Keep it up Soren. You think I am acting like a child now? Let's go...
The victor always gets to right history, but you are very correct. Many people look past that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler was.
Ordinary German's Responsibility for the Holocaust?
- Thread starter Negative Creep
- Start date
Keep it up Soren. You think I am acting like a child now? Let's go...
The victor always gets to right history, but you are very correct. Many people look past that Stalin was just as evil as Hitler was.
Soren
Of course I'm not surprised your comment but from the letter
Quote: "Anyhow, with a certain amount of understanding for goals aimed at by German politics, dying and deterioration could have been avoided in the extent described. For instance, according to information on hand, the native population within the Soviet Union are absolutely willing to put food at the disposal of the prisoners of war. Several understanding camp commanders have successfully chosen this course. However in the majority of the cases, the camp commanders have forbidden the civilian population to put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and they have rather let them starve to death…."
So Rosenberg clearly saw that local food supplies were not utilized in majority of cases and that caused numerous unnecessary deaths.
Quote: "Even on the march to the camps, the civilian population was not allowed to give the prisoners of war food. In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer keep up on the march because of hunger and exhaustion, they were shot before the eyes of the horrified civilian population, and the corpses were left."
And how this differ from Bataan Death March?
Quote: "In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war was provided at all. They lay under the open sky during rain or snow. Even tools were not made available to dig holes or caves."
If one didn't provide any shelter against elements for PoWs in Russian winter or even tools to those to construct them themselves, IMO he has acted criminally.
Juha
Of course I'm not surprised your comment but from the letter
Quote: "Anyhow, with a certain amount of understanding for goals aimed at by German politics, dying and deterioration could have been avoided in the extent described. For instance, according to information on hand, the native population within the Soviet Union are absolutely willing to put food at the disposal of the prisoners of war. Several understanding camp commanders have successfully chosen this course. However in the majority of the cases, the camp commanders have forbidden the civilian population to put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and they have rather let them starve to death…."
So Rosenberg clearly saw that local food supplies were not utilized in majority of cases and that caused numerous unnecessary deaths.
Quote: "Even on the march to the camps, the civilian population was not allowed to give the prisoners of war food. In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer keep up on the march because of hunger and exhaustion, they were shot before the eyes of the horrified civilian population, and the corpses were left."
And how this differ from Bataan Death March?
Quote: "In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war was provided at all. They lay under the open sky during rain or snow. Even tools were not made available to dig holes or caves."
If one didn't provide any shelter against elements for PoWs in Russian winter or even tools to those to construct them themselves, IMO he has acted criminally.
Juha
Hello vikingBerserker
Yes Stalin rule was very bloody, probably bloodier than that of Hitler's. But it seemed to have been a bit less aggressive but maybe Stalin only had more patience.
On Katyn, a heinous crime and it wasn't only a massive murder of Polish officers because most of them were reserve officers and so also part of Polish intelligence, teachers, lawyers etc.
It seems that Katyn would also have been the last stop to Finnish reserve officers and Suojeluskuntalaiset (members of voluntary military organization) if we had went under during the Winter War.
Juha
Yes Stalin rule was very bloody, probably bloodier than that of Hitler's. But it seemed to have been a bit less aggressive but maybe Stalin only had more patience.
On Katyn, a heinous crime and it wasn't only a massive murder of Polish officers because most of them were reserve officers and so also part of Polish intelligence, teachers, lawyers etc.
It seems that Katyn would also have been the last stop to Finnish reserve officers and Suojeluskuntalaiset (members of voluntary military organization) if we had went under during the Winter War.
Juha
parsifal
Colonel
An intersting postulation. What would have been the outcome if the Germans had won, in the sense that they conquered western europe and then managed to make peace with the british. would the nazi regime have survived the eventual death of hitler....what would have happened in post hitlerian europe, in say the liberated '60s. Would there have been a nazi regime today? Was the 1000 year reich ever a possibility? Would the Germanpeople, once they had enslaved western europe have been content with going back to being just plain Germans, or would they have clung onto the master race bs????
