Hitler: Did He Have His Good Points?

[Anonymous]

He was on a roll there for awhile, and did design the Volkswagen Beetle. Are we being too harsh on the guy?

[Lunch of Kong]

Porsche designed the first Volkswagon, not Hitler.

[Peter Frazier]

If only he had saved his son from the Emporer, then he would have had a movie series based on him.

[Dunc]

Porsche designed the first Volkswagon, not Hitler.

I think Pete's referring to Fresh Air (http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?prgID=13&prgDate=09/23/2002) the other night; Terry Gross interviews Phil Patton, author of Bug: The Strange Mutations of the World's Most Famous Automobile. He was saying Hitler hired Porsche to do the design, and made lots of suggestions, including "look to the beetle" (for it's aerodynamic shape).

[Jack]

Hitler made it fashionable to have one testicle -- and he gave rise to the fine Castle Wolfenstein games.

[Anonymous]

And comedian Tom Green.

[Alan Dunkin]

If only he had saved his son from the Emporer, then he would have had a movie series based on him.

I believe either CBS or NBC is doing a miniseries on his early life as we type.

--- Alan

[Anonymous]

Superman vs. Batman might be cool, but "Jesus vs. Hitler" starring Willem Dafoe in a dual starring role would kick ten kinds of ass.

[Jason McCullough]

The amusing thing was that Hitler at least professed to be Christian. The Catholic Church in Germany didn't have much of a problem with the mass executions of Jews, either.

[Anonymous]

Comics writer Grant Morrison once did a series that was serialized in a British comics magazine. The story was, I believe, called "True Adventures of Hitler." and was about his student visit to England as a youth. The satirical point of the storyline was that Hitler learned everything he needed to know about fascism from British culture.

It's never been serialized, so I've never had a chance to read the thing to see if it was any good.

[chet]

I would like to point out this is the first thread ever discussing a person or product where Murph has not come in and said - "he isn't so bad, I kinda like him". Where is the love Murph?

How evil is Hitler? Not even Murph likes him.

Chet

[wumpus]

I just want to be here and bask in the glow of Murph bashing while it lasts.

[Toddy]

The amusing thing was that Hitler at least professed to be Christian. The Catholic Church in Germany didn't have much of a problem with the mass executions of Jews, either.

When exactly was it that Hitler professed himself to be Christian? He never tied himself to any faith but Germany and himself, which was patterned after the imperial cult in ancient Rome. Also, he made it clear on numerous occasions that he was considering doing something about Christians in Europe after he won the war. A Greater German state would have been about as Christian as Soviet Russia was.

[Jason McCullough]

He did so in lots of speeches, although the evidence tends to point towards "opportunist without any real religious/atheistic beliefs at all."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

He made lots of speeches invoking Christianity, but said quite different things in private. He also gave speeches about stamping out atheism, but didn't contradict those in private.

His statements/motiviations kind of pale next to the outright support by Germany catholicism of the elimination of Jews, though. They complained a lot about the eugenics programs, but breathed not a word about the (known) death camps.

[voltaic]

His statements/motiviations kind of pale next to the outright support by Germany catholicism of the elimination of Jews, though. They complained a lot about the eugenics programs, but breathed not a word about the (known) death camps.

Some of the dualities in the history of Catholicism are amazing. They'll murder ten people to keep one fetus from being aborted, but then if it is a Jew they'll want someone else to whack it out anyways. Unless he gives lots of money to the parish. Didn't Jesus say "the way into heaven is a fat wad of cash"? I think it was in Matthew or Luke. Right near the passage where he said that he died for the sins of the whole world except those heathens who eat meat on Fridays or something.

I should stop now.

[Jason McCullough]

To be fair, the protestants weren't overly upset by everything, either; the catholics just had more sway.

[voltaic]

To be fair, the protestants weren't overly upset by everything, either; the catholics just had more sway.

The thing to consider is that "protestants" consist of a very large number of distinct groups. The only thing that bands them under one title is that they are non-Catholic Christian, the gist of which means they do not subscribe to the Papal heirarchy and so forth. On the other hand, Catholicism all comes more or less from one source with one set of standards.

[T Elhajj]

To be fair, the protestants weren't overly upset by everything, either; the catholics just had more sway.

The entire Christian church in Germany had a meger response to the Nazis.

However, I think you're giving the Catholics an undeservedly bad rap. When it became clear that Hitler was against Christianity, the pope spoke out against him with an encyclial. It was smuggled into Germany on Palm Sunday in 1937 and read from every church. It was the first major church denomination to criticize Nazism.

