Crazies as far as the holocaust, I have to ask

I agree with you 100% Zooey. At least Hitler had a reason, however twisted and sick it was.

Zooey, that was well spoken and well illustrated.

My only question is this…

Is personal gain, or the pursuit thereof, evil?

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps?

Yes!  Your history is again spotty Mary I hope you aren’t a history teacher.  The purges of the military and party offiicials began in 1937 and even then Russias state of industrialization was not what it was by wars end.  Further, the even I was referring to ie forced collectivization began in the late 20s almost at the beginning of his reign.  This is when Stalin let peasants in the Ukraine starve etc etc in order to industrialize, but even at the end of the war Russia was not as industrialized per capita anywhere near to where Germany was.  They made up for this by their vastness.  Also, a lot of the capital in terms of gold that Russia used to finance this came from Spain during the Spanish Civil War as the Russians demanded the Republic pay for arms in gold so much of the gold from the Americas ended up in Moscow.

No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Sure but so did Germany.  The amount of manpower tied down to the final solution was very small relatively speaking and stalin too had death squads.  And you neglect to mention that many of the first immigrants to the Levant after the war not from the MiddleEast came from Stalinist Russia, ie the Ukraine and the Baltic States b/c they were afraid of Stalin.

Say what you will about the evils of National Socialism, but it was an ideology.

Was it now?  I know people that would dispute this.

The Nazis in their own warped and twisted way felt that they were doing right by their own people, or at least what they viewed as “Aryans”.

I don’t agree I think they saw it all as an end to a means that is if they give the people what they want or what they think they’ll want then it would solidify their control over them.

Stalin had no “greater good” outside himself and the power he could acumulate.

As I think it can be said that Fascism was basically an ideologically bankrupt system the same could be said about Stalinism and its break from Bolshevik ideology.  Stalin and Hitler therefore were very similar in that they both wanted to create states which serviced them.

To put it another way since we are comparing evils, which is hard to do because it can sound at times like you are defending an evil which is not my intent at all.  For those of you who have seen the movie “Seven”, the serial killer there was more along the lines of evil as far as how I see the Nazis.  “Voices”, “God”, or his dog may have been his inspiration for doing what he did, but he believed in it.  In the Nazis case, it was that they thought that they were decedants from Atlantis who migrated from India.  Needless to say, both crazy as hell.

But this is the problem I see with how the West concieves of the Halocaust versus Stalinist purges.  Hitler is just seen as crazy but Stalin as evil.  I would argue they are both the same, either both are evil or both are crazy but to seperate them does ultimately make you a defender of one or the other.

Stalin on the other hand was just a killer, no ideology what so ever.  Kill for gain, kill for profit, kill because he just liked killing.

But I think you underestimate Stalinist motives and blanket them with bland generalizations.  Clearly Stalin was trying to create a super state apparatus around himself, but isn’t that what Hitler was trying to do.  While you can point to the clearly social darwinist logic behind National socialism you can’t overlook that this was in every single western country at that time but only Germany went to that end.  The same sort of vehement racialism existed in the US, France, the UK, etc etc but only in Germany did it lead to genocide.

@AgentSmith:

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps?

Yes!  Your history is again spotty Mary I hope you aren’t a history teacher.  The purges of the military and party offiicials began in 1937 and even then Russias state of industrialization was not what it was by wars end.  Further, the even I was referring to ie forced collectivization began in the late 20s almost at the beginning of his reign.  This is when Stalin let peasants in the Ukraine starve etc etc in order to industrialize, but even at the end of the war Russia was not as industrialized per capita anywhere near to where Germany was.  They made up for this by their vastness.  Also, a lot of the capital in terms of gold that Russia used to finance this came from Spain during the Spanish Civil War as the Russians demanded the Republic pay for arms in gold so much of the gold from the Americas ended up in Moscow.

This is all moot. By referencing T-34’s and Katyusha rocket launchers, I am clearly talking about DURING the war. The point stands: The Russians had the means to build concentration camps to liquidate ethnic undesireables. They did not do so.

No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Sure but so did Germany.

::boggle:: Um, Yeah, I know. Kind of why I said GERMANY and all. Nice to see you agreeing with me.

The amount of manpower tied down to the final solution was very small relatively speaking and stalin too had death squads.

Stalin had the equivalent of Einsatzcommandos roaming around Eastern Europe in their little death vans? The Ukrainians actually welcomed the Germans… until the death squads showed up in the army’s wake. As to the 2nd point: Resources were spent running trains full of “undesireables” to the death camps (oppurtunity costs there as well), the camps themselves took valuable resources to keep running, and roundiing up jews and patrolling the camps took more resources. All with the Russians advancing everywhere in the East. The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death, and hadn’t even articulated a philosophy for it because they had NO guiding philosophy for “purifying” their race. Germany had already had the Wansee conference where the “final solution” had been laid out in great detail.

    And you neglect to mention that many of the first immigrants to the Levant after the war not from the MiddleEast came from Stalinist Russia, ie the Ukraine and the Baltic States b/c they were afraid of Stalin.

Probably because it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. As usual. If you bother replying to this, it will be for another audience. I’m about done arguing this point.

This is all moot. By referencing T-34’s and Katyusha rocket launchers, I am clearly talking about DURING the war.

Right but this brings up several issues.  First to what extent did the war industrialize Russia further, to what extent did Stalin abandon previous racialist policies for the sake of survival, and if so what were those previous policies.  Even though he did abandon them it doesn’t negate that the early part of collectivization was especially hard on Russian Jews and its logical to think that had he lived longer it would’ve been continued.  Further, if you ever actually read Stalins personal writings going back to his youth you’ll find he was very anti-semtic.

The point stands: The Russians had the means to build concentration camps to liquidate ethnic undesireables. They did not do so.

Right b/c they were at war with a superior enemy.

As to the 2nd point: Resources were spent running trains full of “undesireables” to the death camps (oppurtunity costs there as well), the camps themselves took valuable resources to keep running, and roundiing up jews and patrolling the camps took more resources. All with the Russians advancing everywhere in the East. The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death

And this is easily attributable to the lack of wealth in EEurope/Russia compared to WEurope.  Russia simply didn’t have the rail capacity to do this which is why they chose starvation.  The reason why the Ukrainians welcomed the Germans was b/c collectivization was so unpopular.

The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death, and hadn’t even articulated a philosophy for it because they had NO guiding philosophy for “purifying” their race. Germany had already had the Wansee conference where the “final solution” had been laid out in great detail.

But this is b/c of two seperate reasons.  First Russia didn’t need an official doctrine b/c Stalin was the state at this point, and Germany was completely different than Russia.  Hitler unlike Stalin needed his beauracrats to run his govt and they were the old Wilhelmine guys that were around back during WWI in some cases.  So unlike with Stalin it was in his interest to let people in his govt know what he was going to do to engage their cooperation and participation.  Which brings up another point in that anti-semitism in Germany was institutionalized long before the Nazis came to power dating back to the Wilhemine era.  So its simply not accurate to say Hitler was the Halocaust and therefore it wouldn’t have happened but for him.

Probably because it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. As usual. If you bother replying to this, it will be for another audience. I’m about done arguing this point.

You say that but I doubt you’ll follow through.  I think this does have some bearing b/c it shows where the large portion of Jews f/Europe were coming from.  Even those that survived in WEurope tended to stay there in Francel, Germany or Italy, but no so with Russian jews.

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.