NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking about this the other night, and I thought it might be an interesting topic to debate. And since someone recently complained that the level of debating had gone done so much, I'm thinking 'why not?'

So why did the Holocaust happen in Germany, of all places?

There are three major theories I can think of right now.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen).

2) There is this position called "Sonderweg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderweg)" (meaning something like 'special path'), which posits that the way Germany developed in earlier history, the Holocaust or something like that was bound to happen. It basically says that Germany is different from all the other European countries. It is somewhat similar to the first point, but it doesn't look for the fault with the people themselves, but with the historical realities the country experienced.

3) Then there is the theory that it was losing WWI and the subsequent economic collapse and weakness of the Weimar government which got people to accept or at least ignore what was happening. But that of course suggests that the Holocaust could also have happened in France, or in Britain, or even in the US.

So what do you think? Try to post an argument as well, so a debate can get started.

And what does all this mean for the idea of 'collective guilt'? After some years of soul-searching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit), it is now fairly well accepted in Germany that there is such a thing as a historical guilt and thus responsibility, that as long as there is such an entity as Germany, that identity will have to deal with the Holocaust, and sorta make up for it.
That goes up to the point where the newspaper I follow, Die Zeit (http://www.zeit.de/), stresses time and time again with regards to the Iranian nuclear research that it is Germany's responsibility to stand side by side with Israel on this (a view that loses some of its potency if you consider the somewhat underwhelming German response to previous wars in which the threat to Israel was much greater).

Do you agree with that? Is there such a thing as collective guilt and the 'historical responsibility' that stems from that?

And if there is, what then of all the other genocides and mass murders committed by nations over the centuries?

Cos Austria was booked solid through 'til 1952...

the Holocaust never happened annywherez.

Because people need scape goats.

I would agree with your second theory more, although the third one does seem logical as well. Anti-semitism was widespread in the West at the time.

I do not believe in historical guilt. Simply being born in the nation of ancestors who committed these crimes is not enough. The nation itself may carry some of the guilt, but a nation is, at any given time, the people who populate it.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen).

I dont' know about this Daniel Goldhagen guy, but I've been taught in history that at the time, Germany was actually less anti-semitic than most other countries.

Because almost everyone in the 40's was anti-semetic,or was indiffrent, and Hitler was the catalyst. Plus, the Jews were a scapegoat for Germany's failure.

Because Hitler and his cronies needed a scapegoat to blame all the worlds troubles on. They picked Jews because at that time some Jews were more well off than others.

And then since he said the lie so much, he believed it and decided that the only way to end the trouble, was to end the 'cause' of it. At least that's my Theory.

It would have happened somewhere, either Europe/Russia, or America...we were all on a path that was riddled with genocide. I think what ultimatly did it was having the treaty of Versailles that allowed Germany to do it first.

Hmm...why specifically Germany...

I would have to say it was because Hitler billed himself as a "modern", "pro-progress" leader, while most of the other leaders of the time were more moderate and sedentary. Thus, Hitler did his jew-killing in a scientific, organized manner, which is the real unique horror of the holocaust. Other european states with large amounts of anti-semitism took it out in small scale disorganized pogroms and such, because they were less concerned with seeming like they were creating a new world order.

Well, fact of life, most of eastern europe in historical retrospect has had a nice lot of anti-semitism (or. . .not nice. Whatever). The reason it happened in Germany was because the government was in shambles (after WWI), and Hitler took over (there's a whole host of other issues related to that). The Jews were conveniant scapegoats (and Hitler had his own personal reasons to hate them), and rather than find some new scapegoat, he took one that the people already loved to hate (wasn't particularly unique; look at Poland, Russia, Lithuania). It was the sort of. . .hated the race (and yes, I know there has been discussion on Jewish=race? but i'm just going to be general), but didn't mind the individual. Hitler and his Head of propoganda turned it into a hate the race AND the individual.


And as for collective guilt; its quite evident in Germany and much of Europe either for not helping (the late Pope John Paul II, for example) or for helping the Nazis. Whether or not we think its actually their responsibility, it exists.

Regarding those who're talking about Hitler in particular - I don't know if you've ever read his book, but he wasn't just any sort of leader.

He wasn't the sort of strong-man you would think: His entire ideology (if you can call it that), is basically hatred of "the others" written on paper. It is an ideology that defines itself only through opposing and destroying that which is considered to be worth destroying.

So knowing that, the question becomes "Why did such a movement come to power in Germany, and not in France, Britain or Poland?", and I would expect the answer to be very similar to my first question from the OP.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen).

how do people get away with bullshit like this? not only is this offensive to german culture, but it's insulting to pass the blame. utter bullshit. blame people for being german, that works. :rolleyes:

2) There is this position called "Sonderweg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderweg)" (meaning something like 'special path'), which posits that the way Germany developed in earlier history, the Holocaust or something like that was bound to happen. It basically says that Germany is different from all the other European countries. It is somewhat similar to the first point, but it doesn't look for the fault with the people themselves, but with the historical realities the country experienced.

again, passing the blame wrongly. yes, when arminius destroyed 2 roman legions, germany went its own way. look at europe. former roman lands were not overcome by communism. even that is wrong for putting the blame on history.

