Hitler, the Nazis and World War Two etc etc

[Mayerling]

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.

Hi Fleetwood,

I am willing to accept that universal intolerance reigned in the pre 1700s as you say. There is a book that was a popular best seller in the 1960s Max I. Dimont's JEWS, GOD, AND HISTORY, and in it Dimont actually made a comment like yours. He said that despite the history of anti-Semitic violence towards Jews in the medieval and reformation periods, there was no point where Jews found themselves put on a protective shelf: i.e. - say at the notorious rape and destruction of Magdeburg in the Thirty Years War, if the attacking troops entered a Jewish ghetto, they did not say to the Jews, "Are you Jewish or Christian?" Nor, had the Jews answered that they were Jews would the soldiers have said, "Oh, sorry to disturb you - we are going after your Christian neighbors only today!" It did not work like that. In 1648 the Jews in Poland were one of several groups aimed at for destruction by the Ukranians under Bogdan Chmielnicky. They were massacred (in some of the worst attrocities suffered by Jews that were comperable to the Holacaust) along with Polish people and Roman Catholic (and Lutheran) clergy. So you are valid on your point there.

I certainly don't underestimate street violence and coercion.

Jeff

[Errata]

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

Roy

It certainly would be revisionist history at it's worst. I assume you mention it because you thought I suggested it. I did not. I suggested that the Holocaust AND the Allies unwillingness to allow Jews to immigrate was responsible for the formation of Israel. Allies feel awful about the Holocaust, and are very nervous about a Jewish influx into their own countries, give them their own country, problem solved. Guilt assuaged.

The Allies have no responsibility for the Holocaust, though I think everyone could agree that things might have been different had they made the liberation of camps a priority. Not a lot different, but maybe a little. But that doesn't make the Allies any more responsible for the Holocaust than a fireman who makes a few rookie mistakes is responsible for the fire being set. The best anyone could do was mitigate damage as best as they were able, and even that requires reliable intelligence. And it remains unclear how much of that we had in our possession, and whether it ever got where it was needed. Certainly it was known they existed, but since the soldiers and commanders who liberated the first dozen camps or so had no idea they were there, what they were, and had never even heard of such a thing, it begs a few questions. One would assume that the US army, knowing that their guys were going into territory where there were camps, would have sent out a blurb saying "Hey guys, you might run into death camps. Be polite and call us immediately-love, the Brass". But they didn't. Eisenhower knew about them in theory, but evidently the information was never disseminated. So how can you ask someone to rescue a people they have no idea are in severe danger? And since it makes no sense to withhold information that in a very real sense profoundly affects the soldiers, it can only be assumed that the people who would ordinarily make that decision just didn't know. But there were camps in Paris that weren't shut down til 44-45. How does THAT happen?

I think it can only happen if the Allies just were not in possession of the information that the US government and stateside Jews had. That death camps and concentration camps were a very real threat, and numerous enough to make a serious dent in non-Aryan populations. So how does THAT happen?

[Roy Corduroy]

... the Allies unwillingness to allow Jews to immigrate was responsible for the formation of Israel. Allies feel awful about the Holocaust, and are very nervous about a Jewish influx into their own countries, give them their own country, problem solved. Guilt assuaged.

Are you talking about before, during, or after the war? I'm not sure what you're getting at. It was only three years after the war that Israel became a nation.

As to the US Army and the death camps, and any malfeasance on the part of the Allies resulting in lives losts that could have been saved, I am in total disagreement with you on that. The wholesale liberation of the camps by the western allies was a physical impossibility. Just look at a map.

Roy

[Adam Went]

Errata:

Thank you, i'm pleased that you understand my point of view. It's quite a good thing that there has been a lot of reconciliation between old enemies in recent years - notably the 60th anniversary of D-Day back in 2004 - but there's still a lot of open wounds and probably always will be, so it's a risky business for some to offer anything resembling positive thoughts of the Nazis, even from the earlier, less brutal part of their reign.

But indeed history is history and it must be recorded as accurately and without prejudices as much as possible.
Phil H:

I think you're pretty much spot on in what you say.
Hitler had the power of oration, he was a great speaker - there's many accounts of how he would grasp the attention of a crowd and keep them spellbound. This was in his younger and more energetic days, towards the end of the war he was a very sick man and a shadow of his former self, not to mention delusional at times.

But in the 30's he had the ability to unite the nation behind him, even if some people still had their doubts. Many people had misgivings in the back of their mind but saw how successful their country was going so they just went with it.