Not to defend or blame the protestants, but they had a long history in Germany of backing the ruling party. Their concern was with saving an individual's soul, not reforming goverment. So the Lutheran church was particularly unsuited to stand up to the Nazis.

[Jason McCullough]

The church may have been "against Hitler" on a variety of issues, but they certainly didn't utter a peep about the jewish pogroms.

[T Elhajj]

The church may have been "against Hitler" on a variety of issues, but they certainly didn't utter a peep about the jewish pogroms.

But there were plenty of institutions and goverments that were guilty of this. What is your point? For the most part I enjoy your posts Jason, but occasionally you say things that don't make any sense to me. This is an example. Here is what you wrote:


[Hitler's] statements/motiviations kind of pale next to the outright support by Germany catholicism of the elimination of Jews, though.

Pale? Outright support? You make it seem as if the Catholic church was running the death camps.

[Toddy]

He did so in lots of speeches, although the evidence tends to point towards "opportunist without any real religious/atheistic beliefs at all."

Lots? That's crap. Hitler never campaigned as a Christian. Or linked himself with Christianity overtly. He alluded to it at times in the very, very early stages, but it completely disappeared during his comeback in the later 1920s. Hitler reviled Christianity and made no secret of it, for the most part.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not aware of a statement he made disparaging it in public, Brett. He apparently used it as just another tool, according to private reports, but that link and ths stuff it links to gives in speeches and the like, as late as 1937.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Hitler...



Would you be interested in a movie about the romantic exploits of the young Adolf Hitler? How about if it had really good special effects? The fifth Star Wars, which is actually the second one according to the Darth Lucas Revisionist-History Episode-Numbering System, is actually Attack of the Backstory. And a disturbing backstory it is, as hero Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) glowers darkly while wooing the comely Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) and giving off hints how he's gonna Embrace the Dark Side of the Force in the Next One.

Not that a critical opinion matters (is anyone actually on the fence about whether to see the new Star Wars?), but here goes: It's better than the last one, which isn't saying much because the last one sucked, and maybe even better than the third one (i.e., the sixth one), though not nearly as good as the first/fourth and second/fifth ones. The script is awful, but there are all kinds of crazy-cool special-effects sequences, a clever and satisfying leveraging of the Jar Jar Binks problem, a fabulous Alec Guinness impersonation by Ewan MacGregor, and a great O.J. (Original Jedi) turn by Christopher Lee as Count Dooku. There you have it: Star Wars: Episode II--it's better than the last one.


(From the Baltimore Citypaper) http://www.citypaper.com/2002-06-12/pf/clips5_pf.html

[Bub, Andrew]

They'll (Catholics) murder ten people to keep one fetus from being aborted

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't know the "Abortion Doctor Murderers" were Catholics... I thought they were of the Fundamentalist Christian type.

[Bub, Andrew]

T. Elhajj, I can't speak to Jason's comments but my father has been raving about a book called "Hitler's Pope" which paints a very disturbing view of Catholic complicity in the Holocaust.

[Jason McCullough]

The church may have been "against Hitler" on a variety of issues, but they certainly didn't utter a peep about the jewish pogroms.

But there were plenty of institutions and goverments that were guilty of this. What is your point? For the most part I enjoy your posts Jason, but occasionally you say things that don't make any sense to me. This is an example. Here is what you wrote:


[Hitler's] statements/motiviations kind of pale next to the outright support by Germany catholicism of the elimination of Jews, though.

Pale? Outright support? You make it seem as if the Catholic church was running the death camps.

Pretty damn close to it; they opened their genealogy records to the Nazis for the express purpose of tracking down and identifying those with Jewish heritage, when they damn well knew what would happen. They could have refused to do so and easily gotten away with it; they got away with strongly opposing the Nazis on their eugenics program.

I'm reading through Hitler's Willing Executioners, and it's not a pretty sight.

[T Elhajj]

I'm reading through Hitler's Willing Executioners, and it's not a pretty sight.

This book is a condemnation of the average German during this time, not specifically Catholicism. Granted there were traitors, or German Catholics who were also anti-Semites, but nothing like the support on an institutional level that your comments invoke.

In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. In addition to the encyclical I mentioned earlier by Pius XI, Pius XII spoke out against the Nazis in his Christmas message of '41 and '42. Everyone could have done more, but those people did what they could. When Bishops did speak out, the Nazis were quick to round up more Jews to be sent to the camps. Not to mention that the Vatican is located squarely in the middle of an Axis country.

Here is a page from google with some decent sources: http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html

I am no expert, but your comments seem wildly off base. I am currently reading a history of the Christian church. Believe me, there are plenty of things you can criticize the Catholic church for throughout its long history—the Crusades, the Inquisition, just being stubborn and inflexible in the pre-Vatican II world (post-V II too, for that matter). This attack, however, seems completely misguided.