3) Then there is the theory that it was losing WWI and the subsequent economic collapse and weakness of the Weimar government which got people to accept or at least ignore what was happening. But that of course suggests that the Holocaust could also have happened in France, or in Britain, or even in the US.

i personally believe that. the common man had little or no knowledge of the goings on. hitler promised meat to the poor and he delivered. people were looking for a scapegoat and he delivered. am i saying the germans are excused? no. you just have to look at the situation. coupled with the fact that resisting caused death.

oh, and to those who believe they rather should have died than persecute jews, i challenge you to have a gun at your head and say no to persecution.

And if there is, what then of all the other genocides and mass murders committed by nations over the centuries?

'omg, itz l1k3 da jewz is always oppressed!!! we f33l b@d!'
not like the russians did the same thing, not only to jews but to 'regular russians'.
native americans have yet to be remembered.
anyone i forgot?
OH RIGHT, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO REMEMBER
the victors write history

Regarding those who're talking about Hitler in particular - I don't know if you've ever read his book, but he wasn't just any sort of leader.

Mein Kampf?

I was thinking about this the other night, and I thought it might be an interesting topic to debate. And since someone recently complained that the level of debating had gone done so much, I'm thinking 'why not?'

So why did the Holocaust happen in Germany, of all places?

There are three major theories I can think of right now.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen).

Anti-German propaganda wins you prizes. Anti-Jewish propaganda get's you jailtime. What a suprise.:upyours:

Regarding those who're talking about Hitler in particular - I don't know if you've ever read his book, but he wasn't just any sort of leader.

He wasn't the sort of strong-man you would think: His entire ideology (if you can call it that), is basically hatred of "the others" written on paper. It is an ideology that defines itself only through opposing and destroying that which is considered to be worth destroying.

So knowing that, the question becomes "Why did such a movement come to power in Germany, and not in France, Britain or Poland?", and I would expect the answer to be very similar to my first question from the OP.
Define what a nation is. Then see whether or not it should carry the guilt.

Anti-German propaganda wins you prizes. Anti-Jewish propaganda get's you jailtime. What a suprise.:upyours:
The eternal paradox. Some forms of discrimination are okay, others are not. :rolleyes:

Mein Kampf?
horrible horrible book. couldn't get past the second chapter.

horrible horrible book. couldn't get past the second chapter.
Me neither. My eyes rolled so often I got dizzy and repeatedly projectile-vomited over the open pages.

The eternal paradox. Some forms of discrimination are okay, others are not. :rolleyes:
One could almost make a case out of this for those morons on Stormfront and the likes.

Mein Kampf?
Yeah. Apparently there is a second one that was meant to be published but never was. My uni-library has a copy I believe, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Mein Kampf itself is a pretty shameful excuse for a book. But in my version there are comments from the translator all over the place alá "*actually, Hitler's father did not want him to become a public servant. If he had, he would have had to send him to a different school"
Which makes it a little more fun.

I still feel compelled to read through the whole thing, if only because in Germany I couldn't (the book is outlawed there).

'omg, itz l1k3 da jewz is always oppressed!!! we f33l b@d!'
not like the russians did the same thing, not only to jews but to 'regular russians'.
native americans have yet to be remembered.
anyone i forgot?
OH RIGHT, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO REMEMBER
the victors write history

Your forgot Rwanda. And Armenia. And Serbia. And the Sudan. And Cambodia. And the Congo. Pick just about any African nation.

omg, \/\/3 R a1w4yz oppressed!!!

Regarding those who're talking about Hitler in particular - I don't know if you've ever read his book, but he wasn't just any sort of leader.

He wasn't the sort of strong-man you would think: His entire ideology (if you can call it that), is basically hatred of "the others" written on paper. It is an ideology that defines itself only through opposing and destroying that which is considered to be worth destroying.

So knowing that, the question becomes "Why did such a movement come to power in Germany, and not in France, Britain or Poland?", and I would expect the answer to be very similar to my first question from the OP.

Its actually very simple....In the long run, it had been the 2nd one...that caused the animosity towards the Jews. The thread that broke the camels back was the 3rd one.

Because Germany was trying to find out...through generations of philosophy...what it meant to be German. They were trying to get back to the Volk...to relive the Germanic tribal days. It started out with including anyone who lived in German lands and who spoke a Germanic language...but it got narrowed down through generations and eventually transfored into this uber-nationalist-jingoist aryanism...which sought to purify the German lands and bring homo genious-ness (?) back to Germany.

Duh...why do you think Hitler called himself, Der Fuhrer.."the leader"...it all goes back to reliving the Germanic tribal days....going back to finding out what it means to be German. Thats why they had all those boy scout camping trips out in the wildnerss...and I'm pretty sure thats where the idea for the boy scouts came from.

Anyway, what do you think, my German buddy?

Yeah. Apparently there is a second one that was meant to be published but never was. My uni-library has a copy I believe, but I haven't gotten around to it.

It's a bestseller in the Islamic world.

Define what a nation is. Then see whether or not it should carry the guilt.
I suppose the best bet is this (from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation)):
3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

I suppose the best bet is this (from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nation)):
Yes. However, at any given time, what, or rather who, is the nation?

Me neither. My eyes rolled so often I got dizzy and repeatedly projectile-vomited over the open pages.
Actually, I found it interesting how his version varied so much from the historical version. The thing i couldn't stand about it was the bigoted style he wrote in. In the end, i just got tired to having to re-read the sentences 3-4 times just to decipher the meanings and relevance.

