Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Errata]

He's not blameless, but I can't quite put him in the same catagory as the Nazi leadership.

Jeff

It's funny. I can't put him in the same category as the Nazi's either, if I compare the two. However, if you get me started on Nanking (in which Hirohito absolutely took an active role), I will absolutely use words like genocide, evil, monstrous, etc. I will directly compare him to the Nazi leadership and the Final Solution.

So it appears that I DO put them in the same category, when I'm not... taking it personally I guess. More like, If I let my righteousness talk, and not my self-righteousness.

[Phil H]

I think Hirhito is an example of hardcore real politique at work.

The Americans needed some way to restore an element of normality to the post-war Japanese situation.

I think, given the Japanese regard for "face", preserving the central religious and constitutional figure of the Emperor, traditionally kept out of politics for much of history, the convenient myth that the Hirohito was above wartime events was quite a brilliant move.

In Germany the political leaders were either dead (Hitler, Himmler, Borman) or sentenced to death (or long terms of imprisonment). The myth in Germany was that Nazism had only been "skin deep" - that unless there were exceptional circumstances, ordinary German soldiers and civilians were regarded as "innocent". I don't believe it for a moment, but it was "necessary".

Surely, the vacuum created after the recent invasion of Iraq, with the disbandment of such things as the Army and Police Force because they were perceived as too Ba'athist, was a disaster. In retrospect, some way should have been found of retaining the rank and file (at least) of both Services and maybe some of the leadership cadre.

Perhaps our forebears were both more forsighted and more realistic - even more practical - than our leaders today?

Phil

[Errata]

Perhaps our forebears were both more forsighted and more realistic - even more practical - than our leaders today?

Phil

Well, pragmatism isn't always a virtue, although certainly Japan fared astonishingly well after what should have been a cataclysmic failure with World War II. Germany clearly struggled, but through no fault of it's own. Serving two masters pretty much screws everyone over.

Certainly it is vital to preserve a nation's dignity and sense of self determination after a defeat. Sometimes I think that we thought that with Iraq, we would just get to that part at the end, when really we needed to be constantly replacing what we took away.

In a way, the Berlin Wall model could have been a brilliant strategy in Iraq. Having half of the populace feeling rewarded and very lucky could be a useful tool. Having the other half of the population desperately wanting to be on the other side of the wall where things are much better is also useful. There is, in a weird way, no better scenario for introducing Western ideals as something to be coveted. If a small farmer has only ever known the same government, the same social ideals, the same restrictions, then it becomes a tradition he wants to preserve. But as soon as he sees another guy on the other side of the wall who works as much as he does, prays as much as he does, but can afford to send his kids to college, then he's willing to bet on change.

Not that I recommend building a wall in Iraq. It's a terrible thing to do to a country. But from a purely intellectual standpoint it has interesting possibilities.

[Robert]

Hi Phil

Oh, I'm not suggesting that Hitler's ideas originated with him (except perhaps for his ideas on propaganda). But I think the racial idea was his contribution to German national politics, in the sense that here was a party whose very raison d'etre was race. I cannot imagine a Kaiser Wilhelm or a Bismarck operating a policy of genocide, euthanasia for the unfit, eugenics for the fit (to the point where well-bred babies could literally fall off the backs of lorries), massive use of slave labour, the abduction of "Germanic" children from conquered territories, and that telling remark "we are barbarians. It is an honourable title." Add to this the fact that even within Germany, the "racial idea" was still upheld, not in the old sense of a traditional aristocracy, but simply in the sense that he who got to the top was by definition the most "racially valuable." This may have been circular but it's what the Nazis seem to have believed. I think that if Hitler had managed to achieve this ambitions, the bulk of ordinary Germans would have found their lot to be rather similar to that of the conquered peoples.

[Jonathan H]

To Jason C

Roosevelt's New Deal, especially the second phase under left-wing pressure from his rival Senator Huey Long, halved unemployment via the WPA, the TVA et al.

But it was not until WWII that the US economy did what Nazi Germany already had done under Dr. Schacht in peacetime; soak up persistent mass unemployment via massive armaments spending and enlarging the armed forces. Once the US had a planned economy from 1942, with rationing, and built things it then destroyed -- planes, tanks, warships -- then built more of them, you even had underemployment which forced women into 'man's' jobs in factories -- which they dud just as competently if not more so

To Phil H

Your thumbnail of Hitler leaves something out.

The lazy, Austrian drop-out-dreamer proved himself a courageous and reliable soldier in the Great War. True, he lied about being in the trenches for four years when really he was at staff HQ as a messenger -- but most messengers were killed. He earned his medals,a nd refused promotion above Lance Corporal because he did not want to leave the regiment and the only 'family' he knew.

