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.
Hitler came to power running not against his election opponents, rather by running against A) the Treaty of Versailles B) The Threat of Socialism and C) Those minorities he had indicted as having been traitors during WW I.
A and B are of a German restoration and protection nature, C deals with the concerns you have identified.
I suspect that the Germans who actually joined the party because they embraced the ideology whole heartedly, support your thesis about the primacy of the racial doctrines. However, they represented the minority. There were many more who joined the party not out of ideology, but because membership would advance their business or private agendas. And a larger majority existed who never joined the party at all, but cooperated either out of general agreement, indifference, or fear of reprisals.
So, a portion of Hitler's support was based on the racial purification ideas, while less intense but wider support was coming from Germans whose major concern was Germany recovering its status as the # 1 power on the continent. Those were the people who had no particular grudge against the Jews or Slavs, but not enough concern for them to raise a hand against their persecution. "They shouldn't be doing it to those people, but as long as it is them that they are doing it to and not me, its not my affair." I suspect that was probably the most common attitude in Germany.
I agree with your summary, but my point was directed at what motivated Hitler and his inner circle (aka the actual Nazi's), not necessarily Germans in general. Hitler and his folks were motivated by the racial ideologies. If they needed to sell the bread and butter lines to the German people to win their support, then so be it. Like I said, the glorification of Germany was a means to their end, not the end itself.
On the chemistry front, I understand the point jtur88 is making, but I look at it this way. Let's say we have a compound that is made up of three parts. One is good for people, one neutral and one bad. When mixed together the "bad" chemical dominates the compound and turns it into a WMD. Now apply that to the Nazi's:
"Good" chemical - economic reforms and programs, national solidarity.
"Neutral" chemical - territorial desires, military buildup.
"Bad" chemical - racial ideologies and persecution.
Now, just as foolish as it would be to look at our WMD compound and point out the "good" chemical and discuss the "neutral" one while completely ignoring the "bad" that dominates the whole, so to is it foolish to discuss the historical facts of the Nazi's while ignoring the "bad" chemical in their compound that dominated the whole.
People well versed in fields that use scientific research, understand that scientific research itself is not constrained by "morality". Morality is a human overlay, that is used to screen the immutable physical laws of the universe. Electricity is neither good nor bad, but at the will of men, can be used to go good or bad things. And so History.
I see now where your confusion is coming from and why you keep on lumping up history and electricity together.
Of course morality is human overlay and since history is made by people, one can make moral judgment ( whatever it is) regarding people's actions and their moral choices.
The law of physics on another hand are not created by humans - they are discovered by them, hence one can't *judge electricity.* Once the laws are discovered though, and humans ( scientists that is - physicists, chemists and what's not) start making choices about how to use them, with what purpose in mind - that's when morality comes in place yet again.
Quote:
A chemist who will obligingly create a weapon of mass destruction is no different from an historian who will revise known historical data in order to further the cause of propagandists with an agenda.
Since you are confused regarding the first part, you contradict yourself in the second.
If historian "revises known historical data" in order to "further the cause of propagandist," he is doing just that - he is changing/ manipulating historical facts, which is really not a big deal, since he can't change history itself. Other historians can easily contest his agenda and disapprove his theories. Now with chemists ( scientists in general) it's a different story; once they make a decisive discovery ( like say nuclear bomb,) there is no turning point, the history is made and it can't be changed. Hence historians shouldn't be really compared with scientists who are the true masters of the Universe.
So once we've established the difference, we can go back to the square one; definition of "good" and "bad" definitely exists ( although it can be perceived differently, and hence Hitler's Germany I suppose can be perceived differently as well.)
I agree with your summary, but my point was directed at what motivated Hitler and his inner circle (aka the actual Nazi's), not necessarily Germans in general. Hitler and his folks were motivated by the racial ideologies. If they needed to sell the bread and butter lines to the German people to win their support, then so be it. Like I said, the glorification of Germany was a means to their end, not the end itself.
On the chemistry front, I understand the point jtur88 is making, but I look at it this way. Let's say we have a compound that is made up of three parts. One is good for people, one neutral and one bad. When mixed together the "bad" chemical dominates the compound and turns it into a WMD. Now apply that to the Nazi's:
"Good" chemical - economic reforms and programs, national solidarity.
"Neutral" chemical - territorial desires, military buildup.
"Bad" chemical - racial ideologies and persecution.
Now, just as foolish as it would be to look at our WMD compound and point out the "good" chemical and discuss the "neutral" one while completely ignoring the "bad" that dominates the whole, so to is it foolish to discuss the historical facts of the Nazi's while ignoring the "bad" chemical in their compound that dominated the whole.