"You know those germans. If you don't join the party, they'll come getcha!" -Peter Griffin.

:D

Yeah. Apparently there is a second one that was meant to be published but never was. My uni-library has a copy I believe, but I haven't gotten around to it.

Mein Kampf itself is a pretty shameful excuse for a book. But in my version there are comments from the translator all over the place alá "*actually, Hitler's father did not want him to become a public servant. If he had, he would have had to send him to a different school"
Which makes it a little more fun.

I still feel compelled to read through the whole thing, if only because in Germany I couldn't (the book is outlawed there).

I enjoyed it.

It let me understand the "reasoning" behind the insanity.

And yes, there was reason, not that it justified the act, of course.

I'm going to go with number three for the same reasons that have been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

Anyway, what do you think, my German buddy?
There is an element of truth to your point, I think.

To be honest I have no real idea though. I have talked to many people who lived in that time, yet they don't seem to be any different to any other old person. Some of them have quite strange ideas about race, but judging from some of the stuff I read on these forums, they're not really exceptional.

And the one dude who would really know a little bit (my step-grandfather who actually fought for the Nazis) doesn't talk about it.

Yes. However, at any given time, what, or rather who, is the nation?
I suppose it is a collective term for the individuals who make up that nation.

Personally, I don't feel any guilt. I don't really feel a connection with the stuff that happened back then. But I do feel that it is quite necessary to remember what happened and to hold that memory to be important. If what AI said above is true and the Nazis were a final step towards defining what being German is all about, then ultimately the succeeded, because today, the Holocaust is a big factor in defining a 'German national identity'.

3) Then there is the theory that it was losing WWI and the subsequent economic collapse and weakness of the Weimar government which got people to accept or at least ignore what was happening. But that of course suggests that the Holocaust could also have happened in France, or in Britain, or even in the US.

It also suggests that everyone knew about it. Which is absolute bullshit.

Regarding those who're talking about Hitler in particular - I don't know if you've ever read his book, but he wasn't just any sort of leader.

He wasn't the sort of strong-man you would think: His entire ideology (if you can call it that), is basically hatred of "the others" written on paper. It is an ideology that defines itself only through opposing and destroying that which is considered to be worth destroying.

So knowing that, the question becomes "Why did such a movement come to power in Germany, and not in France, Britain or Poland?", and I would expect the answer to be very similar to my first question from the OP.

The issue is that such movements did come to power in other countries many times throughout history. Germany was one of its manifestations in the twentieth century. As such, it was the most organized, cold blooded, etc.

I suppose it is a collective term for the individuals who make up that nation.
Precisely. It is not an eternal entity. Many romanticise the nation to make it seem so, but it is nothing more than its current populace.

Personally, I don't feel any guilt. I don't really feel a connection with the stuff that happened back then. But I do feel that it is quite necessary to remember what happened and to hold that memory to be important. If what AI said above is true and the Nazis were a final step towards defining what being German is all about, then ultimately the succeeded, because today, the Holocaust is a big factor in defining a 'German national identity'.
Oh, I agree that one should remember, although I find it hard to accept that modern Germans should be to blame for crimes they never committed. It is beyond me in fact.

Personally, I don't feel any guilt. I don't really feel a connection with the stuff that happened back then. But I do feel that it is quite necessary to remember what happened and to hold that memory to be important. If what AI said above is true and the Nazis were a final step towards defining what being German is all about, then ultimately the succeeded, because today, the Holocaust is a big factor in defining a 'German national identity'.
In which case one could also suspect that the Zionists where orchestrating it all.

It also suggests that everyone knew about it. Which is absolute bullshit.
Whether or not people knew where exactly the deported were being deported to, and whether or not people knew that they would all be killed in massive death factories is disputable.

But you notice when people beat up other people on the street for being Jewish, or if people aren't allowed to keep their jobs anymore, or if neighbours suddenly disappear and trains full of people drive off to the East.

I think there is an element of people being not quite willing to admit to themselves what was happening.

Duh...why do you think Hitler called himself, Der Fuhrer.."the leader"...it all goes back to reliving the Germanic tribal days....going back to finding out what it means to be German. Thats why they had all those boy scout camping trips out in the wildnerss...and I'm pretty sure thats where the idea for the boy scouts came from.

I'd say uncle Adi had a funny way of getting back to the tribal days. With all the Roman like standards and parades.

Whether or not people knew where exactly the deported were being deported to, and whether or not people knew that they would all be killed in massive death factories is disputable.

But you notice when people beat up other people on the street for being Jewish, or if people aren't allowed to keep their jobs anymore, or if neighbours suddenly disappear and trains full of people drive off to the East.

I think there is an element of people being not quite willing to admit to themselves what was happening.
So. You believe your grandparents are guilty huh?

*cough* Not only Jews were killed during the Holocaust *cough*

Hitler's "Final Solution" was also a way to achieve "Lebensraum" (living space) for Germany and also as a means to spread the Aryan race. Not necessarily just a scape goat. Hitler was also naturally anti-semitist, so if he had achieved power in, say, Austria, he probably would've done the same. So why Germany? That's just the country that Hitler picked, I guess.


And Mein Kampf is a very interesting book. Especially considering that he pretty much spelled out his entire plan for world domination and everyone thought he was a fool. He probably would have too if he didn't attack the Soviet Union so early on in WWII (Apparently he didn't learn much from Napoleon). Japan made the same mistake on Pearl Harbor, bringing the US into war.

