Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Phil H]

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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

If there is a form of Hell in the afterworld, I would like to think of poor Maurice Joly stuck there apologizing to Jewish visitors constantly for the misuse of his attack on Napoleon III in the 1860s. Joly wrote "A dialogue between Montesquois and Machiavelli" Napoleon III was thinly disguised in it as the author of "THE PRINCE", and Monsieur Joly suggested that Nappy III was trying to manipulate Europe so he could take it over. It is this silly satiric jab at the Second Empire that was changed by Okhrana into a conspiracy of the Jewish "Elders of Zion" to take over the globe. It helped Okhrana that in 1897 there was a Jewish based conference in Switzerland called by Theodor Herzl that created Zionism. To ill or vaguely informed people the real incident cemented the Okhrana set of lies into a form of truth. By the way, Arabs and other anti-Semites still market the PROTOCOLS, so there are plenty of boobs still believing them.

German anti-semitism actually existed in the Middle Ages. There were terrible pogroms against Jews in the Rhineland and elsewhere (Mainz, for example) connected to the Crusades, where "good" Chistians figured why not kill the enemies of Christendom at home before going after those in the Middle East. But this was general throughout Europe. England tossed the Jews out in 1290 and did not let them back in until Cromwell and Charles II showed they were more humane in the 1650s-1660s. And Jews were still second class citizens until the 19th Century (we could not be Jewish Members of the House of Commons until the 1850s - Disraeli and David Ricardo were from Jewish families who had converted, so they were in the House as Christians). France too kicked the Jews out in 1300. Jews found homes in Spain and Eastern Europe, and then got blamed for troubles there and were mistreated again. This was normal unfortunately.

But modern German anti-Semitism is from the 1530s. Martin Luther figured that Jews would flock to his form of Protestantism as the great alternative to "evil" Roman Catholicism, and was angered when Jews refused to do so.
So he wrote of Jews as the great evil group in Germany and Europe who were anti-Christ and should be destroyed. He actually is the point where German racism begins here.

Yet, Germany was the location of the creation of my own form of Judaism, Reform Judaism - founded in the late 18th Century by Moses Mendelsohn. Reform suggested (I think sensibly, though Conservative, Orthodox, Chassidic, and Reconstructional Jews would severely question my views) that many of the rules of traditional Judaism should bejettisoned so Jews could be more in tune with the lifestyle of their non-Jewish neighbors (ie. we could eat pork or shell fish, unlike the dietary rules of the Old Testament an Talmud). Mendelsohn was applauded by many in his day for his common sense - which enabled many Jews in Germany to finally leave Ghettos (although the real impetus was Napoleon I when he took over chunks of German and Austrian territories). One of 18th Century Germany's writers, Gottholm Lessing, honored Mendelsohn in his play NATHAN THE WISE, one of the first plays to show a Jewish character as a nice guy (compared with Shylock or Barabas by Shakespear and Marlowe). Mendelsohn's grandson, Felix Mendelsohn - Bartholdi is better recalled these days as a great composer (whose works were forbidden by the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Part II:

The seeming rise of Jews in Germany in the 19th Century is tied to the philosophical underpinnings of Moses Mendelsohn and the "benevolent side effects" of the French Revolution and NapoleonI.* But one has to keep in mind that no advance is smooth anywhere at anytime. Plenty of anti-Semites were prepared in 1815 to send Jews back to the ghettos across Europe. But there was a ne feature involved. It was called Rothschild.

[*Judging from the size of these two messages of mine, this is a big subject, and it would be tremendous to go through figures in country after country who were involved as a friend of Jews or an enemy. France's cultural anti-Semitism seems to go back to Voltaire of all people. But the two men responsible for ending French Ghettoization of Jews are surprising: Maximillian Robespierre got the first law granting equality to Jewish French citizens passed, and Napoleon Bonaparte broke down ghetto walls throughout Europe, and even called a "Sanhedrin" in 1807!]

The phenomenal success and expansion of the five sons of Mayer Rothschild from 1800 to 1814-15 opened doors - possibly more than ten Mendelsohns could have accomplished. One of those doors was the Austrian Chancellor Klause von Metternich. Although he probably was picky about who he personally associated with, Metternich worked closely with the German and Austrian and Neopolitan branches of the bank in developing the Austrian Empire and the German States. He even figured out a way to enable the Rothschilds to be enobled in Austria by special rules and awards (replacing crosses with Jewish stars, ironically enough, for a good reason this time). His form of beneficence actually carried down to later more virulent anti-Semites. Hitler, in his youth, was aware of the most popular mayor in Vienna's history, Karl Lueger, who ran for Mayor (and won) many times on an openly anti-Semitic platform. However, once he was Mayor Lueger would train his racist spleen on left of center Jews (i.e. socialists). Towards figures like the Rothschilds and Baron de Hirsch he was pleasantness personified. When questioned about this Lueger would thunder back, "I'll choose who's Jewish!". **

[**Oddly enough this strange dichotomy existed into World War II. Many Jews got privately protected by well placed Nazi or Axis friends throughout Europe, and lived openly and safely (as long as the friendships lasted). Two who were specifically protected by anti-Semites were the Renaissance scholar and writer Bernard Berenson and the writer and intellectual center of Parisian culture Gertrude Stein. Despite being a Jewish Englishman, Berenson as allowed relative freedom of movement in Italy during the war by Mussolini's orders (Il Duce not being a friend to most Jews). Stein was similarly protected by the Nazi and Vichy governments in Paris and France.]

