Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, IMO it accomplishes the opposite of their goal. While suppressing the symbols of the Nazi, it's like you're attempting to dampen the memory of that party, even though the entire lesson from the Holocaust is "never forget."
Not that I think putting swastikas up everywhere is a good idea, per se. We should just stop being afraid of it like the big, bad wolf. Those were people who killed 6 million Jews, not demons. The best thing we can do in memory of the dead is remember that.
There is a fine line there between rememberence and certainly freedom of speech and oppression and using symbols to intimidate.
Check out US Nazi party on wiki...especially the skokie march etc. Good history there.
On the topic of Hitler being elected, you have to remember that Germany used a Parliamentary system of government. Just as the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by the monarch based on the recommendation of the prevailing party, so to was Hitler appointed Chancellor by then President Hindenburg.
You can read multiple articles leading up to how Hitler became appointed, but what it basically comes down to is that none of the old guard wanted the Nazi's or the communists, but they had continued to gain power, even working together in the Reichstag to continue to minimize the old guards influence. Eventually the Nazi's gained enough seats and leverage to force their hand and gain power. Papen (whose party had been loosely allied with the Nazi's since 1931) leveraged his influence with Hindenburg to have Hitler appointed Chancellor and himself appointed Vice Chancellor. Papen believed that this move and the greater number of ministers from his party would serve to check the Nazi's. They failed miserably and the old guard submitted to each of Hitler's demands/decrees one after the other without a peep. The situation had basically come down to accepting the extremism of the Nazi's or the communists and the Nazi's were at least somewhat inline with the old guards views, though they despised their extremism and militancy.
So, in 1932 and 1933, the Nazi party did in fact gain the largest share of seats in the Reichstag, making them the most powerful political party and Goring was the Reichstag president. Through continued maneuvering and pressure the Nazi's got Hitler appointed Chancellor, which was almost a concilliatory move on the part of the old guard who realized that they needed to either side with the Nazi's or the communists. They thought they could control the Nazi's and they were wrong. Through a series of acts, all approved by the Reichstag Hitler became a dictator with all the powers he wanted.
So, Hitler himself was never voted into office, but his party was (just like the Prime Minister of the UK is not themself voted for) and then Hitler did gain his powers through the Reichstag in a consitutional manner. There were people who had tried to get those same level of powers previously, including Papen and his replacement Schleicher, but they never succeeded as Hitler did.
What I was getting at was the bolded section of your post where there has been a reasonably established benchmark 50 years ago. While it has changed somewhat and there is ongoing work....they are all somewhere "in the ballpark".
The only sqwaking I ever hear is when a "researcher" comes out with some crazy-low number or outright claims that it never happened...driven by politics.
Those attacks are ESPECIALLY distasteful to those of us that understand that it wasn't even all about jews. It was about exterminating ANYBODY deemed undesirable by the powers that be based upon their definitions. These were racial reasons, sexual orientation, political, religious....and more.
Something to ponder when someone rails about gays, blacks, whites, mormons, atheists, socialists or whatever.
Exactly. There has been a ton of work done and most come to the same general number, hence why it is so readily repeated and quoted. The 11 million total figure is agreed upon by the vast majority of the historical community. The overall goal of on going research is to continue to revise that number and work towards an exact count which is virtually impossible to do.
Also, here is what is illegal in some European countries:
1. Claiming that the Holocaust never happened.
2. Claiming that the Holocaust did not contain industrialized mass murder as a facet of its execution. This means stating that the Nazis never wanted to kill anyone or that, yes they rounded them up, but they died in camps from starvation or bombing all from the ravages of war. Many of these claims try to place the onous for the deaths on Allied bombing. Grossly deflating the figures of those killed also falls under this, unless backed with valid research.
3. Displaying the swastika for anything but an educational purpose. In German schools, the swastika is shown in text books, movies, etc. There are also swastika flags and things on display in museums. This is not illegal as it is about education. People are also allowed to possess and display photos of family members that are wearing uniforms in their homes or people wearing swastikas if they so choose (I know a family who only has one photo of the great grandfather and his family. In it he is wearing a SS uniform with swastika armband. The picture is in their upstairs hallway with other family photos, this is not illegal). What is illegal is using the swastika as a symbol such as displaying it on a public flag, wearing an arm band, etc. So, it is not the image itself that is banned, but the use of that image for anything but educational reasons is prohibited given the deeper meaning of the symbol.
On the topic of Hitler being elected, you have to remember that Germany used a Parliamentary system of government. Just as the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by the monarch based on the recommendation of the prevailing party, so to was Hitler appointed Chancellor by then President Hindenburg.
He was appointed because they were not able to form a government, and then pressured Hindenburg to appoint him. Not because that's how you became chancellor at that time.
You can read multiple articles leading up to how Hitler became appointed, but what it basically comes down to is that none of the old guard wanted the Nazi's or the communists, but they had continued to gain power, even working together in the Reichstag to continue to minimize the old guards influence. Eventually the Nazi's gained enough seats and leverage to force their hand and gain power. Papen (whose party had been loosely allied with the Nazi's since 1931) leveraged his influence with Hindenburg to have Hitler appointed Chancellor and himself appointed Vice Chancellor. Papen believed that this move and the greater number of ministers from his party would serve to check the Nazi's. They failed miserably and the old guard submitted to each of Hitler's demands/decrees one after the other without a peep. The situation had basically come down to accepting the extremism of the Nazi's or the communists and the Nazi's were at least somewhat inline with the old guards views, though they despised their extremism and militancy.