I think there is an element of people being not quite willing to admit to themselves what was happening.
The German people at the time were partially to blame, for sure. Yet they are by no means exclusively culpable. Predominant social attitudes, Nazi propaganda and intimidation, harsh economic conditions and so on all helped.

And the one dude who would really know a little bit (my step-grandfather who actually fought for the Nazis) doesn't talk about it.

Have you ever asked him to talk about it?

My grandfather fought in the Pacific Island against "the Japs" and he would always talk about it. I loved hearing his stories.

It would be fascinating if you could ask your Grandpa to tell you some of his experiences.

Just to let you know...although I'm not sure if it makes any difference.

I am Jewish and hold nothing against Germany and Germans.

After all, the whole slogan for the holocaust remembrance thing is, forgive but never forget.

As long as your grandpa wasnt an SS member or worked in the camps...he is simply a soldier fighting for his country...nothing wrong with that.

In which case one could also suspect that the Zionists where orchestrating it all.
I don't think that follows. Many an early Zionist was actually a German nationalist in their youth.

The Zionists who established Israel after the war usually really were affected by the Holocaust in some way (except maybe those who'd lived in Israel already), and the Germans who lived at that time were without a doubt directly involved/responsible/cooperative in it. Many of them had been Nazis, some of them still were.
And besides, the establishment of the collective guilt only really came about many years after Israel was already an established country.

And today's Zionists have bigger fish to fry, like how to hold on to their settlements and get the Palestinians off their backs at the same time.

I am Jewish and hold nothing against Germany and Germans.
I think you are just Jewish in religion though, I am not sure.

Have you ever asked him to talk about it?

My grandfather fought in the Pacific Island against "the Japs" and he would always talk about it. I loved hearing his stories.

It would be fascinating if you could ask your Grandpa to tell you some of his experiences.

As long as your grandpa wasnt an SS member or worked in the camps...he is simply a soldier fighting for his country...nothing wrong with that.

My grandfather as well. He almost got killed by a Japanese soldier in a Mexican standoff (in which he had a knife, the Jap a rifle), but they looked each other in the eyes and walked away from each other.

That is very true. Anybody who opposed Hitler at that time in Germany was going to be killed. It was either fight for the Fatherland or be killed.

I'd say uncle Adi had a funny way of getting back to the tribal days. With all the Roman like standards and parades.

Thats been part of tons of nations in European history.

Tsar.....Russia Ceaser....I think Kaiser is too...not sure though.

Tons of nations have been about reliving Romes glory days, but Germany was totally into getting back to what it means to be German.

I don't think that follows. Many an early Zionist was actually a German nationalist in their youth.

One could argue that they were just playing along. Man muss mit den wölfen heulen. Nur lauter.


The Zionists who established Israel after the war usually really were affected by the Holocaust in some way (except maybe those who'd lived in Israel already), and the Germans who lived at that time were without a doubt directly involved/responsible/cooperative in it. Many of them had been Nazis, some of them still were.
And besides, the establishment of the collective guilt only really came about many years after Israel was already an established country.
Mitgefangen mitgehangen hä?

And today's Zionists have bigger fish to fry, like how to hold on to their settlements and get the Palestinians off their backs at the same time.
And keeping the Nazi-keule swinging at the same time.

Thats been part of tons of nations in European history.

Tsar.....Russia Ceaser....I think Kaiser is too...not sure though.

Tons of nations have been about reliving Romes glory days, but Germany was totally into getting back to what it means to be German.
Or Napoleon. :p

I think you are just Jewish in religion though, I am not sure.

I beleive thats the only way you can be Jewish.;)

Being Jewish through your blood is about as dumb as being black through your beleifs.

Its just something anti-semetics say...to easily group Jews...and its just something the religious say...as a way of keeping Jews together...and promoting Judaism in the younger people. By telling them...oh well your mom is Jewish so your automatically Jewish.

Its sorta stupid.

Have you ever asked him to talk about it?
No, not really.
What I know about it was that which I heard from my mother and grandmother.

My grandfather fought in the Pacific Island against "the Japs" and he would always talk about it. I loved hearing his stories.
Of course - but then, he won. He was told he was a hero. He was told he fought for freedom and liberty and democracy and all that.

Coming home from the war for the German veterans was just a little less pleasant. And besides, I would imagine that most soldiers on the Eastern Front would have seen the sort of things that make a person want to forget, be it out of guilt or out of revulsion.

So. You believe your grandparents are guilty huh?
Three out of my four grandparents were kids or teens then. I don't know what they saw, understood or did during that time.

But it's very possible that some of the things they would have done or seen would make me think different of them.

I beleive thats the only way you can be Jewish.;)

Being Jewish through your blood is about as dumb as being black through your beleifs.

Its just something anti-semetics say...to easily group Jews...and its just something the religious say...as a way of keeping Jews together...and promoting Judaism in the younger people. By telling them...oh well your mom is Jewish so your automatically Jewish.

Its sorta stupid.
Hmm, because some people see it as an entirely distinct cultural group, like the Amish, so I am not sure.

Thats been part of tons of nations in European history.

Tsar.....Russia Ceaser....I think Kaiser is too...not sure though.
Yes. But it had nothing to do with the tribal days as you suggested.