With defeat came a shocked and embittered Hitler's conversion to a grotesque and monstrous, pathological anti-Semitism which became genocidal. He sincerely believed that alleged 'World Jewry' was behind Capitalism and Communism, and Germany's defeat, and the rape of Gentile children and so on, all that disgusting, lunatic tripe.

Fest's point was that such an 'unperson' could never assume the seat of Bismarck unless there was an unprecedented catastrophe which turned Germany into 'Unperson Nation'.

Enter, the Great Depression, and deflation and mass unemployment (hyperinflation in 1923 did not catapult Hitler to power)

[Phil H]

Germany clearly struggled, but through no fault of it's own. Serving two masters pretty much screws everyone over.

Through most of my youth (I was born some 6 years after the war), WEST Germany was regarded as an economic miracle - so I don't know to what you refer.

On building a Berlin Wall in Iraq

I always thought that building the original wall was perceived as the act of a dictatorship, as illiberal and threatening.

But maybe that's the way the US wants to be seen these days!!

Jonathan - I don't think much divides us on this. But I'm not sure that Hitler necessarily "cheated" in his description of his war record (he won the highest level of the Iron Cross, after all) and was wounded in action. I don't think he was in any way a physical coward and I don't think it matters much, anyway.

MANY people believed in a jewish conspiracy post WWI to some extent even in the democracies - I have already mentioned the role of the Protocols (fictitious they may be but they were believed - Stephen Knight, writing about JtR drew on them in the 70s!).

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Hi Jeff.

Offering a differing point of view on this:

The pre 1700s were blighted by religious strife that did not only affect 'the Jews'. There were all sorts of people being turfed out for their non conformist views. That was the name of the game then, with the established church being at the head of the state.

In the modern period, Germany had a good record of relations (good in the sense of what was going in elsewhere, granted).

I would agree with Hunter in the main that the majority of Germans weren't anti-semitic. 'Peace and Order' was a phrase dear to the Germans. But there is a contradiction here: Hitler didn't bring 'Peace and Order'; he brought carnage.

It's a bit of a mess to try and figure it out, and I suppose the Nazis played the oldest trick in the book by offering everyone something in a populist extravaganza with little ground in reasoned politics.

But, don't underestimate the part played by street violence and coercion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As a representative of the Jewish peoples, I absolve you of sympathizer status. The fact is any political party completely without positive attributes cannot claim power for any length of time. It has to benefit a certain amount of the populace in order to sustain office. So of course they did some things really well. If they didn't, they never would have gotten to 1937.

They were lucky, and played the oldest card.

Germany's economy was recovering prior to their taking of power, and the Nazis knew this, which is why they took power through less than legitimate means.

The economy improved thereafter, granted, but what sort of government makes armament their economic policy? Quite clearly, it meant a war was inevitable; I mean, what were they going to do with all this machinery which cost to keep in service?

So, the Nazis came up with a government based on coercion, war and race. Very stupid in my book, and one that could only have lead to disaster.

In sum: they weren't constructing a healthy, vibrant Germany for the long term; they were leading the country into the abyss, which Hitler didn't care about because he and associates felt there was some sort of glory in going out with a fight. Warped by anyone's standards.

[Robert]

Hi Fleetwood

I don't think Hitler thought he was on the way out. I think he hoped to conquer the USSR and make the war pay for itself. True, he was a gambler, but each time he gambled and won he felt increasingly invincible, or singled out by Providence. In any case, the man was incapable of consolidating, since he had a kind of mental St Vitus dance.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood

I don't think Hitler thought he was on the way out. I think he hoped to conquer the USSR and make the war pay for itself. True, he was a gambler, but each time he gambled and won he felt increasingly invincible, or singled out by Providence. In any case, the man was incapable of consolidating, since he had a kind of mental St Vitus dance.

Hi Robert,

Well, from the outset Hitler and associates weren't 100% confident of victory. There are references to the 'quality' (if that's the right word) of the Slavs. They simply felt the world wasn't big enough for both of 'em so one of 'em had to go. And, the Germans trained them in exchange for vehicles/weapons during the 1920s, and arrived at the conclusion the Russians would be a tough nut to crack.

A point aside: in Wilhelmine Germany, 'the Asiatic Hordes' were the problem with propaganda posters sent by the King himself to his cousins suggesting the christian nations were about to be savaged by 'the yellow peril'.

[Jonathan H]

To Phil H

The significance of Hitler's war record is that an Austrian veteran of the German army, but not a citizen of his chosen country for many years, this ex-Corporal (and ex-vet of homeless mens' shelters) could credibly claim to represent the German people -- once the country was turned into one gigantic Homeless shelter.