They might see a Jewish friend from the neighbourhood being beaten up or looted, but let it slide because their own fortunes had improved so dramatically. It was this tendency to turn a blind eye which led to more difficulties in later years.

I've had the good fortune of communicating with both Allied and German war veterans over the years and they are all perfectly decent individuals, but like millions of others they got swept up in a massive tidal wave with Hitler at the very top in the 30's - especially, as i've mentioned, for the younger ones such as members of the Hitler Youth who grew up during that period and were indoctrinated from the beginning.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

One of the biggest and most unexpected changes I have seen in my life, along with the fall of the Berlin Wall/end of USSR, is the changed public perception of the state of Israel.

For about 2 thirds of my life, there was - in the west at least - a sort of deference of Israel and its policies (I have always assumed based on a sort of collective guilt for the events of 1933-45).

Now, as with growing ant-Americanism (certainly in the UK, maybe across Europe) I see and sense a dramatic change to a more critical attitude to Israel.

So I would ask this question - was the creation of the state of israel, in hindsight, a wise or sensible decision. While problems would have replaced those we know today, would world peace, and certainly the Middle east, have been better off without Israel exisiting? (I'm assuming that Jews would have gone on living safely in individual countries.)

I believe that there was once a scheme to settle Jews/create a state of israel in what is now Uganda. I have always had a mental picture that, if that had happened, the Jews in that never-was Israel, would have spent their time fighting their way step by step back to what they saw as their true homeland in the Levant. (Maybe the what-ifs of Israel might warrant a separate thread though.)

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Now, as with growing ant-Americanism (certainly in the UK, maybe across Europe) I see and sense a dramatic change to a more critical attitude to Israel.

I would dispute this 'growing anti-Americanism' in the UK.

In Europe, there has always been a sort of 'look down your nose' attitude when viewing the US (among some sections, obviously others thought it attractive enough to move there), but I would say that applies more to France and Germany than England.

From the very moment the US was formed, Europeans scoffed, particularly the elites/establishment. So you have the likes of de Toucqueville with a back handed compliment: 'they're engaged in politics over there but they'll always vote for mediocre leaders' (or words to that effect).

The whole thing is borne out of arrogance, misplaced at that, because, in fact, the Americans have a political system that is an improvement on the European model, and they have been successful by anyone's standards. And, bizarrely, your average American was better fed and better educated than your average European when all of this scoffing was taking place, because of course de Toucqueville was really talking about preserving a by-gone age while the Americans were talking about progress.

The only anti-Americanism in England that I can think of are among those who have always existed: the liberal middle classes who are besotted with France and her culture (Independent readers).

And, I suppose the American Empire will be brought up somewhere along the line, but then we've all had a crack at it; and personally if it can't be us I'd much rather it be the Americans than the Chinese, Russians or continental Europeans.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So you are valid on your point there.

Jeff

Fair enough, Jeff.

I think John Locke made a big mistake when he garnished 'tolerance' with the caveat of being intolerant of the intolerant. It's all or nothing in my book, and it would pay to allow people their views and lifestyle no matter the general consensus.

I'm certainly not excusing any violence towards any group because it shouldn't happen and there's nothing worse than bullying. I suppose I'm attempting to place it in its historical context, which I suppose is a big argument for separation of church and state.

[Phil H]

I would dispute this 'growing anti-Americanism' in the UK.

Well, my perception is different.

Post the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I both sense and dicoverin conversations, a much increased cynicism about the US, its culture and values and a feeling that the UK should not be "America's poodle", that very much draws on that.

This is in direct contrast to the views I have found through most of my life.

My discussions arise from a wide range of contacts with all manner of people, and are not mine (I am broadly and strongly pro-US).

The regime was perceived as particularly unlikeable, and I would say lost much of the UK sympathy post 9/11. Obama was initially greeted almost as a messiah here, but again is now seen much less positively.

Happy to expand on this,

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would dispute this 'growing anti-Americanism' in the UK.

Well, my perception is different.

Post the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I both sense and dicoverin conversations, a much increased cynicism about the US, its culture and values and a feeling that the UK should not be "America's poodle", that very much draws on that.

This is in direct contrast to the views I have found through most of my life.

My discussions arise from a wide range of contacts with all manner of people, and are not mine (I am broadly and strongly pro-US).