Tons of nations have been about reliving Romes glory days, but Germany was totally into getting back to what it means to be German.
How so? Nowadays I could see reasons for doing so. But certainly not back then.

I beleive thats the only way you can be Jewish.;)

Being Jewish through your blood is about as dumb as being black through your beleifs.

Its just something anti-semetics say...to easily group Jews...and its just something the religious say...as a way of keeping Jews together...and promoting Judaism in the younger people. By telling them...oh well your mom is Jewish so your automatically Jewish.

Its sorta stupid.

A group that intermarries for long enough without much marriage with outsiders, becomes an ethnicity. It's how it works.

Thats been part of tons of nations in European history.

Tsar.....Russia Ceaser....I think Kaiser is too...not sure though.

Tons of nations have been about reliving Romes glory days, but Germany was totally into getting back to what it means to be German.
It could also be due to the Holy Roman Empire connection.

Hmm, because some people see it as an entirely distinct cultural group, like the Amish, so I am not sure.

Yes well, some will, but I honestly think that kind of thought is on its way out...I dunno well see.

Or Napoleon. :p

DOH! lol.:headbang:

It could also be due to the Holy Roman Empire connection.

Yes but how do you explain Russia?

Tsar = Ceaser

Coming home from the war for the German veterans was just a little less pleasant.
If they came home at all.


Three out of my four grandparents were kids or teens then. I don't know what they saw, understood or did during that time.

But it's very possible that some of the things they would have done or seen would make me think different of them.
Must be nice having you as a grandson.

A group that intermarries for long enough without much marriage with outsiders, becomes an ethnicity. It's how it works.

Right...and it may have stood before...but like I said before I beleive that idea is on the way out.

Jews, for the most part...are either Arab, or White.

Yes but how do you explain Russia?

Tsar = Ceaser
Czar :) That spelling is even closer.

Yes. But it had nothing to do with the tribal days as you suggested.


How so? Nowadays I could see reasons for doing so. But certainly not back then.

Yes it did..have to do with getting back to the Germanic days.

We are studying it right now in my AP European history class.

Do some research on it.

Yes but how do you explain Russia?

Tsar = Ceaser
Oh, I was just refering to Hitler, the ceaser=ruler connection was spread all over due to the power and influence Rome had.

Czar :) That spelling is even closer.

True...I've always wondered...whatsa the difference between speeling it Tsar..Tzar and Czar?

Oh, I was just refering to Hitler, the ceaser=ruler connection was spread all over due to the power and influence Rome had.
Caesar. Pronounced Kaiser. :)

Must be nice having you as a grandson.
Hey, it's not like that is on my mind when I talk to them. But I don't think I would ever admire or trust anyone simply for virtue of being around. People have to earn that.

Jews, for the most part...are either Arab, or White.
Unless of course they're from India or Africa.

True...I've always wondered...whatsa the difference between speeling it Tsar..Tzar and Czar?
Czar is Russian spelling, Tsar is how we pronounce it.

Oh, I was just refering to Hitler, the ceaser=ruler connection was spread all over due to the power and influence Rome had.

Well for Hitler...it would be the reliving the Germanic days...as Hitler proclaimed himself the "leader" over the "people"....who were all equal ...Hitler took away classes...and ruled by a strong powerful fuhrer....all seems to be going back to Tribal rule...

I think it could have happened anywere.The US had guys like Henry Ford & Charles Limburgh their is an eerie simularity between Germany in the 30's and America right now and their are certian groups that like to scapegoat(Gays, Liberals, Jews)groups that don't agree with their views. Intresting enough people forgot that Timothy McViegh used the "The Turner Diaries" as his guide for the Oklahoma city bombings.

Hey, it's not like that is on my mind when I talk to them. But I don't think I would ever admire or trust anyone simply for virtue of being around. People have to earn that.

Like I said.

I was thinking about this the other night, and I thought it might be an interesting topic to debate. And since someone recently complained that the level of debating had gone done so much, I'm thinking 'why not?'

So why did the Holocaust happen in Germany, of all places?

There are three major theories I can think of right now.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldhagen).

2) There is this position called "Sonderweg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderweg)" (meaning something like 'special path'), which posits that the way Germany developed in earlier history, the Holocaust or something like that was bound to happen. It basically says that Germany is different from all the other European countries. It is somewhat similar to the first point, but it doesn't look for the fault with the people themselves, but with the historical realities the country experienced.

3) Then there is the theory that it was losing WWI and the subsequent economic collapse and weakness of the Weimar government which got people to accept or at least ignore what was happening. But that of course suggests that the Holocaust could also have happened in France, or in Britain, or even in the US.

So what do you think? Try to post an argument as well, so a debate can get started.

And what does all this mean for the idea of 'collective guilt'? After some years of soul-searching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit), it is now fairly well accepted in Germany that there is such a thing as a historical guilt and thus responsibility, that as long as there is such an entity as Germany, that identity will have to deal with the Holocaust, and sorta make up for it.
That goes up to the point where the newspaper I follow, Die Zeit (http://www.zeit.de/), stresses time and time again with regards to the Iranian nuclear research that it is Germany's responsibility to stand side by side with Israel on this (a view that loses some of its potency if you consider the somewhat underwhelming German response to previous wars in which the threat to Israel was much greater).

Do you agree with that? Is there such a thing as collective guilt and the 'historical responsibility' that stems from that?