Without four years on the front line, to put it braodly, then nobody would ever have listened to his ranting oratory and he could never have arisen to become the absolute dictator of a country not his own.

In fact he never really set out to become a mob orator, it happened by accident, at least intially.

For an unscrupulous dissembler, Hitler spoke very true words when he said to a crowd in 1932: 'you found me and I found you.'

[Errata]

Germany clearly struggled, but through no fault of it's own. Serving two masters pretty much screws everyone over.

Through most of my youth (I was born some 6 years after the war), WEST Germany was regarded as an economic miracle - so I don't know to what you refer.

Perhaps more fair to say half of the country struggled, at least economically and politically. I would say the whole country struggled in terms of self determination. They felt they were a divided country. And it's hard to be self determined when half of your population is bottled up in an oppressive regime.

On building a Berlin Wall in Iraq

I always thought that building the original wall was perceived as the act of a dictatorship, as illiberal and threatening.

But maybe that's the way the US wants to be seen these days!!

Phil

Oh it's completely amoral. Dictatorial, demeaning, completely unacceptable in terms of foreign affairs. The US would never consider such a thing.

But sometimes amoral actions lead to positive results. I think everyone would wish that the Holocaust had never happened, but if it hadn't, and if the Allied countries hadn't feared a massive influx of Jews into their own population, Israel never would have been established. Bosnia would have been ten times worse. And oddly enough we might never have learned how to treat people who had been submerged in freezing water for an extended time, and we wouldn't have the amazing medical procedures for the heart that stemmed from that knowledge.

I'm not suggesting we build a wall in Iraq. I'm just saying that it might be a cheap and dirty way to win hearts and minds. But just because it might be a shortcut doesn't mean I think it's worth it. Just a concept I was toying with out loud.

[Roy Corduroy]

...if the Allied countries hadn't feared a massive influx of Jews into their own population

Blaming the Allies for the Holocaust is wrong. On every level. It's revisionist history at its worst.

Roy

[Mayerling]

It's funny. I can't put him in the same category as the Nazi's either, if I compare the two. However, if you get me started on Nanking (in which Hirohito absolutely took an active role), I will absolutely use words like genocide, evil, monstrous, etc. I will directly compare him to the Nazi leadership and the Final Solution.

So it appears that I DO put them in the same category, when I'm not... taking it personally I guess. More like, If I let my righteousness talk, and not my self-righteousness.

Hi Errata,

Thanks for at least correcting about his involvement in the rape of Nanking. But on the whole I still think the Emperor's position with the militants was far more tricky than Hitler's with the Junkers. At no time in the 1930s did the German military heirarchy confront Hitler and demand that BOTH the storm troopers and the S.S. be disbanded or he be kicked out. The Junkers were far too passive. I don't know if this was due to their secret guilty feelings that they failed the German people by not winning the Great War, and were in a psychological moment to actually accept a civilian government run by a fiery militant. But whatever was the cause they did not confront and force change on Hitler (I suspect if they had he may very well have collapsed or given in). With Emperor Hirohito his position was not that secure. The title of Emperor (in the national Shinto religion) held people's awe and support, but did not fully translate to the small who wore the uniform and rode the horse at national occasions. Hirohito's position with the militants control reminds me of a line from an old movie where Claude Rains is a famous early 20th Century stage producer and dramatist. Asked if he can save an actress in a grueling, difficult role, Rains yells out, "I'm David Belasco - I can make a telegraph pole look good on stage!" Similarly the militarists like Tojo could have told Hirohito, "We are so good we can make your brother look like a better Emperor than you!" And I am afraid Hirohito knew that.

[Zodiac]

And oddly enough we might never have learned how to treat people who had been submerged in freezing water for an extended time, and we wouldn't have the amazing medical procedures for the heart that stemmed from that knowledge.

Hi Errata, et al,

Bloody typical!!! I'm only away for a week and yet I return to find that some kind of terrible "Putsch" has taken place, and that this has now become "The Adolf Hitler Casebook"!!! On a more serious note, while I would not consider myself qualified enough to add anything particularly new to this debate, I can most certainly confirm the truth of Errata's above quote. The Luftwaffe had found that many of its downed pilots/aircrew were still alive in the water when the S-Boat/E-Boat etc. arrived on the scene, and yet so many of them died in the very process of being rescued. While it cannot, ever, even come within a million miles of justifing the very existance of the camps, let alone excusing all of the the unspeakable "medical experiments" that were carried out, it does remain a simple fact that the whole way we go about recovering a person from prolonged immersion in ice cold water has undergone something of a revolution due to the knowledge gleaned from Nazi experiments which, I'm very sorry to say, used humans as guinea pigs.

Best wishes,
Zodiac.