[T Elhajj]

T. Elhajj, I can't speak to Jason's comments but my father has been raving about a book called "Hitler's Pope" which paints a very disturbing view of Catholic complicity in the Holocaust.

Nothing like an exciting title to whip up sales. ;)

I am sorry but the title alone makes me think it is not going to be a very evenhanded investigation. As I said in the post above, I imagine there were Catholics in Germany who were guilty of anti-Semitism. But that's not the same as the Catholic Church condoning Nazi death camps.

If that line of reasoning were legitimate, you might as well condemn that entire protestant church in America for its participation with the Confederate states, completely forgetting that the same institution supported the Union!

Tim Elhajj

[T Elhajj]

They'll (Catholics) murder ten people to keep one fetus from being aborted

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't know the "Abortion Doctor Murderers" were Catholics... I thought they were of the Fundamentalist Christian type.

I think you would have a hard time finding any legitimate church willing to take responsibility for these crimes.

Tim Elhajj

[Jason McCullough]

What about the church opening its genealogical records to the Nazis?


This book is a condemnation of the average German during this time, not specifically Catholicism. Granted there were traitors, or German Catholics who were also anti-Semites, but nothing like the support on an institutional level that your comments invoke.

You might want to read it; it definitely points a different direction.

[T Elhajj]

What about the church opening its genealogical records to the Nazis?

When you say the church, exactly whom do you mean?

Do you mean it was Pope Pius XI who "told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites."

Or are you saying that Pope Pius XII? Was this before or after he "was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps," according to Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, _Three Popes and the Jews_.

Or maybe it was the "Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic opposition in Germany against the Nazis?"

Or do you mean it was the "Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht [who] in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein."

I don't think you even know who you mean. It's easy to make vague accusations, Jason. I'm no expert but your argument just seems like so much vitriol.

[Jason McCullough]

Just go get the book; I'm not going to type in passages at length.

[T Elhajj]

Just go get the book; I'm not going to type in passages at length.

Oh please. I don't want passages at length. Just give the name of the pope who's comments "pale" in comparison to Hitler's, and who was responsible for the "outright support" of the Holocaust.

Here is the title, btw: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

News flash for Jason McCullough: some ordinary Germans were <gasp> Catholic!

[Jason McCullough]

What about the church opening its genealogical records to the Nazis?

When you say the church, exactly whom do you mean?

Do you mean it was Pope Pius XI who "told German pilgrims that no Christian can take part in anti-Semitism, since spiritually all Christians are Semites."

Or are you saying that Pope Pius XII? Was this before or after he "was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps," according to Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, _Three Popes and the Jews_.

Or maybe it was the "Archbishop of Munich, Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber, who led the Catholic opposition in Germany against the Nazis?"

Or do you mean it was the "Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht [who] in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein."

I don't think you even know who you mean. It's easy to make vague accusations, Jason. I'm no expert but your argument just seems like so much vitriol.

I mean the German Catholic churches, specifically. In the rest of Europe Catholicism performed admirably, with some exceptions, but according to Goldhagen in Germany it was criminal:

Page 110:


Never once did any German bishop, Catholic or Protestant, speak out publically on the behalf of the Jews.....


The foundational element of the Nuremberg Laws was the regime's capacity to destinguish and demonstrate the extent of a person's Jewish ancestry, to know who was a Jew. Enforcement therefore depended on the use of the genealogical records in the possession of local churches. The historian of the Catholic Church Guenther Lewy, writes:

"The very question of whether the Church should lend its help to the Nazi state in sorting out people of Jewish descent was never debated. On the contrary. 'We have always unselfishly worked for the people without regard to gratitude or ingratitude,' a priest wrote in the Klerusblatt in September 1934. 'We shall also do our best to help in this service to the people.' And the co-operation of the Church in this matter continued righ through the war years, when the price of being Jewish was no longer dismissal from a government job and loss of livelihood, but deportation and outright physical destruction."

The German churches cooperated wholeheartedly in this obviously eliminationist and lethal measure. If the moral beacons and consciences of Germany willingly worked to server the antisemitic policies, could less have been expected from their acoytes? These religious leaders were the men who earnestly and openly fought the so-called Euthanasia killings, as well as other governmental measures, such as governmental tolerance of dueling and cremation (but not the crematoria of Auschwitz, of which they knew). While Church leaders across other European countries, including German-occupied Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Vichy, as well as occupied France, openly condemned the persecution and slaughter of the Jews and urged their countrymen (sometimes in vain) not to take part in it, the German religious leadership left the Jews (with the only sometime exception of converts to Christianity) to their fates, or even contributed to the eliminationist persecution.


