The Communist Manifesto makes an eloquent and convincing case that the economic elite (which they call the bourgeoise) exploits the working class (which they call the proletariat). It is very east to see why Marx and Engles felt that the bourgeoise was indifferent or hostile to the interests of the proletariat.
The Nazis largely agreed with the above assessment. Unlike the communists, the Nazis placed special emphasis on the economic exploitation by Jewish members of the bourgeoise. For the Nazis, a chief cause of the economic exploitation was Jewish enmity towards non-Jews. Marxists believed the exploitation was due to class consciousness, not racial consciousness.
The communist solution to the above problem was for every member of the world’s working class to recognize a common bond with every other member of the world’s working class. United by the bond of common economic status, the world’s proletariat would throw off bourgeoise rule and institute a global communist government.
The Nazi solution to the problem was to awaken a sense of brotherhood toward all German and other Nordic people. German factory owners were told that their workers were valuable human beings. On the off chance any factory owner refused to listen, the Nazi government disbanded the labor unions, and itself assumed their functionality. It dictated terms to the factory owners: a workweek reduced to 40 hours, significantly increased wage rates, improved workplace safety standards, much longer vacation time. The German government also provided heavily subsidized cruises to German workers, so that they could travel and see the world.
The communists were deeply hostile to the bourgeoise. One of the major themes of communism is class warfare; with warfare often understood in the most literal sense possible. The Nazis had a benign view of non-Jewish members of the German bourgeoise. The Nazis made no effort to nationalize the possessions of the bourgeoise. Nor did they object to the notion of German capitalists making profits in their business ventures. Some members of the German bourgeoise had a benign view of the Nazis as they were coming to power. They made large contributions to the Nazis’ political campaign. After Hitler assumed control over Germany, there was no longer a need for privately funded political campaigning. One of the bourgeoise’s main tools for controlling Western democracies–political lobbying dollars–was thus denied to them in Nazi Germany. Perhaps as a result of this reduction in bourgeoise influence, there was not a single major instance of Hitler sacrificing the tenets of his ideology or the needs of Germany in order to benefit the bourgeoise. However, Hitler was still sensitive to bourgeoise concerns. He wanted to give them enough to keep them on his side, as part of his larger goal of a strong, united Germany.
Both communists and Nazis wanted to create a world in which people were willing to sacrifice for something larger than oneself. For communists, that meant sacrificing oneself for the benefit of the proletariat class as a whole. For the Nazis, it meant sacrificing oneself for one’s nation or one’s race.
In an ant colony, ants are united together by the bond of genetic similarity. In ancient times nations were the same way. The Greek word for nation implies a sort of extended clan–a group of somewhat related people. It is reasonable to conclude that most members of any given Greek city state were connected by blood to most other members. (Even if the blood connections were often distant.) These blood relations proved a solid foundation upon which to build national unification and self-sacrifice.
The Nazi basis for unification was therefore based on something which has been proved to work in nature and in the human past. The communist basis for unification–shared economic status–represented a radical experiment, done in the absence of any evidence that experiment would work. In practice, communism has not proved effective at causing people to want to sacrifice for something larger than themselves. With one exception: communists can unite people by persuading them they share a common enemy. The basis of communist unity is hate (toward that common enemy) rather than love (of the world’s proletariat). This is because sharing the same economic status as someone is not a strong basis for love.
On the other hand, there were two bases of Nazi unity: love (of one’s own nation, and one’s own race), and hate (of perceived enemies of the Nazis or the Germans). Because love had been added to the mix, Germans were much more willing to sacrifice for Nazism than the Soviets were to sacrifice for communism. The tremendous sacrifices the Soviet Union made during WWII were made because the Russians were taught to believe the Nazis were monsters. They were not made based on a love for the world’s proletariat, or because of a love for communism, or any other kind of love. Except, perhaps a love for Russia; despite communist propaganda about the need to abandon the notion of nations.
Another point of difference between the Nazis and the communists was eugenics. Under Stalin, a man named Trofim Lysenko was tasked with persecuting Soviet geneticists. Any Soviet scientist who subscribed to modern genetics theory–the idea that traits are passed from parents to children through genes–was either shot in the back of the head or sent to a gulag.
