The surprise is that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had long since been proved to be a hoax. Which the Germans knew. So how does a work that had been sneered at become suddenly acceptable?

To that, I would add, but with less assurance:

* the outgrowth of Theosophy - including the eccentric creeds of the likes of Guido von List, Thule, and the Germanenorden in its various guises. The Aryan myth and the ideas of sub-races etc can be traced directly back to the teachings of Madame Helena Blavatsky and her disciples in the 1880s;

Poor Madame Blavatsky. Her theories seem incredibly racist, but she never particularly meant them as such. Not to mention that Her Aryans were not Hitlers Aryans, which is ironic as Hitler clearly was not his Aryan, but he was hers.

* post 1917, the link between Bolsheviks and communists and the idea of a jewish conspiracy (don't forget the Bolshevik was the BIG bugbear in the 20s and 30s and the idea of the jew as the enemy within was an easy one to peddle.

I have never understood this one, and people believe it to this day. Jews were not Bolsheviks. They were Mensheviks. Not that there is a whole lot to recommend the Mensheviks either, but it means by definition that a: They were against the Bolsheviks and b: They lost, so therefore had no power in the Bolshevik system. Which might explain why they fared so poorly under it.

And I get that the distinction might have been a little fuzzy to people who were deathly afraid of communists, but today? Come on. You can google that crap. Why do people still think that?

[brummie]

The lesson with Germany is that these weren't ill educated people. Yet, with humiliation, despair and a sense that democracy had failed

For a moment there I thought you were talking about modern Britain

But the conditions in many countries are becoming very similar to the 30's and we now see a growing right wing element in many parts of Europe again.

[Hunter]

The lesson with Germany is that these weren't ill educated people. Yet, with humiliation, despair and a sense that democracy had failed ( something that was not an established tradition anyway)... even a refined, cultured society - finding a promise of stability and a return to greatness... and then, seeing that promise somewhat fulfilled, can succumb to the lowest factors of human nature. And if not in total agreement with some of the policies espoused, can still turn a blind eye to the implementations of those policies as long as a sense of belonging to a common purpose is perceived.

I believe most Germans were not antisemitic, but enough were... and the complacency and indifference of the majority allowed the many to follow the few into the abyss.

After the war, the common phrase was, I'm not a Nazi... They didn't have to be.

[Phil H]

I think that there are at least two explanations for the increase in anti-semisitsm in some countries after 1970 and especially after 1918:

a) look at the history of the protocols of the elders of Zion - a complete hoax, originally a satireb against Napoleon III, taken over by the Ochrana and then promoted by men like JS Chamberlain and Rosenburg;

b) the need, in Germany specifically, for a scapegoat, or an outsider, on whom to blame the loss of WWI (1914-18). The myth of the "stab in the back" was conveinetn for many.

To that, I would add, but with less assurance:

* the outgrowth of Theosophy - including the eccentric creeds of the likes of Guido von List, Thule, and the Germanenorden in its various guises. The Aryan myth and the ideas of sub-races etc can be traced directly back to the teachings of Madame Helena Blavatsky and her disciples in the 1880s;

* the anti-semitic views of the the likes of the Mayor of Vienna pre-1914 when Hitler was there in poverty;

* the physical difference of Polish and Russian jews in dress, appearance (hair and beards) physiognomy, manners, and life-style that made them seem a people apart at a time when nationalism in its various guises was very strong; and

* post 1917, the link between Bolsheviks and communists and the idea of a jewish conspiracy (don't forget the Bolshevik was the BIG bugbear in the 20s and 30s and the idea of the jew as the enemy within was an easy one to peddle.

ALL twaddle of course, by any logical, reasoned standard, but easily disseminated and easily digested by ill-educated people.

I suggest this for discussion and expect to be blown out of the water!!

Phil

[Errata]

One of the interesting facets about Nazi Germany is the fact that obviously, anti-semitism was nothing new. Through a good portion of history Jews have been considered second class citizens. However in the late 1800s, there was a real shift from mere second class citizens to a conspiracy of world domination (Thanks a lot Wagner). And even fears of conspiracy against non Jews was nothing new (blood libel etc.) but the world domination part was, well not unique, but highly unusual. However in post WWI Germany, there was a spectacular rise of acceptance. The Roaring Twenties and the Jazz age in Berlin elevated many Jews to stardom, and the works of many Jewish authors philosophers and social critics were much admired. And has been pointed out, there was an acute rise in intermarriages, and interfaith relationships both in real life and portrayed on screen, stage and page. But the rise of Hitler obviously coincided with the downfall of this acceptance.

So which was the deviation? It can certainly be argued that by the 20s Germany had outgrown it's antisemitism. That there was a logical progression towards civil rights, but that economic hardship and a brilliant propaganda campaign caused a backslide. But it can also be argued that the acceptance of the Jazz age was simply part and parcel of the rebellious nature of the era, and that there was never any stable foundation for a lasting change of heart towards the Jews.

Does it matter? Well, yes. Not in terms of culpability or assigning blame. Whats done is done. But the Copts in Egypt I think would be terribly interested in the answer to this question. Do they need to fear an organized campaign against them, or do they need to fear the stability of any regard they may have in the community? Do they need to fear a frontal assault, or the floor collapsing beneath them? What kind of change leads to lasting change? The German regard for Jewish entertainers was still high enough at the height of the Holocaust to warrant them getting a special camp where they would perform for the Nazis. Was there an inherent disconnect with the Germans, or was it simply not wasting a potentially valuable resource?

For me, these are the big questions. The questions that lead to potentially life saving answers.

[Phil H]

A new thread to pick up the discussion from The Titanic thread.