RabidAlien
1st Lieutenant
It might not have had Hitler's mania running it, but I think Nazi Germany would have lasted for quite a bit longer before self-destructing. There's always bullies and brutes about, and plenty of political types who would have been more than happy to pick up his torch and carry it. Even if someone decent had been elected (say, Rommel), he still would have been surrounded by fanatics and would have had to perform his own sweeping set of purges to safely change the course of Germany. I think Germany would have coasted along happily for a decade or two, as the conquered territories would have provided a boost to their economy, but it would only be a matter of time before they would have to turn their sights on new and fresh sources of economic influx. I can't imagine North America buying too much into German-made products simply due to the slave-labor involved in creating them. So it would only be a matter of time before Germany and the US/Canada teamed back up with the British. That conflict I shudder to even think about.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I don't think Occupied Europe would have lasted long. Underground resistance would have grown very strong and maintained pressure to return a country (France, Denmark, etc.) back to its idenity and sovernty.
Glider
Major
I would love to agree with you on this but I cannot. I believe that more French people fought for the Germans against the resistance, than for the resistance. With that background I don't see the resistance lasting long.
Most French I believe would have gone for the quiet life and not put up much resistance. They had fought the war, lost to the Germans (again) and morale would have been too low.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
It would certainly have a massive effect on the complexion of any future war
With Europe and the Soviet Union under Nazi occupation, the UK as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' would effectively have its strategic relevance halved, largely because Nazi forces are now approx 54 miles away from sovereign US territory - across the Bering Straits.
This would be a far safer jump-off point for an invasion for the Nazis than the UK would be for US/Canadian forces, assets required making their way to the ports across land, rather than US/Canadian assets making their way across the Atlantic, this would significantly limit their irretrievable losses, that is to say a a de-railed train-load of tanks on their way to the Bering can be recovered, a ship-load at the bottom of the Atlantic can not. A troopship pays more dividends per successful strike than a large, road-going troop convoy which can easily disperse at the first sign of trouble.
The UK would still be attractive as a means of maintaining a second front and dividing Nazi forces but we would need to consider US resolve to release assets to Europe with a potential major Nazi breakthrough coming in through Alaska and sweeping south into the US.
If the Japanese haven't subjugated the Chinese, then a Chinese/Australian/NZ presence in China could relieve some of the pressure from a determined Nazi thrust across the Bering.
Furthermore, the conundrum could not be allowed to fester for 'a decade or two' this would allow the Nazis time to develop their newly-conquered territories for war manufacture as well as birthing a generation of fighting-age men by whatever nefarious means.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Colin, a major Nazi breakthrough coming all the way through Alaska ans 'sweeping south into the US' would have to cover a LOT of territory. That is a huge distance, and would have to pass through Canada to even reach the US.
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
If they've defeated the Soviet Union, why would the continental US be regarded any differently?
It doesn't alter the fact that Nazi Germany is no longer across the Atlantic but on the US's back doorstep.
Check out the movie "The Fatherland". Really good movie that kind of dables in that subject.
Ferdinand Foch
Staff Sergeant
Hey Negative Creep. I don't know if your still having trouble with your essay, but I thought that this might help. My high school history teacher had a book called, "Hitler's Willing Executioners; Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." I haven't read it myself, but it was a national bestseller, so it has to be alright (Hope this helps).
As for the original topic, with my personal feelings, and after looking at some of the arguements here, I gotta say that that the German people had to have known that something was up. I mean, between Mein Kampf, the Kristallnact, and the speeches that Hitler gave before WWII, that would have had to have known that something was bound to happen, maybe not on the scale that it was, but at least something.
That being said, I doubt that many people would have wanted to speak up, or else if they wanted to disappear in the middle of the night. This reminds me of the scene in "Swing Kids," where one of the main characters (I forget his name), turns in his own father to the Gestapo for criticizing the Nazi Regime, in his own home! Yeah, so because of that, I doubt that many people would want to speak out.
Njaco: How was Mein Kampf to read? I tried reading a few years back, but I could only get about two pages in. To me, Hitler was just too full of himself, was too vain for my taste.
As for the original topic, with my personal feelings, and after looking at some of the arguements here, I gotta say that that the German people had to have known that something was up. I mean, between Mein Kampf, the Kristallnact, and the speeches that Hitler gave before WWII, that would have had to have known that something was bound to happen, maybe not on the scale that it was, but at least something.
That being said, I doubt that many people would have wanted to speak up, or else if they wanted to disappear in the middle of the night. This reminds me of the scene in "Swing Kids," where one of the main characters (I forget his name), turns in his own father to the Gestapo for criticizing the Nazi Regime, in his own home! Yeah, so because of that, I doubt that many people would want to speak out.
Njaco: How was Mein Kampf to read? I tried reading a few years back, but I could only get about two pages in. To me, Hitler was just too full of himself, was too vain for my taste.