Jeff

[Adam Went]

Nice work on the new thread and many interesting points have already been raised.

Fleetwood mentioned on the old thread that he disagrees with the view that the Nazis did good things at any point and that they were a "shambles" - this is not true. I cannot stress enough that it is a very touchy subject even now, and far be it from me to compliment anything that horrid party ever did, one needs look no further than their first few years in power to see that they did make some improvements.

As I said in the other thread, unemployment plummeted (admittedly because many people went to work on armaments production, but there was also labor projects, including the manufacturing of cars and roads and similar structures which are iconic to this day - and the unfortunately iconic Hindenburg airship) and national confidence soared - one can't imagine the sufferings the average, innocent German citizen went through in the wake of the World War I defeat and the conditions that were imposed upon them by the victors. The crash of stock markets in 1929 didn't help either.

True, there were already anti-Semitic attacks and fighting even within divisions of the Nazi party (look at what became of Ernst Rohm, SA leader, in 1934) but with the death of Von Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler and his cronies had unlimited power.

I mentioned in the other thread that one commentator once said that if Hitler had died in 1938, he would have been hailed as one of the greatest leaders of his time. I'm not sure if I would go to that extreme but he certainly would have been regarded in a more positive light than his actions and those of the men and women who worked for him over the second half of his reign mean he has now.

Hitler himself was of course born in 1889, just after JTR had finished terrorising London, so he would have grown into adulthood in the lead up years to World War I, and, having lost both of his parents at a fairly young age, he was left to make his own way and form his own ideas during that impressionable time. IMO those experiences of his very early years did something to him which ultimately drove him to do what he did decades later.

Anyway, enough said for now....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Adam,

The source you are referring to is Joachim Fest, whose biog. of Hitler (1973) put forward that controversial idea about Hitler and 'greatness' -- if he had died in 1938.

There is an element to this debate which needs to be mentioned, two in fact.

One, is that the phenomenon of National Socialism was essentially created by the mass unemployment of the 1930's, which in itself was triggered by the collapse of American subsidies to the Weimar economy due to the Wall St Crash.

The normal political parties promised more pain, whereas the Communists promised full employment -- and whose pro-Stalinist ambitions were totally unacceptable to the German middle class and farmers.

But full employment was also on offer from the NSDAP, who were acceptable, because this small but dynamic right-wing party was led by a charismatic nobody -- who now could appeal to a distressed nation of 'nobodies'.

In 1928 the Nazi's scored 2.6 per cent of the national vote. They were a fringe, cultish group -- a joke really. By 1930 they had rocketed to 18%, and then by July 1932, 37% (heartbreakingly by Nov '32 their vote was in decline to 31%. If he not been appointed Chancellor on Jan 30th 1933, the party would have collapsed, and Hitler would have shot himself).

The Great Depression catapulted Hitler into contention as a mass party leader because he promised to make Germany a wonderful, powerful place again for human beings, eg. Aryans, and to purge it once and for all of filth and traitors and fake people, eg, the Jews-Communists which were the same thing.

No Depression, no Hitler, and no genocide at home and in the East.

It is such a startling growth, from the fringe to the centre, that it would be like if 'Ripperologists' formed a small, insular political party and then, incredibly, received a third of the vote?!

The other aspect to consider is that, in a sense, the Nazi's never really came to power at all. For Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser, at al, it was supposed to be a Stormtropper Nation; thus the factories would be nationalised, and the regular army absorbed into the millions-strong Brownshirts.

None of this ever happened because, if Hitler had tried such 'extreme' measures as Chancellor he would have been removed by the same army caste which finally tried to do him in on July 20th 1944. Instead the Fuhrer ruthlessly moved against his own socailistic wing, in 1934, on the 'Night of the long Knives', which delivered him ultimate power and created not an anti-capitalistic S.A. state but a pro-business S.S./Gestapo police state.

[Robert]

A Jewish friend once asked me "What's the most anti-semitic country of all?" So I said, "The Germans?" She said no, it was the Poles.

[Errata]

A Jewish friend once asked me "What's the most anti-semitic country of all?" So I said, "The Germans?" She said no, it was the Poles.

Historically or currently?

Poland is up there in a historical context. So is Russia, and there's an argument to be had that Polish anti-semitism is really Russian anti-semitism.

France has been pretty consistently awful. Even now it's not super-friendly.

If you want to count Biblical times, it's hard to beat Egypt. The Roman Empire wasn't that great either.

Today it doesn't get much worse than Iran.

Although interestingly, if anti-semitism is defined as being against the Jewish religion, it's hard to find a group of people more disdainful of observant Jews than the average Israeli.