The Nazis, on the other hand, subscribed to the scientific view that traits are passed from parents to children via genes. Accordingly, they sought to improve the gene pool through eugenics. A Nazi propaganda poster lamented the fact that intelligent, law-abiding men were having fewer children than their unintelligent law abiding counterparts; who in turn were having fewer children than unintelligent criminals. Had they remained in power longer, the Nazis would have increased their efforts to counter these dysgenic fertility trends.
A final difference between Nazis and communists is their perspectives on race. The communists welcome the idea of racial intermarriage. For them, the existence of race is a support to the existing social order. Getting rid of race would help the world’s proletariat unite and throw off the bourgeoise oppressors. The Nazis took the polar opposite view.
a sense of brotherhood toward all German and other Nordic people
Unless they happen to be homosexual, disabled (physically or mentally), politically dissident, unwilling to compromise their religious faith, or have mixed ancestry.
So much love, right?
Unless they happen to be homosexual, disabled (physically or mentally), politically dissident, unwilling to compromise their religious faith, or have mixed ancestry.
So much love, right?
You are correct that the Nazis weren’t kind toward political dissidents. The “religious faith” thing is more debatable. Yes, the Nazis went after some religious people who’d been engaging in covert anti-Nazi political activity. But that could be seen as part of their larger effort to suppress anti-Nazi political activity in general.
The Nazis had a more progressive attitude toward homosexual activity than most people in Western democracies. When Hitler learned that the head of the SA had been found in bed with another male, Hitler’s first concern was whether that other person had been an adult or a child. Upon learning that the SA head’s sexual partner was a man, not a boy, Hitler’s reaction was that what he did in his bed was his own business. In the past Hitler had been castigated by Allied historians for his tolerance of “perverts” within the Nazi ranks. More recent historians have praised him for having had more advanced attitudes towards homosexuals than did most of his contemporaries in Western democracies.
The Nazis had a more progressive attitude toward homosexual activity than most people in Western democracies. When Hitler learned that the head of the SA had been found in bed with another male, Hitler’s first concern was whether that other person had been an adult or a child. Upon learning that the SA head’s sexual partner was a man, not a boy, Hitler’s reaction was that what he did in his bed was his own business. In the past Hitler had been castigated by Allied historians for his tolerance of “perverts” within the Nazi ranks. More recent historians have praised him for having had more advanced attitudes towards homosexuals than did most of his contemporaries in Western democracies.
On the other hand, when Hitler ordered Ernst Rohm and other SA men to be liquidated, one of the public justifications for the murders was supposedly that Rohm was either engaged in unspecified “perversions” or was specifically a homosexual. Hitler had no difficulty changing his position on any number of issues, including this one; his priority wasn’t to be principled or consistent or true to his word, his priority was to do whatever was expedient to support whatever his current objectives happended to be.
I also find it hard to comprehend how the Nazis can be described as being progressive on gay rights, given the way that they used a pink triangle badge in concentration camps to identify homosexuals and other “deviants” in the same way that they used yellow stars to brand Jews.
@CWO:
The Nazis had a more progressive attitude toward homosexual activity than most people in Western democracies. When Hitler learned that the head of the SA had been found in bed with another male, Hitler’s first concern was whether that other person had been an adult or a child. Upon learning that the SA head’s sexual partner was a man, not a boy, Hitler’s reaction was that what he did in his bed was his own business. In the past Hitler had been castigated by Allied historians for his tolerance of “perverts” within the Nazi ranks. More recent historians have praised him for having had more advanced attitudes towards homosexuals than did most of his contemporaries in Western democracies.
Your first paragraph is a good point. Hitler was a politician, and came to power largely through the democratic process. He had more in common with other democratically elected politicians than most people realize. Including the willingness to shift principles and pander to his base.
I hadn’t previously heard the pink triangle claim. What is your source for it?
On the other hand, when Hitler ordered Ernst Rohm and other SA men to be liquidated, one of the public justifications for the murders was supposedly that Rohm was either engaged in unspecified “perversions” or was specifically a homosexual. Hitler had no difficulty changing his position on any number of issues, including this one; his priority wasn’t to be principled or consistent or true to his word, his priority was to do whatever was expedient to support whatever his current objectives happended to be.
I also find it hard to comprehend how the Nazis can be described as being progressive on gay rights, given the way that they used a pink triangle badge in concentration camps to identify homosexuals and other “deviants” in the same way that they used yellow stars to brand Jews.
I hadn’t previously heard the pink triangle claim. What is your source for it?