I'm leaving out the Protestant churches here, which were equally as bad, but the point is that Christianity didn't acquit itself particularly well in Germany. The book's quite interesting, as he describes the unbelievable level of popular support that the Holocaust had in the Third Reich, and the utter banality of the members executing its policies out in the Ukraine. Perfectly average guys, with two kids and no previous political bent or expression of anti-semitism, and an explicit pass on killing if they wished it, using short-range weaponry to fill ditches with the bodies of women and children.

[T Elhajj]

I mean the German Catholic churches, specifically.

Exactly.

And I agree that there is no excuse for the paltry response of the German Christian churches. For what it's worth, the Archbishop of Munich, Cardinal von Faulhaber, was apparently a very old and feeble man. Not to minimize his efforts, but if he was the best they could muster in all of Germany, it was clearly not much of a resistance.

I am currently reading a history of the Church. I don't mean to minimize your point, but taken in the context of history, it is easy to see how the Christian church could be so ineffective in 20th century Germany. Long before World War 2, the Catholic Church especially seems to have been in retreat from the modern world. It's only been in my life time that they've even made an attempt to become relevant to the people who attend mass.


Perfectly average guys, with two kids and no previous political bent or expression of anti-semitism, and an explicit pass on killing if they wished it, using short-range weaponry to fill ditches with the bodies of women and children.

This is perfectly horrific. Does the book at all attempt to explain the motivations of these "average guys?" I would find that interesting. What happens? One day it is vogue to make jokes about extermination, the next day you are filling ditches?

[chet]

Christians had to be nice to Hitler, He was allied with Christ's Homeland (http://www.metropolis.co.jp/tokyotravel/tokyojapantravel/3523/tokyojapantravelinc.htm)

Chet

[voltaic]

This is perfectly horrific. Does the book at all attempt to explain the motivations of these "average guys?" I would find that interesting. What happens? One day it is vogue to make jokes about extermination, the next day you are filling ditches?

Check out the book Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland located here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060995068/qid=1033544478/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-7616352-1936733) at Amazon. It is a book about how normal non-soldiers of Poland could be swayed into basically mass executions not only in the form of shipping people to death camps but also doing the deeds themselves. Excellent book.

[Jason McCullough]

Tim, it's not that the Church was ineffective in Germany; they outright *supported* the Holocaust at an institutional level, giving speeches and writing letters talking about how the Jews are getting what they deserved, basically. The specific evil of German/Austrian anti-semitism is more (if not entirely) to blame than Catholicism for this, of course, but some of the things they said/did are simply unbelievable. I guess it's a more interesting data point that not a single church of any type in Germany opposed the eliminationism.

Goldhagen talks a lot about Battalion 101; I've only skimmed the last 2/3rds of the book. I'm no expert, but he makes a hell of a case that the Germany of the 1930s is as close to collectively guilty for the holocaust as possible; the conventional wisdom that Hitler tricked/forced everyone to go along with him is complete hokum. They really, really liked killing Jews.

[Murph]

I'm late to the party. I missed this:

I would like to point out this is the first thread ever discussing a person or product where Murph has not come in and said - "he isn't so bad, I kinda like him".

Really? Interesting...I didn't realize that I so often spoke up for people and products. I'll have to go look into that, because I think that's way off-base. Not that I take offense to it...Whether or not Chet legitimately meant any offense.


I just want to be here and bask in the glow of Murph bashing while it lasts.

That was bashing? Please!

Not that I know why Wumpus is after me, anyway. Nor do I care. :-)

[Murph]

For the record, I was only able to find a handful of times that I stuck up for anything. Granted, I only spent about five minutes looking back through my past posts...(I'm at work, bored, and don't really have anything better to do.)

So, to Chet: :P

[T Elhajj]

The specific evil of German/Austrian anti-semitism is more (if not entirely) to blame than Catholicism for this, of course

I did a little checking this afternoon and this book is certainly controversial. There are a lot of historians who claim Goldhagen has an axe to grind against the Germans, and that his simplification of the Holocaust to "German anti-semitism" does more harm than good, and is quite off base. Despite this, the book has gained an enormous amount of popular support, most likely because it is very well written and engaging.