And if there is, what then of all the other genocides and mass murders committed by nations over the centuries?


interesting post.
i will attempt to be brief.

"Do you agree with that? Is there such a thing as collective guilt and the 'historical responsibility' that stems from that?"

yes i do think that countries have collective guilt...it almost in some ways parallels the american exsperiance with slavery.

the whole mandatory quotas in hiring for any gov contracts,and the developement of minority programs and such.

so yes,i believe that countries have collective guilt..and rightfully so..to pay for past misdeeds one has to first acknowledge the missdeed,then somehow attempt to make amends.

one could also argue that the way we americans screwed over the native americans is also an example...and now pretty much (with the whole casino thing)are in some small way,trying to make amends.

How so? Nowadays I could see reasons for doing so. But certainly not back then.
The Nazis wanted a return to traditional pagan German farmlands. They believed them to be purer, and the life and soul of the "Aryan" man and woman. There is a book (or, rather, books) on it. The Master Plan is one such I believe.

Unless of course they're from India or Africa.

Which is why I said...for the most part ;)

Caesar. Pronounced Kaiser. :)
whoops typing to fast:)

The Nazis wanted a return to traditional pagan German farmlands. They believed them to be purer, and the life and soul of the "Aryan" man and woman.

Eureeka!

Ding ding ding!

What do we have for him johnny?

A brand new car.

Eureeka!

Ding ding ding!

What do we have for him johnny?

A brand new car.
Better make it a Mercedes. :)

Right...and it may have stood before...but like I said before I beleive that idea is on the way out.

Jews, for the most part...are either Arab, or White.

Are Kurds Arab? Are Slavs "White"? And why are people allowed to claim they are Irish/German/Italian when they live in the US?

Races divide into the big categories (Asians, Whites, Blacks, Pygmies, Khoisan, and Aborigines), then from there into smaller categories. Modern Jews can be classified as "Whites" (as can North Africans, actually), but specifically in the subcategory of Jewish. The concept that Jewish is any bit different from Irish or Polish or whatever is what's on its way out, not they concept that there is a Jewish ethnicity in the first place.

Caesar. Pronounced Kaiser. :)

Yes, only Hitler wasnt a Kaiser..he was a Fuhrer...the tribal leader....but yeah...everyone was all up on Rome's nuts.

Well for Hitler...it would be the reliving the Germanic days...as Hitler proclaimed himself the "leader" over the "people"....who were all equal ...Hitler took away classes...and ruled by a strong powerful fuhrer....all seems to be going back to Tribal rule...What I mean is that the Roman style imagery of the Nazi's could be seen as being related to the german Holy Roman Empire being considered the heir of the Roman empire and they, the Nazis being the HRE heir in turn linking them back to Rome.

The Nazis wanted a return to traditional pagan German farmlands. They believed them to be purer, and the life and soul of the "Aryan" man and woman.
Eventhough Hitler was often connected to groups like the Thule society I don't see anything that suggests Hitler was trying to bring back paganism. He just utillised things like rune writing, the Nibelungen etc...to make himself into some sort of god. Create a cult around himself. Not unlike what Mao did after him.

What I mean is that the Roman style imagery of the Nazi's could be seen as being related to the german Holy Roman Empire being considered the heir of the Roman empire and they, the Nazis being the HRE heir in turn linking them back to Rome.
Not only this, but they saw the Roman Empire as one of the hallmarks of the white (and especially "Aryan") civilisation, as they did Greece. They sought to emulate it in someways.

Are Kurds Arab? Are Slavs "White"? And why are people allowed to claim they are Irish/German/Italian when they live in the US?

Races divide into the big categories (Asians, Whites, Blacks, Pygmies, Khoisan, and Aborigines), then from there into smaller categories. Modern Jews can be classified as "Whites" (as can North Africans, actually), but specifically in the subcategory of Jewish. The concept that Jewish is any bit different from Irish or Polish or whatever is what's on its way out, not they concept that there is a Jewish ethnicity in the first place.

No..I am going to use myself as an example.

White->Germanic->American...but that doesnt count so I will put German-Austrian-> Jewish.

Thats how it goes.

What I mean is that the Roman style imagery of the Nazi's could be seen as being related to the german Holy Roman Empire being considered the heir of the Roman empire and they, the Nazis being the HRE heir in turn linking them back to Rome.

Well duh, thats where 3rd Reich comes from!

Because Hitler would have been ignored in any other language.

Eventhough Hitler was often connected to groups like the Thule society I don't see anything that suggests Hitler was trying to bring back paganism. He just utillised things like rune writing, the Nibelungen etc...to make himself into some sort of god. Create a cult around himself. Not unlike what Mao did after him.
His Church did actually support a kind of paganism. The Thule Society is more to do with the Golden Dawn, and thus Occultism. The Master Plan did entail a return to an agrarian society with pagan beliefs.

Kaiser...reminds me of a certain piece of crap chain of doctor's offices.

i wish i were born in ireland or england or somewhere like that. people think i'm crazy for that. i might be. but i have my reasons.

and yeah...what most people said, that's pretty much it.

Not only this, but they saw the Roman Empire as one of the hallmarks of the white (and especially "Aryan") civilisation, as they did Greece. They sought to emulate it in someways.

Right...Also England and America were considered Aryan nations..that Hitler saw to rule the world WITH not competing against.