The book is much better.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Ferdinand, its been about 20 years or more but I remember that first impression it wasn't nothing special but as I recognized the history of the book I was kinda amazed. It seemed IIRC to me that he wanted to blame everybody and saw himself as the new Neitschze (spelling). It seemed logical but you had to read between the lines.
The same reason that the Nazis couldn't defeat the UK applies to the U.S. The combined seapower of the allied forces would make it difficult to do a land invasion through the Bering sea. Also the geography of Alaska, Western Canada, and the Pacific Northwest would be an enormous obstacle. That is not counting the nuclear option that the U.S. developed and used to great effect in the PTO.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
The Third Reich would have imploded within decades of winning WWII. The whole society and economy was geared to warfare and could not survive without it.
Just a note on comparison's of Hitler to Nietszche. These often arise because both men were great users of the terms ubermensch and untermensch. They did not have the same meaning. While Hitler used these terms in a racial context, Nietszche used them to describe individuals who had either broken away from the slave mentality that he attributed to Christian society, or to describe those who could not do this. While reading Nietzsche, especially Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the reader may see some germs of Hitler's later ideas, but this was not Nietzches intent, and the man himself showed no sign of sympathising with the views Hitler held three decades after his death.
It is ironic that in his lifetime, Nietzsche was intellectually associated with anarchist movements, and it was in this context that attempts were made to ban his work in the 1890s. As well as having a small influence on Nazi thought, Nietzsche has been a mojor influence on intellectuals such as Sartre, Camus, Derrida, Heidegger and Foucault. Other fans of Nietzsche include de Gaulle, Mussolini, Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Herzl and Richard Nixon. All in all, a widely read philosopher, interpreted in various ways by all sides of the political spectrum. I tend to feel his branding as a proto-fascist is unfair and based on very narrow interpretations of some his work... but you probably guessed that
MODS: My apologies in advance for straying into political territory, I just wanted to make the point about Nietzsche not being a fascist. Please delete the relevant section of the post if you feel I have overstepped the mark.
Thanks
BT
Just a note on comparison's of Hitler to Nietszche. These often arise because both men were great users of the terms ubermensch and untermensch. They did not have the same meaning. While Hitler used these terms in a racial context, Nietszche used them to describe individuals who had either broken away from the slave mentality that he attributed to Christian society, or to describe those who could not do this. While reading Nietzsche, especially Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the reader may see some germs of Hitler's later ideas, but this was not Nietzches intent, and the man himself showed no sign of sympathising with the views Hitler held three decades after his death.
It is ironic that in his lifetime, Nietzsche was intellectually associated with anarchist movements, and it was in this context that attempts were made to ban his work in the 1890s. As well as having a small influence on Nazi thought, Nietzsche has been a mojor influence on intellectuals such as Sartre, Camus, Derrida, Heidegger and Foucault. Other fans of Nietzsche include de Gaulle, Mussolini, Theodore Roosevelt, Theodore Herzl and Richard Nixon. All in all, a widely read philosopher, interpreted in various ways by all sides of the political spectrum. I tend to feel his branding as a proto-fascist is unfair and based on very narrow interpretations of some his work... but you probably guessed that
MODS: My apologies in advance for straying into political territory, I just wanted to make the point about Nietzsche not being a fascist. Please delete the relevant section of the post if you feel I have overstepped the mark.
Thanks
BT
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
Fair points Amsel
but it's worth considering that an undefeated Nazi Germany would likely have a nuclear capability too
That is the truth for most book/movies.
RabidAlien
1st Lieutenant
I had envisioned a ColdWar-type decade or two, eventually erupting into conflict...a lull that would allow two war-weary nations to re-arm and re-gear.
parsifal
Colonel
If I could just clarify my original post.....I was assuming that peace was made with Britiain, and that the Soviets had not invaded. I was also not so interested in external threats, though the forign relations issue would have been intersting, rather, whether the essentially imperialist and reactionary Nazi dogmas could have survived long after the death of Hitler. To what extent could the ordinary Germans give up their priveleged position as the "master race"? How would the nazi creed have travelled in the post war liberation movements such as the liberal '60s, the gay rights movement etc. I think it would have been an utter train wreck for Germany and the rest of occupied Europe. Trade wise the Nazi regime was very innefficient.....I think Eurpoe woulod have descended very quickly to occupy a kiund of third world subculture, fullk of racial nutters and complete contradictionsi