The regime was perceived as particularly unlikeable, and I would say lost much of the UK sympathy post 9/11. Obama was initially greeted almost as a messiah here, but again is now seen much less positively.

Happy to expand on this,

Phil

Seems we mix in very different circles, Phil.

Obama may have been popular with The Guardian and The Independent, but I don't recall the welcome that he received in Germany being replicated here: surely one measure of his popularity.

The vast majority of people (in fact just about everyone) I know have virtually no interest in the United States, except her music and films. Not pro nor anti-US.

I would say, at the risk of simplifying this, that, of those who care one way or the other, the left tend to lean towards continental Europe and the right to the US.

I think England is an insular nation, comes with being an island nation, and in my view the like of The Guardian and The Independent tend to overplay the whole thing as those people really need a cause.

So, I don't think the strength of feeling, one way or the other, is there.

And, I'm scratching my head struggling to understand exactly why the 'Americans' should be the object of anyone's frustrations. What? Foreign policy is driven by self-interest? Well, there's a surprise. Of course, the French are these virtuous human beings toiling ceaselessly for everyone bar themselves.

And, Britain as the US's poodle? Oversimplified. We get a very good deal out of the Americans running the world; the best we could expect considering we're a small nation off the North West coast of Europe. Again, foreign policy driven by self-interest.

I think there's a lot of jealousy, which is why people point out the like of Iraq, which I agree with by the way (I think democracy is organic and people have to sort it out for themselves), but fail to get their own house/s in order. Anything to criticise the US, because, let's face it, they left Europe behind about 60 years ago and continue to prosper in a way we do not.

[Errata]

So I would ask this question - was the creation of the state of israel, in hindsight, a wise or sensible decision. While problems would have replaced those we know today, would world peace, and certainly the Middle east, have been better off without Israel exisiting? (I'm assuming that Jews would have gone on living safely in individual countries.)

Well Israel is certainly a tangle, but in the end, we aren't just talking about Israel. Was it a wise and sensible decision? In the end it doesn't matter. Regardless of whether or not the UN had ever voted for independence, Israel has won it many times over. Something akin to Henry VII's ascension to the English throne. "De jure belli et de jure Lancastriae". Primarily throught right of conquest, and a little bit by virtue of Lancastrian blood. Israel is primarily a country because no one has ever managed to take it away from them, and lord knows they've tried, and a little bit because the UN says so.

But without Israel, the British Mandate territories would have had to be divided another way. The entire area could have made into Jordan, But that would have made them huge, and I'm pretty sure Egypt wouldn't stand for that. They could have created Jordan and divided the rest between Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, but whoever got the coast would get the wealth, and again I don't think Egypt would have let that go. They could have created Palestine for Palestinians, but then the Palestinians would be in no better shape, because they would be ruled completely by the Arabs who had been living in the area.

Clearly the region does not think well of Jews as a rule. But they also don't think well of Palestinians, Jordanians, the Lebanese, and the Copts. I think the only acceptable solution for Egypt has been to control that territory, whoever technically holds the keys. At least Israel is strong enough to hold their own, where most of the other groups would not have been able to stand.

Did the UN do anyone any favors? No. But it was a little bit no win, and while it hasn't turned out great, I think it has turned out for the best of a bad bunch of scenarios.

[Roy Corduroy]

Cancel my Guilt Trip

I suggested that the Holocaust AND the Allies unwillingness to allow Jews to immigrate was responsible for the formation of Israel. Allies feel awful about the Holocaust, and are very nervous about a Jewish influx into their own countries, give them their own country, problem solved. Guilt assuaged.

What Guilt? There is no guilt for the allies. None. Nothing to assauge. We defeated the Nazis. The word guilt has no part in the discussion of the Allies and the Jews. That is some kind of revisionist thought that has been made up since.

The formation of Israel had been in progress for decades, with steadily increasing imigration. Your version of the creation of Israel, springing out of some kind of guilt and refusal for Jews to imigrate to the west is misguided at the least. Are you saying Zionism didn't exist? That there was no movement going back decades? The emergence of Israel as a state coincided with independence movements all over the globe after the war. Are you confusing Israel with colonialism? I really don't get your point at all. But again, the word guilt has nothing to do with it as far as the western allies are concerned. How you get that word guilt in there is beyond me. Sympathy yes, guilt, no.

The Allies have no responsibility for the Holocaust, though I think everyone could agree that things might have been different had they made the liberation of camps a priority

I am in total disagreement.