The fallacy in your argument continues to be the assignment of "good" and "bad". WMD's were perfectly "good" if they served the end purposes of a nation and a culture that happens to be your own . The atomic bomb, napalm, and digitally-guided or heat-seeking ordnance come quickly to mind.
Is it not also true that "national solidarity" and "racial ideologies" amount to the same thing, separable only by who are "we" and who are "they"?
The fallacy in your argument continues to be the assignment of "good" and "bad". WMD's were perfectly "good" if they served the end purposes of a nation and a culture that happens to be your own . The atomic bomb, napalm, and digitally-guided or heat-seeking ordnance come quickly to mind.
Is it not also true that "national solidarity" and "racial ideologies" amount to the same thing, separable only by who are "we" and who are "they"?
The fallacy of your argument continues to be exactly what erasure pointed out. Applying the human concept of good and bad to the realm of science which doesn't have it. I tried to play along, but oh well. If your general position was that it's all perspective based, then I would agree. People like sarahnyc probably don't see what the Nazi's did as bad. However, most of us do.
As for the last part, no. You can have national solidarity absent a racial ideology of "we" and "they". In general most would consider the concept of a united nation working towards a common cause as a positive thing. The Nazi's were the masters of that. Of course, to achieve that solidarity you generally need a cause for the people to unite behind. That cause could be the implementation of a racial ideology or it may not.
The fallacy of your argument continues to be exactly what erasure pointed out. Applying the human concept of good and bad to the realm of science which doesn't have it. I tried to play along, but oh well. If your general position was that it's all perspective based, then I would agree. People like sarahnyc probably don't see what the Nazi's did as bad. However, most of us do.
As for the last part, no. You can have national solidarity absent a racial ideology of "we" and "they". In general most would consider the concept of a united nation working towards a common cause as a positive thing. The Nazi's were the masters of that. Of course, to achieve that solidarity you generally need a cause for the people to unite behind. That cause could be the implementation of a racial ideology or it may not.
I never said it is all perspective-based. I observed that YOUR interpretation of it is perspective-based. I said there is no sense of good and bad in the physical laws of the universe, which include the arrow-of-time law that what is done is done and is now a fact of history, regardless of whether you wish to paint it good or bad from a narrow retrospective viewpoint.
I then added that, when YOU insist on attributing morality to scientific fact, YOU then compound the felony by insisting that the morality is as you wish it to be according to a highly culture-laden slant.
I am not arguing morality here, as you are. I am arguing that historical events, a moment after their occurrence, become irretrievable facts , which either happened or didn't, and may be subject to ethical analysis. But not by historians, whose only task is to establish the fact of the occurrence as an applied science, no more subject to moral outrage than the laws of gravity.
It is the business of historians to determine the now immutable facts of what Hitler did. It is the business of moralists, not the historians, to judge him for his deeds. I am standing here as a defender of the discipline of Historical scholarship, not of the nazis, but the mere fact of doing so invariably subjects me to shrill accusations of the latter by people who can't see the difference.
I never said it is all perspective-based. I observed that YOU said that. I said there is no sense of good and bad in the physical laws of the universe, which include the arrow-of-time law that what is done is done and is now a fact of history, regardless of whether you wish to paint it good or bad from a narrow retrospective viewpoint.
I then added that, when YOU insist on attributing morality to scientific fact, YOU then compound the felony by insisting that the morality is as you wish it to be according to a highly culture-laden slant.
I am not arguing morality here, as you are. I am arguing that historical events, a moment after their occurrence, become irretrievable facts , which either happened or didn't, and may be subject to ethical analysis. But not by historians, whose only task is to establish the fact of the occurrence as an applied science, no more subject to moral outrage than the second law of thermodynamics.
How can one understand the events if they are not able to place themselves in the context of the time and emotional and moral attitudes that allowed/caused the events to occur? In fact that is what good historians do. It's fine to place "fact" as "fact", bereft of emotion or morality, but history is not merely a stringing together of facts. History is interpretation. As Carr famously quipped:
Quote:
There are "facts of the past" and there are "historical facts", it is the historians that decide which are which and place their interpretation upon them. In that way history is a constant dialogue between the past and the present.
You seem to be taking the direction of von Ranke who believed that one should "show what actually happened", or merely string together the facts as they were with no interpretation. This is not good history as it leaves the reader without context that can only come from interpretation. What do we all do on this forum? We read facts, interpret them and form an opinion. If we were restricted from doing that all that would be left were bullet points listing facts. The interpretation is where the real work of history is done.
Carr would also agree that morality or good/evil should not enter into the historical record if one is projecting current moral standards back on the historical time period. Instead he preffered the use of the terms progressive or reactionary and never against individuals, only against larger institutions.