The Wikipedia article on the subject “Pink Triangle” cites various sources:
1. Plant, The Pink Triangle
2. “English-German Dictionary”. dict.cc. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
3. Plant, The Pink Triangle.
4. Plant, Richard (1988). The pink triangle: the Nazi war against homosexuals (revised ed.). H. Holt. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-8050-0600-1.
5. “San Francisco Neighborhoods: The Castro” KQED documentary.
6. Melissa Eddy (May 18, 2002). “Germany Offers Nazi-Era Pardons”. Associated Press.
7. Brocklebank, Christopher (31 May 2011). “New memorial to gay holocaust victims to be built in Munich”. Pink News. Retrieved 1 June 2011.
8. Gianoulis, Tina (2004). Claude J. Summers, ed. “Pink Triangle”. glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Retrieved 2014-09-26. “In the early 1970s, gay rights organizations in Germany and the United States launched campaigns to reclaim the pink triangle. In 1973 the German gay liberation group Homosexuelle Aktion Westberlin (HAW) called upon gay men to wear the pink triangle as a memorial.”
9. “Symbols of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Movements”. lambda.org. Lambda GLBT Community Services. 2004. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
10. Jensen, Erik (2002). “The pink triangle and political consciousness: gays, lesbians, and the memory of Nazi persecution”. Journal of the History of Sexuality 11 (1 and 2).
11. “The Pink Triangle, displayed annually on Twin Peaks in San Francisco during Pride weekend”. Thepinktriangle.com. 2012-06-14. Retrieved 2013-02-12.
12. Feldman, Douglas A. and Judith Wang Miller (1998). The AIDS Crisis: A Documentary History. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-28715-5. p. 176
Further reading
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin (1999) by Gad Beck (University of Wisconsin Press). ISBN 0-299-16500-0.
The Iron Words (2014) by Michael Fridgen (Dreamlly Publishing). ISBN 0-615-99269-3.
Liberation Was for Others: Memoirs of a Gay Survivor of the Nazi Holocaust (1997) by Pierre Seel (Perseus Book Group). ISBN 0-306-80756-4.
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror (1995) by Pierre Seel. ISBN 0-465-04500-6.
Heinz Heger (1994). Men With the Pink Triangle: The True, Life-And-Death Story of Homosexuals in the Nazi Death Camps. Alyson Books. ISBN 1-55583-006-4.
@CWO:
I hadn’t previously heard the pink triangle claim. What is your source for it?
The Wikipedia article on the subject “Pink Triangle” cites various sources:
1. Plant, The Pink Triangle
2. “English-German Dictionary”. dict.cc. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
3. Plant, The Pink Triangle.
4. Plant, Richard (1988). The pink triangle: the Nazi war against homosexuals (revised ed.). H. Holt. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-8050-0600-1.
5. “San Francisco Neighborhoods: The Castro” KQED documentary.
6. Melissa Eddy (May 18, 2002). “Germany Offers Nazi-Era Pardons”. Associated Press.
7. Brocklebank, Christopher (31 May 2011). “New memorial to gay holocaust victims to be built in Munich”. Pink News. Retrieved 1 June 2011.
8. Gianoulis, Tina (2004). Claude J. Summers, ed. “Pink Triangle”. glbtq: An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. Retrieved 2014-09-26. “In the early 1970s, gay rights organizations in Germany and the United States launched campaigns to reclaim the pink triangle. In 1973 the German gay liberation group Homosexuelle Aktion Westberlin (HAW) called upon gay men to wear the pink triangle as a memorial.”
9. “Symbols of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Movements”. lambda.org. Lambda GLBT Community Services. 2004. Retrieved 2014-09-26.
10. Jensen, Erik (2002). “The pink triangle and political consciousness: gays, lesbians, and the memory of Nazi persecution”. Journal of the History of Sexuality 11 (1 and 2).
11. “The Pink Triangle, displayed annually on Twin Peaks in San Francisco during Pride weekend”. Thepinktriangle.com. 2012-06-14. Retrieved 2013-02-12.
12. Feldman, Douglas A. and Judith Wang Miller (1998). The AIDS Crisis: A Documentary History. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 0-313-28715-5. p. 176
Further reading
An Underground Life: Memoirs of a Gay Jew in Nazi Berlin (1999) by Gad Beck (University of Wisconsin Press). ISBN 0-299-16500-0.
The Iron Words (2014) by Michael Fridgen (Dreamlly Publishing). ISBN 0-615-99269-3.
