Crazies as far as the holocaust, I have to ask

This argument could easily be settled if you read a book on communist Russia.

Ive stayed away from this thread because Zooey represents my view very well… GJ

Just to clear up a few misconceptions.

My argument was that they didn’t have an ideology and that their use of killing was only a means to an end.  That their killing was industrialized was only a function of circumstance and not particularly relevent b/c it creates ways to rationalize one over the other.  The Nazis like the Stalinists lacked ideology and it undermined both until their ends.

Of course they had an ideology. The Nazis wanted a “pure” Germany, to the point where they rounded up almost every non-Aryan and slaughtered them. As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas. The only reason this was done was so the Nazis’ liebensraum wouldn’t be polluted by Slavic inferiors. We know all this because Britain had cracked Enigma and was getting daily reports on just how effective the Einsatzcommandos were.

But anyway, the Wansee Conference, Mein Kamph, creation of the ghettos, the Final Solution, Krystalnahct, etc. all show a clear ideology at work. In fact, you can see the ideology evolve from ostrasizing (wearing gold stars), to ghettos, to the Final Solution and the death camps themselves.

But I would argue it was Hitlers creation of himself that prevented him taking these options.  Hitler had built up this notion that he was the protector of the German people and to flee would not just mean the end of his power but any notion of the specialness of Hitler.  That is his entire identity for 25+ years had been built around this persona and it was all he had going for him.  Hitler wasn’t a rich person, wasn’t a nobleman he was actually a bit of a loser.  For Hitler fleeing would be accepting mediocrity.Â

Not true. At the end, Hitler blamed the German people (along with the Jews, of course) for his defeat. Some of his generals asked to surrender to spare the civilians and Hitler replied that they knew what they were getting into and had no sympathy for them. Hitler was anything but a “protector of the German people”.

every once in a while i get a gold star for doing something right!
also i think that you find those in Lucky Charms, so they’re not ALWAYS bad . . . .

but i agree with your post otherwise.  An interesting thing, that Wansee Conference.

Let me just tell you, It happened.  It was pounded into us in Middle School when I was younger (we even ran a simulation) and I have met survivors who have their prisoner ID numbers still tattooed on their forarms.  Don’t tell me it didn’t happen.  I assure you it did.

@AgentSmith:

Of course they had an ideology. The Nazis wanted a “pure” Germany, to the point where they rounded up almost every non-Aryan and slaughtered them. As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas

But like I said this fails b/c they were not the first party in Germany like this and they were not the first groups to advocate this.  To focus solely on the Halocaust aspect of the Nazis also means that you must ignore the first decade they held power, and the decade previously while they were on the ascent in Germany.  Which is to say Mary that your position that this was their “ideology” means these 20years are irrelevent compared to the 4 years of the Halocaust.  Further, it ignores the question of whether or not the Halocaust would’ve occured if their hadn’t been the war.  Prior to the war the Nazis had a great deal of anti-semitic laws but to argue this would’ve inevitably led to the same outcome is a stretch.  So if it is concievable that the Nazis could’ve held office longer without the halocaust how can this be foundational to who they were.  Again this demonstrates what is true about Fascism in that it necessarily contained an ambigious political ideology which mixed right wing backlash with revolution but this means that all these other outcomes of Nazi rule were a product of seeking power.

As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas. The only reason this was done was so the Nazis’ liebensraum wouldn’t be polluted by Slavic inferiors. We know all this because Britain had cracked Enigma and was getting daily reports on just how effective the Einsatzcommandos were.

But focusing on the racialist nature of Nazism/Fascism ignores that the attitudes of the Germans were identical to those of the French, Italians, Spanish and English but there were no Halocausts started there.  Unless you can’t explain this you can’t explain how this was a foundational ideology.

But anyway, the Wansee Conference, Mein Kamph, creation of the ghettos, the Final Solution, Krystalnahct, etc. all show a clear ideology at work. In fact, you can see the ideology evolve from ostrasizing (wearing gold stars), to ghettos, to the Final Solution and the death camps themselves.

So how is Kristallnacht any different than the Dreyfuss Affair or any of the other examples of anti-semitism in Europe during this time.

Not true. At the end, Hitler blamed the German people (along with the Jews, of course) for his defeat. Some of his generals asked to surrender to spare the civilians and Hitler replied that they knew what they were getting into and had no sympathy for them. Hitler was anything but a “protector of the German people”.

This is largely irrelevent b/c this assumes the outcome is all that matters which in of itself assumes an egocentric view of the war in favor of whose telling the history.  by this reasoning had the Germans won he would’ve been the great protector of the German people?  No this is absolutely how Hitler saw himself and that is all that matters.  If you want to dispute that then pull up some sources of Hitler blaming the people, and better yet for once explain how that would be at all relevent to the discussion at hand.  Analysis mary, analysis.  I can site blanket facts too but that doesn’t really reveal anything.

Sorry, didn’t read the whole thing. More of the same obfuscation and non sequiters. If you want to believe the Nazis had no ideology, go right on ahead.

@AgentSmith:

Let me just tell you, It happened.  It was pounded into us in Middle School when I was younger (we even ran a simulation) and I have met survivors who have their prisoner ID numbers still tattooed on their forarms.  Don’t tell me it didn’t happen.  I assure you it did.

And when did I even suggest that it didn’t?

You didn’t.  The original question was one of refuting those that say the Holocaust didn’t happen at all.  I was simply refreferring a first hand account (the survivors).  I made my post before reading the whole thread (a big no no) and didn’t realize that the conversation had evolved.  In other words my post followed yours by pure chance.  I wasn’t even commenting on what you had to say but on the question at the beginning of the thread.

@AgentSmith:

Not true. At the end, Hitler blamed the German people (along with the Jews, of course) for his defeat. Some of his generals asked to surrender to spare the civilians and Hitler replied that they knew what they were getting into and had no sympathy for them. Hitler was anything but a “protector of the German people”.

This is largely irrelevent b/c this assumes the outcome is all that matters which in of itself assumes an egocentric view of the war in favor of whose telling the history.  by this reasoning had the Germans won he would’ve been the great protector of the German people?  No this is absolutely how Hitler saw himself and that is all that matters.  If you want to dispute that then pull up some sources of Hitler blaming the people, and better yet for once explain how that would be at all relevent to the discussion at hand.  Analysis mary, analysis.  I can site blanket facts too but that doesn’t really reveal anything.

AS - I know you are reading.  This is info for when you come back, because you will be back.  :-D

There was an ideology. Not to mention, Hitler blamed the German people & Jews for failing him (germany) - read Cornelius Ryan’s The Final Battle.  It’s an exciting read anyway.  There’s plenty of other sources as everyone and their mother were anxious to find out the “Why?” of WW2.  I’m sure you recall Meyer’s “shocking” results.

3 other things, in general.  Stop arguing for the sake of arguing, or to get some irelevant point in.  Don’t shootdown someone’s point due to lack of sources when you don’t supply them yourself.  Argue what they are saying, not what you think they are thinking/doing.