From what I read about it, I have to agree that he seems a little one sided and heavy handed, particularly where the church is concerned. I don't have a problem believing that average citizens and even some priests were anti-semites. However, his interpretation of church silence as anti-semitism on an “institutional-level” smacks of sensationalism. I have seen evidence that suggests church leaders would have had a difficult time speaking out without putting innocent people at risk. This doesn't even seem to be a data point for Goldhagen. I am wary of these type books. Catholic-bashing is too easy.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, it's not really treated at more than a couple of pages length in the book, so there you go. The Police Battalion 101 stuff is incredibly convincing, though; I'll post more later.

[T Elhajj]

The Police Battalion 101 stuff is incredibly convincing, though; I'll post more later.

If you get the chance, please do. That part sounds interesting.

[Chris Nahr]

Goldhagen's book was a huge commercial success but widely ridiculed by historians. I haven't read it myself for this reason -- he may or may not have valid points on individual units such as Police Battalion 101 but I'd make sure to cross-check with other sources before I'd believe anything he's written.

As for Catholics or Germans in general "really, really liking to kill Jews", give me a break. This retro-psychoanalytical generalisation is based on Goldhagen's sample of the 1% or so of the 80 million Germans who actually did kill one or more Jews, and of those the vast majority was tasked with general slaughter on the Russian front, killing many more non-Jews than Jews over the course of the war. And speculating over how other Germans might have felt about the killing of Jews under the (generally unfounded) assumption that they were actually aware of it doesn't exactly sound like historical science to me.

Obvious points against Goldhagen's thesis would be that Germany forced German Jews to emigrate between 1933-39, rather than killing them -- the majority of Jewish dead were Eastern Europeans, Poles and others; that the deportations found many willing collaborators in places such as Vichy France; that the death camps were not located in the Reich; and that they had a relatively high percentage of non-German personnel. All of this is quite inexplicable if you assume that the murder of Jews was both widely known and a somehow genuinely German obsession.

Finally, Goldhagen would have to explain why Germans suddenly lost their unique taste for Jewish blood after 1945 (which I indeed recall him saying) -- was it the glorious success of American re-education that somehow transformed the psyche of two thirds of a nation in just one or two decades?

The whole thesis sounds to me like someone's trying to build his personal Mordor here, complete with agreeably twisted orcs and goblin-men...

[T Elhajj]

Nice post, Christoph. I thought it was some BS from the start, but didn't realize it was so deep.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

It's a little strong to say that the Goldhagen book was ridiculed by historians. But they did have serious reservations about the limits of his claims. His general purpose - to demonstrate a widespread national culpability in the Holocaust - certainly has some merit. Nazi anti-Semitism was not a shock to anyone, and that it had violent overtones was self-evident. Goldhagen gets tied in knots, though, the more he tries to extrapolate this general culpability into a blood-hate of Jews. The evidence he cites, though facutally solid, is interpreted in the most indicting manner.

In many ways in reminds me of Fritz Fischer's work in the 1950s. Fischer, like Goldhagen, was a historian obsessed with the idea of German national guilt. Fischer studied German guilt for the outbreak of WW I, and, like Goldhagen, often let the thesis dictate the interpretation of the evidence.

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

Goldhagen's book was a huge commercial success but widely ridiculed by historians. I haven't read it myself for this reason -- he may or may not have valid points on individual units such as Police Battalion 101 but I'd make sure to cross-check with other sources before I'd believe anything he's written.

As for Catholics or Germans in general "really, really liking to kill Jews", give me a break. This retro-psychoanalytical generalisation is based on Goldhagen's sample of the 1% or so of the 80 million Germans who actually did kill one or more Jews, and of those the vast majority was tasked with general slaughter on the Russian front, killing many more non-Jews than Jews over the course of the war. And speculating over how other Germans might have felt about the killing of Jews under the (generally unfounded) assumption that they were actually aware of it doesn't exactly sound like historical science to me.


His "1% sample" is full of about the most average Germans imaginable; 34 year old guys, too old to draft, virtually all of them married, many with kids, few of them with any specific ideological bent. The book also points out that it's virtually impossible for the average German not to have known; there was too many camps (roughly 600 in or near Berlin, a non-ideal urban area) and the government rhetoric too explicit.



Obvious points against Goldhagen's thesis would be that Germany forced German Jews to emigrate between 1933-39, rather than killing them -- the majority of Jewish dead were Eastern Europeans, Poles and others; that the deportations found many willing collaborators in places such as Vichy France; that the death camps were not located in the Reich; and that they had a relatively high percentage of non-German personnel. All of this is quite inexplicable if you assume that the murder of Jews was both widely known and a somehow genuinely German obsession.


Germany couldn't have gotten away with eradicating Jews before the war started. The majority of the dead were Eastern Europeans because the German jews had already fled. The same applies for the camps' location.