In that context you can weigh the "moral argument" without interjecting morality based on present reference. Take the first Soviet 5 Year Plan, that resulted in collectivisation and the "Holodomor". Millions perished, but the result was the foundation for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union in the 1930's that allowed them to resist Nazi Germany. This was a progressive action. Yes, the deaths that were caused were "bad", but the results of those deaths ended in a positive, hence progressive.
When you look at Nazi Germany, their actions are mostly classified as reactionary. The prosecution of the Holocaust and the racial ideologies that governed their actions led to the ruin of Germany. Nothing positive came out of the Holocaust, hence it was a reactionary move and is the historical equivalent of "bad".
So, the Soviets killed roughly the same number of people in collectivisation and the Holodomor as the Germans killed in the Holocaust. Millions of deaths is not good by anyone's moral compass. However, when we apply the means test of progressive versus reactionary, we can determine which of these actions had a net positive impact on their society and which had a net negative.
So, the Soviets killed roughly the same number of people in collectivisation and the Holodomor as the Germans killed in the Holocaust. Millions of deaths is not good by anyone's moral compass. However, when we apply the means test of progressive versus reactionary, we can determine which of these actions had a net positive impact on their society and which had a net negative.
Where can I get a copy of this "means test" because it seems god awfully skewed even from the standpoint of historical analysis.
Where can I get a copy of this "means test" because it seems god awfully skewed even from the standpoint of historical analysis.
The original source for what I laid out is the work of Edward Hallet Carr who wrote the book "What is History?" based on his lectures at Cambridge. Not everyone agrees with his theories regarding historical scholarship and purpose, but he has more supporters than critics. I gave a pretty simplified version of what his points are. He warns similar to what jtur88 was arguing that historians should not inject their personal morality into the interpretation of the facts. However, he also relents that doing so is virtually impossible, so falls back on the terms progressive and reactionary within the context of the events and their societies to help frame a more objective view.
For instance this is his quote on Stalin and that ultimately within the context of the Soviet Union Stalin was a force for good:
Quote:
He revived and outdid the worst brutalities of the earlier Tsars; and his record excited revulsion in later generations of historians. Yet his achievement in borrowing from the West, in forcing on primitive Russia the material foundations of modern civilisation, and in giving Russia a place among the European powers, obliged them to concede, however reluctantly his title to greatness. Stalin was the most ruthless despot Russia had known since Peter, and also a great westerniser.
He would go on to explain that historians shouldn't be completely devoid of making moral judgements, but they should be careful to not let those judgements lead to them distorting the facts solely to support the moral judgement they made. We can say Stalin was a bloodthirsty and evil person, but we can't let that view overtake the realities of what he achieved. Hence, the genesis of progressive and reactionary.
I was using this argument to support the conclusion that even bereft of moral judgement and interpretation the means test of the facts would show a net negative or reactionary stance by Nazi Germany. It is therefore OK to paint the Nazi's as evil and Stalin as well based on moral compass as long as we do not let that judgement impact the facts of the historical record. However, that is still contrary to jtur's assumption that morality, interpretation and judgement should never enter the realm of historical study.
Hence, the genesis of progressive and reactionary.
...It is therefore OK to paint the Nazi's as evil and Stalin as well based on moral compass as long as we do not let that judgement impact the facts of the historical record. However, that is still contrary to jtur's assumption that morality, interpretation and judgement should never enter the realm of historical study.
I think I take offense on the use of "morality", progressive, and reactionary which have totally divergent historical meanings to me. And, while I too believe that personal morality has no place in history other than explaining the morality that existed in at the time and placed within its historical context. As for progressive and reactionary, well a very good argument could be made based on the basis that you have laid out that Nazi Germany was progressive as others here have attempted to do in the past. The fact that the NSDP was able to drag Germany out of depression and build one of the greatest war machines that world has ever know could just as well be described as progressive as Stalin. The only difference is that Hitler's progress lasted only a few decades less that Stalin's.
How can one understand the events if they are not able to place themselves in the context of the time and emotional and moral attitudes that allowed/caused the events to occur?.
I don't know how to say this anymore.
Look---it's like meteorology. They measure the rainfall every day. If there is a drought or a flood, that is not a matter for meteorologists to evaluate or pass judgment on. They just report what is in the rain gauge, and that goes into climatic history. It's a science.
Whether or not people flourish or suffer from the rain has no effect on the historical fact of the measurements in the gauge.
Are you saying that historical facts cannot be known, or are useless knowledge, unless someone makes an agenda-driven pontification on the ethical merit of the events?
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.