We were fighting a global, two-front war, Euroupe and the Pacific, and decided early on to give priority to the European Theater. So it isn't like we were shorting the effort there. In the invasion of occupied Euroupe, if we were guilty of anything it was over-optimism, projecting we would defeat Germany by Christmas. No way. Instead, from D-Day June 6, 1944 in France it was eight and a half months before we crossed the Rhine on March 23 1945. And then we went only as far as the Elbe River, where we met the Russians, and by agreement, stopped. The war ended soon after, on May 8. In the short time we fought our way across western Germany we liberated camps as fast as we could. The vast killings fields and death camps in the east were entirely beyond our zone.

How someone can take our victory over the Nazis, and the creation of the state of Israel, and turn it into an American guilt trip boggles my mind.

Roy

[Robert]

Re the lack of effective opposition to the Nazis inside Germany : what Hitler did in 1933 was to completely take over civil society. In other words, people will only act if they can act together. Without the backing of, e.g. trade unions, or political parties, no one wants to stick his head up in case his is the only head sticking up and it gets shot off.

Re the camps etc, I think it was AJP Taylor who said that in WW1, everyone believed that the Germans were raping nuns etc when in general they weren't, whereas in WW2 when the Germans were doing such things, nobody would believe it. It's hard to say how much the Allies knew. I have a book somewhere about some Jews in Warsaw trying to get the message out. I'll see if I can find it.

[Errata]

How someone can take our victory over the Nazis, and the creation of the state of Israel, and turn it into an American guilt trip boggles my mind.

Roy

Not an American guilt trip, an Allied guilt trip. Which was more than just the US. And it was not guilt over the Holocaust. It was guilt over not taking in the hundreds of thousands of refugees who could not, or did not want to return home. Zionism and emigration to the Holy Land had been taking place since the mid 19th century. But the resettling was not bringing them any closer to recognized statehood. That took World War II. It took a large amount of homeless Jews that were being turned away from the US, Britain, forced out of Russia, Poland, Hungary, etc. It took Jews being taken from Nazi concentration camps and put into British internment camps (even a few American ones, like Ft. Oswego)because they refused to go home to a place that did not keep them safe, or would no longer keep them safe. The policies were bad. And Truman did a good job with fixing our Displaced Persons policy, but not in time to prevent some pretty awful decisions. The St. Louis springs to mind. Did the US feel guilty? Certainly some of the UN staff did, although whether or not that guilt affected the vote, no one can say. Should they have? A little for the immigration policy. Though to be fair, it was not solely Allied guilt that led to the formation of Israel. Jews and Palestinians blowing up the British had an impact. The irony of that whole situation is pretty evident. Certainly Britain HAD to give up the territory, but they had an established relationship with the Palestinians, and there was no reason for them to create a Jewish state there. So it boils down to guilt over the Jews, or spite for the Palestinians, and I'm betting it was a little of both.

As for the Allies not making the camps a priority? Well, they didn't. Or else the guys liberating camps after the death of Hitler would not have been surprised by their existence. Since Maidanek had been liberated a good 6 months earlier, and was not even the first camp found. And camps had been found in Belgium, and were known to exist is France, the Netherlands, and Germany. So there was a colossal failure in communication. Would it have mattered? Maybe not. I can see the argument both ways for that.

[Zodiac]

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.

LOL!!! Without wishing to get into any debate over the very different notions of the "afterlife" held by the various demoninations of Jews, Christians and Muslims etc. I have always found this one of interest ever since I saw it performed live, as a surprise 18th Birthday present, way back in 1987!!! Did I say 1987??? Err... I meant to say 1997... yes, thats it, back in 1997... no really it was... I swear... oh damn it!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeFG0dGi6Vo&feature=related

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Errata]

LOL!!! Without wishing to get into any debate over the very different notions of the "afterlife" held by the various demoninations of Jews, Christians and Muslims etc. I have always found this one of interest ever since I saw it performed live, as a surprise 18th Birthday present, way back in 1987!!! Did I say 1987??? Err... I meant to say 1997... yes, thats it, back in 1997... no really it was... I swear... oh damn it!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeFG0dGi6Vo&feature=related

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

Single greatest piece of standup of all time. There is also a Fringe Festival one-act thats been around awhile about a woman who dies in a car crash and accidentally ends up in Valhalla instead of Heaven, and there's a court case with Odin and Jesus as dueling lawyers to decide where she should spend her afterlife. Also very funny.