Finally, Goldhagen would have to explain why Germans suddenly lost their unique taste for Jewish blood after 1945 (which I indeed recall him saying) -- was it the glorious success of American re-education that somehow transformed the psyche of two thirds of a nation in just one or two decades?

The whole thesis sounds to me like someone's trying to build his personal Mordor here, complete with agreeably twisted orcs and goblin-men...

I have no damn idea why it happened in the first place, much less why it ended. Ongoing cultural mass hysteria, driven by 20 years of post-World War I propaganda?

I'd be interested in any criticisms on the evidence or interpretation; everything I've found online has consisted of bitching that he doesn't acknowledge other historians enough, and wierd Zionist criticisms that it doesn't make the Holocaust universal enough.

[Chris Nahr]

His "1% sample" is full of about the most average Germans imaginable; 34 year old guys, too old to draft, virtually all of them married, many with kids, few of them with any specific ideological bent. The book also points out that it's virtually impossible for the average German not to have known; there was too many camps (roughly 600 in or near Berlin, a non-ideal urban area) and the government rhetoric too explicit.

600 camps in or near Berlin? You must have misread something. There were only 20 concentration camps in total, and only part of those were death camps! There was a larger number of work camps but still nowhere near 600 in all of Germany or its conquered territories.

Also, I wasn't talking about sample quality but sample size. There just weren't that many Germans specifically tasked with killing Jews. Finding some of them who were otherwise normal isn't terribly convincing as a basis for making conclusions about the other 80 millions. You might as well claim that Americans really like dropping nuclear bombs on other people's cities.


Germany couldn't have gotten away with eradicating Jews before the war started.

True, but there is no evidence that the leadership actually planned extermination prior to the Wannsee conference in 1942. At that point millions of Jews had been interned in occupied Poland and the Soviet Republics, and there was no chance to deport them -- an alternative solution that was actually under dicussion for a while.


The majority of the dead were Eastern Europeans because the German jews had already fled.

Uh, the Nazi government encouraged Jewish emigration before WW2. They took the opportunity to seize part (or most) of the property of emigrated Jews but they certainly didn't try to keep them and kill them. A bigger hindrance for emigration was other countries' unwillingness to accept Jews.


I have no damn idea why it happened in the first place, much less why it ended. Ongoing cultural mass hysteria, driven by 20 years of post-World War I propaganda?

It's a complex issue, and I believe that anti-semitism was central to Hitler but peripheral to his success. The NSDAP got a third of the popular vote on a promise of reversing Versailles and (most importantly) restoring Germany's economy; they gained huge popularity by meeting both promises. Antisemitism was strong enough that most people didn't particularly care what happened to the Jews, but not generally strong enough to support a political party just on this ticket. The NSDAP had little success prior to the economic crisis of 1929, and its one-time coalition partner, the DNVP, was just as antisemitic but never gained much influence.

On the other hand, the problem with looking only at the killers is twofold: first, your sample size is minimal, as I already said, and second, you're looking at people acting in a brutal dictatorship under the influence of a decade of propaganda while a devastating war is raging. Any attempts to extrapolate from their actions in such a situation to their basic psychological orientation are futile. Looking at the elections prior to 1933 you get a much bigger sample size in a more normal situation, and there you see people that are stupid, greedy and immoral as usual, but not significantly more antisemitic than the European norm. History prior to 1918 also corroborates this assessment.

[Toddy]

There's a great analysis of the Goldhagen book in Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler. Anyone interested in historical perspectives on Hitler and Nazism should read it, as it's one of the best books ever written on the subject. What's most interesting in this particularly context is Rosenbaum's discussion of how a significant majority of German Jewish historians excuse the German general population for what happened during the Holocaust (and thus dismiss the Goldhagen book). The predominant thought seems to be "No Hitler, no Holocaust." Most also noted that anti-semitism in the prewar years was far, far worse in France than in Germany.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/006095339X/qid=1033678782/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-4540713-0492635

[Joe O'Malley]

Really? Interesting...I didn't realize that I so often spoke up for people and products. I'll have to go look into that, because I think that's way off-base. Not that I take offense to it...Whether or not Chet legitimately meant any offense.

I don't believe trying to find the good in people and things to be a personality fault, myself.

[Jason McCullough]

600 camps in or near Berlin? You must have misread something. There were only 20 concentration camps in total, and only part of those were death camps! There was a larger number of work camps but still nowhere near 600 in all of Germany or its conquered territories.