Altough when we were at war with him that bastard said our countries were filled with mongel races. :upyours: lol it actually says upyours when you click that flick off face!

His Church did actually support a kind of paganism. The Thule Society is more to do with the Golden Dawn, and thus Occultism. The Master Plan did entail a return to an agrarian society with pagan beliefs.
What church? The only church/cult like organisation in his regime was the SS.

Right...Also England and America were considered Aryan nations..that Hitler saw to rule the world WITH not competing against.
Yes, by virtue of their Germanic liaisons to Germany and the other Germanic lands.

Altough when we were at war with him that bastard said our countries were filled with mongel races. :upyours: lol it actually says upyours when you click that flick off face!
Well of course he would. :p

What church? The only church/cult like organisation in his regime was the SS.

Hitler allowed the Catholic church...he made a pact with them.

What church? The only church/cult like organisation in his regime was the SS.
I am trying to remember its name. It was called the German Faith Movement.

No..I am going to use myself as an example.

White->Germanic->American...but that doesnt count so I will put German-Austrian-> Jewish.

Thats how it goes.

The issue with putting Jewish as a subclassification of specific european nations is that for much of history there wasn't much conversion/intermarriage between the two groups. I agree that as genetic lines get blurred it's less and less correct to call Jews a race, but that applies to most other races. There's a similar, but more extreme situation with the Gypsies. In both cases, the populations are genetically distinct enough that they could probably be classified as a "race", as much at least as any european country can.

Hitler allowed the Catholic church...he made a pact with them.
No, this is quite a different matter.

Precisely. It is not an eternal entity. Many romanticise the nation to make it seem so, but it is nothing more than its current populace.


Oh, I agree that one should remember, although I find it hard to accept that modern Germans should be to blame for crimes they never committed. It is beyond me in fact.


one could argue the same point about slavery in the u.s.

i never had any slaves nor did any family members throughout our history..yet i feel somewhat guilty about it,as i do with the way the natives were treated..i don't know why..i just do.

No, this is quite a different matter.

I know it is...I'm just saying...I know what you were getting at..The Nazi Mysticism shit.

one could argue the same point about slavery in the u.s.

i never had any slaves nor did any family members throughout our history..yet i feel somewhat guilty about it,as i do with the way the natives were treated..i don't know why..i just do.
Maybe you do, but you are not directly to blame.

The issue with putting Jewish as a subclassification of specific european nations is that for much of history there wasn't much conversion/intermarriage between the two groups. I agree that as genetic lines get blurred it's less and less correct to call Jews a race, but that applies to most other races. There's a similar, but more extreme situation with the Gypsies. In both cases, the populations are genetically distinct enough that they could probably be classified as a "race", as much at least as any european country can.

Like I said..the thinking is on the way out.

Although its not with Gypsies...Gypsies still havnt assimilated.

You know what you are talking about..only my point is this thinking does not stand today.

I am light blonde, 6'3 green eyes, with family from Austria and Northern Germany.

I'm Jewish...but would you say my ethnic group/race would be Germanic, or Jewish?

Hitler allowed the Catholic church...he made a pact with them.
He didn't abolish the established churches. Be they RC or protestant. But in the long term he wanted to replace them with the Führer cult. And the SS was supposed to be his apostels. Sort of speak.

I'm Jewish...but would you say my ethnic group/race would be Germanic, or Jewish?
Germanic. You are only Jewish in faith, as I said.

one could argue the same point about slavery in the u.s.

i never had any slaves nor did any family members throughout our history..yet i feel somewhat guilty about it,as i do with the way the natives were treated..i don't know why..i just do.

I dont feel bad about either of those.

For slavery..my family was in Europe at the time and never owned slaves.

For the Indians...hey! You show me a great Empire that HASNT taken over another peoples land...the fact is...cultures clash and when they do, the superior culture wins..thats just how it is. The indians had their shot at this land...and now its ours.

Germanic. You are only Jewish in faith, as I said.

lol...well I know what you think...but I was asking him...cuz he was the one talking about it....:p

He didn't abolish the established churches. Be they RC or protestant. But in the long term he wanted to replace them with the Führer cult. And the SS was supposed to be his apostels. Sort of speak.
Exactly. The Movement was essentially Pagan.

The reasons for the Holocaust are pretty blatant.

1 - Germany needed a Scapegoat to blame for World War One being lost, infact Hitler had a very heavy anti-semetic view on life ever since he had visited Germany after he was released from the Hospital from his War wounds. It was either Munich or Berlin he visited, but this Museum of German War History had a large Protest outside of it in which most of them were made out of Jews. Infact, Jews were very against Germany being involved because ( trying not to be Stereotypical ) they could see the Economic faults the war could have for Germany. But that is just a theory as to why they protested, but for sure they did not like the war and thought Germany would be in pain afterwards.

2 - When Hitler finally gained control of Germany, he figured that the Mass Killings of Jews would actually be ignored and/or please the West as such nations like Britain and France were extremely Anti-Semetic, even more so than the everyday German. I am pretty sure there has been a lot of Anti-Semetic hate crimes commited in other Western Countries during the time of this, of course they most likely were never really reported or logged into History Archives because of the whole thing sparking up in Germany.