Liberation Was for Others: Memoirs of a Gay Survivor of the Nazi Holocaust (1997) by Pierre Seel (Perseus Book Group). ISBN 0-306-80756-4.
I, Pierre Seel, Deported Homosexual: A Memoir of Nazi Terror (1995) by Pierre Seel. ISBN 0-465-04500-6.
Heinz Heger (1994). Men With the Pink Triangle: The True, Life-And-Death Story of Homosexuals in the Nazi Death Camps. Alyson Books. ISBN 1-55583-006-4.
Thanks for the response. I will have to do more digging to determine whether this is valid, or whether it’s another “lampshades made of human skin” type claim. Without doing further research, I don’t want to commit myself to either possibility.
However, a specific subset of the article stood out:
After the camps were liberated at the end of the Second World War, many of the pink triangle prisoners were often simply re-imprisoned by the Allied-established Federal Republic of Germany.[citation needed] An openly gay man named Heinz Doermer, for instance, served 20 years total, first in a Nazi concentration camp and then in the jails of the new Republic. In fact, the Nazi amendments to Paragraph 175, which turned homosexuality from a minor offense into a felony, remained intact in both East and West Germany after the war for a further 24 years.
Assuming the allegations in the article are accurate, the Nazis’ treatment of homosexuals was basically identical to that of the victorious Allies.
More recent historians have praised him for having had more advanced attitudes towards homosexuals than did most of his contemporaries in Western democracies.
What’s your source for this?
OMG more of this “The Communists are worse than the Nazi’s” –-Godel its like every day with you. The lampshade talk and death talk never ends.
@Imperious:
OMG more of this “The Communists are worse than the Nazi’s” –-Godel its like every day with you. The lampshade talk and death talk never ends.
IL, unless Kurt made and deleted a post, you should probably at least read his posts before mindlessly opposing them because you know he has some different opinions than you.
Kurt’s actual post if from a month ago, and it made no mention of Communism.
Consider the topic and how it migrates to the same old soap box. I did read the posts.
That opinion is revisionist " The Nazi’s are not bad guys" crap where he magically brings up the same points about how the Allies and Stalin were just as bad as Hitler, then worse.
I have this old woman tenant that complains about not having a parking space about every 2 months and i got to hear her whench about that for about 20 minutes of listening to this women ( who never takes a breath speaking the entire 20 minutes), While i put the phone down and watch Bonanza on my DVR and occasionally pick up the phone to check if she is done. Well about half way thru the Bonanza episode, i check and she is finished and waiting for me to talk/reply. To which i repeat: " You never had a parking spot and you never will have one unless either you are paying market rents, or someone just decides that they want to give up their parking spot"
Now i tell her when she calls to never bring up the parking issue and a few other things she complains about every single time.
Funny thing is she stops herself midstream and says " just to make this short– i just want to say…" Which is ridiculous considering the filibuster she unloads.
Go look at his posts… all of them… every single one… i mean EVERYONE… I DID THAT, YOU TRY IT so then you can delete your post.
I think nobody should do the soapbox thing around here, especially pro-nazi talk.
@Imperious:
Consider the topic and how it migrates to the same old soap box. I did read the posts.
So you’re admitting you made a completely irrelevant and uninformed post a month late for the sole reason of making an unsupported claim that someone’s analysis of a given source is wrong?
@Imperious:
That opinion is revisionist " The Nazi’s are not bad guys" crap where he magically brings up the same points about how the Allies and Stalin were just as bad as Hitler, then worse.
Soviet actions being worse =/= Nazis are not bad. Your opinion that the Nazi atrocities are worse than the Soviet ones has as much merit, but your general lack of sources makes your argument weaker.
@Imperious:
Go look at his posts… all of them… every single one… i mean EVERYONE… I DID THAT, YOU TRY IT so then you can delete your post.
He doesn’t say that the Nazis/Hitler were saints, or that all their actions were completely excusable, just that they were not the belligerent in WWII that committed the most crimes.
Contrary to some earlier responses, and in accord with others, I don’t think the cause was differences between competing ideologies so much as similarities between murderous totalitarian regimes. Perhaps thinking of the political spectrum as a circle rather than a straight line illustrates this - instead of Fascism and Communism at two distant extremes, they are both on the opposite side of the circle to democratic governance. Their determination to highlight their differences perhaps instead highlights their similarities?