The first paragraph on this this (http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:dFjUgOWm1eAC:www.holocaust.com.au/mm/camps.htm+number+camps+goldhagen&hl=en) page is from the book. This (http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/General/ListeEng.html) page lists an estimated 15,000 camps in the occupied counties. Spinning through google gives comparable numbers. They weren't all crematoriums, but camps were all over the place, apparently.
[/quote]

Also, I wasn't talking about sample quality but sample size. There just weren't that many Germans specifically tasked with killing Jews. Finding some of them who were otherwise normal isn't terribly convincing as a basis for making conclusions about the other 80 millions. You might as well claim that Americans really like dropping nuclear bombs on other people's cities.
[/quote]

Goldhagen estimates (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/goldhagen.html) that, at a bare minimum, 100,000 Germans were directly involved (shooting, guarding, etc.) in killing Jews, and a likely number of 500,000. That's only 1 in 160 of Germans (1 in 80 of the men), sure, but it's a *lot* of people.


Obvious points against Goldhagen's thesis would be that Germany forced German Jews to emigrate between 1933-39, rather than killing them -- the majority of Jewish dead were Eastern Europeans, Poles and others; that the deportations found many willing collaborators in places such as Vichy France; that the death camps were not located in the Reich; and that they had a relatively high percentage of non-German personnel. All of this is quite inexplicable if you assume that the murder of Jews was both widely known and a somehow genuinely German obsession.

Germany couldn't have gotten away with eradicating Jews before the war started. The majority of the dead were Eastern Europeans because the German jews had already fled. The same applies for the camps' location.

True, but there is no evidence that the leadership actually planned extermination prior to the Wannsee conference in 1942. At that point millions of Jews had been interned in occupied Poland and the Soviet Republics, and there was no chance to deport them -- an alternative solution that was actually under dicussion for a while.

Well, Hitler appears to have written and said quite a bit about total elimination before 1942, as did plenty of other anti-semites. It's not like they turned to it solely because they ran out of places to send them off to; sending execution squads in right behind the advancing armies in the USSR *does* fit with a "German obsession" on killing Jews.


The majority of the dead were Eastern Europeans because the German jews had already fled.


Uh, the Nazi government encouraged Jewish emigration before WW2. They took the opportunity to seize part (or most) of the property of emigrated Jews but they certainly didn't try to keep them and kill them. A bigger hindrance for emigration was other countries' unwillingness to accept Jews.

So? My point was that you can't argue against a uniquely Germanic character to the eliminationism by pointing to a lack of Jews killed in Germany; all the Jews were outside Germany when the extermination began (and Germany had a Jewish population of only 1% or so, compared to 10%+ in Poland and farther east.)


I have no damn idea why it happened in the first place, much less why it ended. Ongoing cultural mass hysteria, driven by 20 years of post-World War I propaganda?


It's a complex issue, and I believe that anti-semitism was central to Hitler but peripheral to his success. The NSDAP got a third of the popular vote on a promise of reversing Versailles and (most importantly) restoring Germany's economy; they gained huge popularity by meeting both promises. Antisemitism was strong enough that most people didn't particularly care what happened to the Jews, but not generally strong enough to support a political party just on this ticket. The NSDAP had little success prior to the economic crisis of 1929, and its one-time coalition partner, the DNVP, was just as antisemitic but never gained much influence.

On the other hand, the problem with looking only at the killers is twofold: first, your sample size is minimal, as I already said, and second, you're looking at people acting in a brutal dictatorship under the influence of a decade of propaganda while a devastating war is raging. Any attempts to extrapolate from their actions in such a situation to their basic psychological orientation are futile. Looking at the elections prior to 1933 you get a much bigger sample size in a more normal situation, and there you see people that are stupid, greedy and immoral as usual, but not significantly more antisemitic than the European norm. History prior to 1918 also corroborates this assessment.

Read his description of Police Battalion 101; they quite clearly did it because they wanted to. When the few (very few) opted out of killing, their numbers tiny, even though the commander explicitly indicated they didn't have to do it personally, they consistently gave explanations that they were "not up to it" or "too weak for the gore," both at the time and after the war, not "we thought it was wrong." They took photos to send back to their friends and relatives.

[voltaic]

Read his description of Police Battalion 101; they quite clearly did it because they wanted to. When the few (very few) opted out of killing, their numbers tiny, even though the commander explicitly indicated they didn't have to do it personally, they consistently gave explanations that they were "not up to it" or "too weak for the gore," both at the time and after the war, not "we thought it was wrong." They took photos to send back to their friends and relatives.

Read the book more closely. Many of them were abhored by it but didn't say it was wrong, because that phrase connotes criticizing the Reich. On the other hand, they could admit their own weakness and get out of it.

Further, the book talks about Polish non-Jews killing Polish Jews, so using this book to presecute (or exhonerate) Germans is an exercise in futility.