So, in 1932 and 1933, the Nazi party did in fact gain the largest share of seats in the Reichstag, making them the most powerful political party and Goring was the Reichstag president. Through continued maneuvering and pressure the Nazi's got Hitler appointed Chancellor, which was almost a concilliatory move on the part of the old guard who realized that they needed to either side with the Nazi's or the communists. They thought they could control the Nazi's and they were wrong. Through a series of acts, all approved by the Reichstag Hitler became a dictator with all the powers he wanted.
So, Hitler himself was never voted into office, but his party was (just like the Prime Minister of the UK is not themself voted for) and then Hitler did gain his powers through the Reichstag in a consitutional manner. There were people who had tried to get those same level of powers previously, including Papen and his replacement Schleicher, but they never succeeded as Hitler did.
There have been a NUMBER of historians that have tackled this subject and they've arrived consistently in a reasonably range. Amongst historians it's really not a big debate.
I have a strong sense that this statement is in the same category:
"There have been a number of theologians that have studied the Bible, and have arrived consistently at a conclusion that the universe was created by intelligent design and that Jesus was the son of God."
The problem is, so many of those who have been inspired to study it in great depth had a vested interest in arriving at a favored conclusion. The same thing happens with the near-unanimous conclusion among capitalist economists that Capitalism is the only system that can work, or among western scientists that our Cartesian view of the physical sciences is the only one that can explain the universe, or western-based medical research always proving that it works better than eastern medicine.
I have a strong sense that this statement is in the same category:
"There have been a number of theologians that have studied the Bible, and have arrived consistently at a conclusion that the universe was created by intelligent design and that Jesus was the son of God."
The problem is, so many of those who have been inspired to study it in great depth had a vested interest in arriving at a favored conclusion. The same thing happens with the near-unanimous conclusion among capitalist economists that Capitalism is the only system that can work, or among western scientists that our Cartesian view of the physical sciences is the only one that can explain the universe, or western-based medical research always proving that it works better than eastern medicine.
Or the absurd thesis of the OP that there was no ethical difference between Nazi Germany and the Allies...
Or the absurd thesis of the OP that there was no ethical difference between Nazi Germany and the Allies...
"Nazi Germany" did not have an ethic. It was a political construct designed to advance the fortunes of the homeland.
The Jews and the Native Americans were both seen, in their respective time, rather equally, as expendable people who stood in the way of national progress toward an espoused ideal.
Hitler treated the Jews with a great deal more civility, respect and dignity, than Leopold, King of one the allies, treated the population of the Congo, in the same half-century.
...Those attacks are ESPECIALLY distasteful to those of us that understand that it wasn't even all about jews. It was about exterminating ANYBODY deemed undesirable by the powers that be based upon their definitions. These were racial reasons, sexual orientation, political, religious....and more.
Something to ponder when someone rails about gays, blacks, whites, mormons, atheists, socialists or whatever.
I think it's noteworthy that the first German camp, Dachau was established for political prisoners, mainly Communists and Social Democrats. Sort of in the same vein, the Euthanasia program was something of a "dry run" for the Holocaust.
Hitler treated the Jews with a great deal more civility than Leopold, King of one the allies, treated the population of the Congo.
I think that we should collectively resolve to not engage in these "Who Was The Cruelest" compare and contrast arguments. Whether you mean to or not, when you assert that Hitler seems benign compared to.......whomever...you are doing so at the risk of being perceived as playing down the sufferings of Hitler's victims.
Is there any sense to this approach? If you wish to spotlight Leopold as more horrible than Hitler, then someone else can play "top you out" by describing a Comache skin flaying death drawn out over a period of days, or some impossibly barbaric ritual conducted by primitives in the interior of Madagascar. Where does Nero turning Christians into human torches to light up the arena where the folks have come to watch other Christians being torn apart and eaten by wild animals, rank? And how much worse was any of the above when contrasted to a visit from the Vikings upon some hapless coastal settlement?
Finally, there really isn't any sort of prevailing criteria which could be employed to make the "worst ever" determination. Do we go by highest number of victims? Most amount of suffering inflicted upon those who were the victims? Some balance of those two concepts? Least justified? Worst motivation?
Plenty of horrible people doing lots of wretched things througout history, it isn't the sort of thing that demands rankings.
I think that we should collectively resolve to not engage in these "Who Was The Cruelest" compare and contrast arguments. Whether you mean to or not, when you assert that Hitler seems benign compared to.......whomever...you are doing so at the risk of being perceived as playing down the sufferings of Hitler's victims..
If you would sorta follow along with the discussion, you would see that I was responding to Yaledaf's "Or the absurd thesis of the OP that there was no ethical difference between Nazi Germany and the Allies."
In fact, you could easily go back and check the OP, and recollect that this whole thread is about whether Hitler's activity "seems benign compared to" anyone else's motives and goals, and you have certainly been playing along with that thesis (ten posts) up until your knee-jerk opposition to my post regardless of what I've said.
Last edited by jtur88; 10-24-2011 at 05:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