Each threatened the ability of the other to claim ideological “truth” and both perceived their competing status as being defined by military might and conquest rather than by the force of ideas or demonstrable benefits to their citizenry. As each had designs on the same territories the almost unavoidable outcome was war.
Edit - You can accept the argument that the Soviets were even worse than the Nazis without excusing the Nazis their deserved pariah status. Let’s keep it civil, even when we have strong disagreements.
I recently inherited a few things after a funeral.
Anyone want a Lamp?
So you’re admitting you made a completely irrelevant and uninformed post a month late for the sole reason of making an unsupported claim that someone’s analysis of a given source is wrong?
Yes exactly the opposite.
Soviet actions being worse =/= Nazis are not bad. Your opinion that the Nazi atrocities are worse than the Soviet ones has as much merit, but your general lack of sources makes your argument weaker.
That’s not what he’s saying. He says all the allies are worse by various innuendo statements. I’m not making any argument. Just pointing out this claim is in about 90% of his posts, even if the topic was about “how do i fix a carburetor”. He always moves the conversation to the same talking points without fail.
He doesn’t say that the Nazis/Hitler were saints, or that all their actions were completely excusable, just that they were not the belligerent in WWII that committed the most crimes.
No not directly, but he tries to lower the opinion of the cause and effects of what the Allies did to make the Nazi’s seem sanguine. Like saying the cops are corrupt, so the guy who shot 15 people should go free because the cops may be racist. It’s a fallacy of argument to attempt to lower one side to make another side “look” better. You might want to look up how to argue points. Historians fallacy comes to mind, as does ad infinitum, ad consequentiam, Association fallacy, heck even Reductio ad Hitlerum would fit.
@Imperious:
That’s not what he’s saying. He says all the allies are worse by various innuendo statements.
KurtGodel goes further than that even; he explicitly blames the Western powers for the Nazi’s own war crimes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34744.msg1394863#msg1394863
KurtGodel goes further than that even; he explicitly blames the Western powers for the Nazi’s own war crimes.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34744.msg1394863#msg1394863
Enlighten me to where this explicit blame for Nazi war crimes is. I only see blame for unnecessary famine conditions that Germany shifted the consequences of to the same people that they committed their war crimes against.
Not content with merely turning a blind eye to Soviet mass murder, the Western democracies chose to indulge in mass murder of their own. That mass murder began in 1939, with their food blockade of Germany.
…
Germany responded to famine conditions by feeding Germans first, Slavs second, Jews not at all. Exactly how you’d expect a Nazi government to respond to famine. As a result of this (predictable) response, millions of Poles starved to death. Granted, tens of millions of non-Poles were also starved or otherwise killed, including 6 million Jews.
Unless I am being dense, KurtGodel is blaming the Allies for the Final Solution.
KG treads a risky path in which he highlights failings by the allies, often all too true, particularly in relation to the Russians, but the UK & US were also far from blameless.
He makes this unpalatable because he does not incorporate the context of terrible Nazi crimes, making his posts open to accusations of one sidedness.
The quote by wheatbeer is a good example. His final sentence could be taken to blame the allies for the holocaust. The flavour of his overall post will invite that interpretation. But if you read the words carefully it is not what he actually says, as he allows for “otherwise killed”. Even so, the focus on the Allies blockade with barely a mention of the holocaust is unpalatable.
In an exchange I had with KG on this WWII History board a few months ago I did raise with him this lack of balance and so the danger of his being labelled a pro-Nazi, as in fact IL has done. I tried to raise these issues constructively and would like to think that resulted in KG’s subsequent acceptance that Hitler was “brutal” and also in part that G’s position in central Europe made it a greater threat to the democracies than Russia.
I mention this as a plea that we conduct civil and constructive debates on these boards. That etiquette is part of my enjoyment of A&A.org.
Sorry for trying my “keep it civil” message again. :-)
You can’t build up something by coming up with examples that attempt to soil the side that had far less national guilt about their crimes. It’s a basic failure to argue this way. The catastrophic behavior of the Nazi’s was many-fold worse than anything imaginable that anyone can compare to the western allies and to a lesser extent the Soviets. Germany tops the list for depravity during WW2.
As IF you can even begin to formulate arguments that the western allies are to blame for any atrocities Germany committed in the war.
Ridiculous and you need to speak up and confront such nonsense at every turn it rears its ugly head.