[Chris Nahr]

They weren't all crematoriums, but camps were all over the place, apparently.

Eh, these folks counted every place where two prisoners were together at some time during 1933-45 as an individual "camp." That's simply ridiculous.

The Goldhagen quote just shows how dishonest he is -- he counts POW camps (!) and transit camps among his fantastic "10,000 camps", then goes on to say that "Dachau was the model for all!" No, Jason, I actually don't think that Dachau was the model for German POW camps...

Also, the second page you quote merely claims that there were "15,000 camps." The ones it actually lists are far fewer (less than 1,700 according to a quick line count), and even to get up to that number they had to count every "external commando" as a separate camp. Without further information, a "commando" might have been three prisoners working for a local shoemaker.

(Hint: prisoners who were working weren't about to get killed, so they are kind of useless for the Goldhagen thesis of Germans as natural-born Jew killers...)


Goldhagen estimates (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/gergen/goldhagen.html) that, at a bare minimum, 100,000 Germans were directly involved (shooting, guarding, etc.) in killing Jews, and a likely number of 500,000. That's only 1 in 160 of Germans (1 in 80 of the men), sure, but it's a *lot* of people.

More dishonesty. He admits that he counts deportation personnel in that number. Are you aware that deportation was facilitated by the ordinary national German railroad service, the Reichsbahn? How many people do you think worked there?


Well, Hitler appears to have written and said quite a bit about total elimination before 1942, as did plenty of other anti-semites.

Sure they did, and I never said otherwise, but...


It's not like they turned to it solely because they ran out of places to send them off to; sending execution squads in right behind the advancing armies in the USSR *does* fit with a "German obsession" on killing Jews.

...here you've already adopted Goldhagen's dishonesty. That all or most of Germany was involved in or supportive of the killing of Jews is merely his unproven contention. Might as well say that killing Kulaks was a Russian obsession.


So? My point was that you can't argue against a uniquely Germanic character to the eliminationism by pointing to a lack of Jews killed in Germany; all the Jews were outside Germany when the extermination began (and Germany had a Jewish population of only 1% or so, compared to 10%+ in Poland and farther east.)

So why didn't the extermination begin sooner then? Why weren't there any sponteneous pogroms? And even if we do accept that the NS regime didn't want to draw (even more) international criticism, why did they force the Jews out instead trying to intern them for later killing?


Read his description of Police Battalion 101; they quite clearly did it because they wanted to.

This is ridiculous. I'm not accepting Goldhagen's tales about a single Police Battalion as a proof of anything. Is that your idea of history? There were some US soldiers who had shot surrendered Germans, I guess that "proves" an American obsession for killing Germans.


When the few (very few) opted out of killing, their numbers tiny, even though the commander explicitly indicated they didn't have to do it personally, they consistently gave explanations that they were "not up to it" or "too weak for the gore," both at the time and after the war, not "we thought it was wrong."

Did it occur to you that saying "we thought it was wrong" would get them killed? Even if it actually wouldn't they were clearly right to be afraid of such a possibility, given the nature of the regime.

Well, I guess it's no point wasting any more time on this. It's obvious that you are unreceptive to any kind of objectivity or common sense here. You're clearly in love with Goldhagen's theory and you accept even his most blatant distortions as gospel. There are some interesting conclusions to be drawn from the quiet acceptance of the persecution of Jews in Germany -- which is the one thing that Goldhagen is correct in pointing out -- but a general German desire to kill Jews isn't one of them.

[Jason McCullough]

'No, Jason, I actually don't think that Dachau was the model for German POW camps... '

The design probably was. Just because they didn't include gas chambers with every model doesn't overly change anything.

I'll admit I have no idea about the camp numbers; but hey, that's what searching around finds.


That all or most of Germany was involved in or supportive of the killing of Jews is merely his unproven contention.

Have you read the book?


I'm not accepting Goldhagen's tales about a single Police Battalion as a proof of anything.

He talks about a dozen of them, I think, and their were quite a few more. Still, it's quite clear you're not listening.


Did it occur to you that saying "we thought it was wrong" would get them killed? Even if it actually wouldn't they were clearly right to be afraid of such a possibility, given the nature of the regime.

Not a single person was arrested or punished for refusing to kill Jews in the entire Reich.

[voltaic]

Not a single person was arrested or punished for refusing to kill Jews in the entire Reich.

Now I know you haven't read Ordinary Men: Police Battalion 101 (title abridged by me).

[Jason McCullough]

Correct, I'm quoting Goldhagen, who says that.

[voltaic]

Ahh, gotcha. Well he's a jackass.