3 - Hitler believed, really really really believed that God had chosen the Anglo-Saxons to be the Superb Race. He believed that every other race was inferior, and breeding with such races would ultimately deteriate Man's Supremacy on this world. So with my other two reasons, we can now definatly see why the Holocaust made sense at the time and that it existed. People may try to say that with this logic, we may as well say he is insane which he wasn't. He may have been a majorly Depressed over the fact he never became an Artist, but he was a brilliant Military Commander and Politician. He knew what to feed the people, he knew how to make his own agenda justified in the majority of the Germany's eyes. He was just sickly twisted, or was so fed up with him being Righteous that you almost have to feel sorry for the man.

4 - Germans, in the end, are the type of people to want to be better than the rest. ( I am a German my self, although I am also Roman and French ). But who in the world really doesn't want to be better? The Germans have things to prove for it, considering they have always had the best Military Technology since the Sword was invented. ( Or more realistically, since the Roman Empire fell. ) Really this point doesn't mean much but I am writing because of one reason - Do not let the whole idea that all Germans were Nazis get to your head. Which leads to point 5.

5 - All Germans were NOT Nazis. I feel like writing this because I have learned throughout life that a lot of people believe that all Germans from the 20s - even today ( atleast the Older ones from the 30s and 40s that live today ) are Nazis. This isn't true, and it is no better than being a Nazi yourself. Now, I am not saying that EVERYONE who is posting here believes this. I am not sure if anyone posting in this thread even think this. But you have to think of it really quick:

- The Germans are extremely Patriotic people.
- Hitler gave his Citizens 3 Options:
A - Join the Armed Forces and fight 'Fur Der Reich und Fur Der Fuhrer'
B - Join the Workforce and aid 'Der Reich und Der Fuhrer'
C - Be shipped out with the rest of the 'Untouchables' and be put to death or through cruel and unusual torture and unfair work.
Well, being pressured by a powerful leader and knowing that know other Country trusts your people right about now, you go with A or B. Although you may hate Hitler and the NAZI Party, you know you can't leave your countrymen behind. If you do, then who will be left to fight and work? The Children and the Elderly? Well isn't that unfair. Well, I guess you are going to have to pick up that Kar or MP40 and head to the fronts, or start putting together bombs and armored vehicles.

And so the Simplified Version for what I just said -

The Non-Nazi Germans had no choice. They were also too patriotic to leave their PEOPLE, not their GOVERNMENT, behind. They decided to fight to the death and prevent as much harm done to the Fatherland and the People, or work until their arms fell off. Really, I have no problem with this. I am glad the German people did this, because it proved that they are ORDINARY NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS. Now as for the ones fed up with the Nazi Lies and Propoganda, I only feel grief. And those who knew what was going on and loved the fact that they could kill so many, then I hope they should spend a many of years in hell.

6 - Where were we now? Oh yes the Holocaust.

So you want the Ultimate answer, I suppose, sure I guess that isn't too hard to ask for.

'Did the Holocaust Happen?'

Yes.

Even if it was perhaps not as bad as it has been reported, the Jews and other minorities had still be picked on and treated unfairly and ultimately killed. So what? Who cares, if it was 500 or 5,000,000+, it would still be a Holocaust. But I believe that what we hear today is true. Why would hundreds of thousands of Americans and British and Russian troops lie? I would understand their Governments trying to make something up about a 'Holocaust' but I am sure that we would know that it didn't exist if these hundreds of thousands spoke up, which they did constantly. And they spoke up about it, and thus it must be true. I do not believe anything that comes out of a guy who says the Holocaust didn't exist, simply because he has shit for proof. But then again, perhaps it didn't happen. Perhaps it never existed, perhaps it was a lie fabricated by the Allies to simply make the Germans hurt...and hurt a lot.

But as for your answer? Yes, as far as I believe, the Holocaust did happen.

Then again, logically, our Generation is doomed to never find out unless we invent the time machine or God himself reveals the truth before our eyes. Which reminds me of a pretty handy quote - " Seeing is Believing. " and another " The truth is in the Eye of the Beholder. "

So, who knows? It may be a mystery that could last until the end of time, but I guess all I can say is that perhaps once you are dead the truth will be revealed.

( My 7th point was going to be 'What if the Allies Fabricated...etc', but I think we all get the point now. )

Like I said..the thinking is on the way out.

Although its not with Gypsies...Gypsies still havnt assimilated.

You know what you are talking about..only my point is this thinking does not stand today.

I am light blonde, 6'3 green eyes, with family from Austria and Northern Germany.

I'm Jewish...but would you say my ethnic group/race would be Germanic, or Jewish?

It's really a percentage issue. You probably have enough German/Austrian blood to make calling you ethnically Jewish rather silly. Other Jewish populations have mixed less with the rest of Europe, and thus can probably still be considered a separate race. Your point is not so much that the thinking is dying out so much as that the race is, which may be true. The thinking and the race, however, are different things.

Exactly. The Movement was essentially Pagan.
From a book I read years ago that was just smoke and mirrors. Something like a religion needs time to establish itself. So they mixed the elements of Christianity with Germanic mysticism. While in the meantime the SS was drilled not only to be a political army but also the first generation of Führer (Hitler) worshippers. And from there it was supposed to spread to the masses in time.

The Holocaust happened in Germany just because the Germans were early starters. Anti-Semitism was a fact of Europe within five minutes of the first Medieval bank starting up, and eugenics was the "In" science at the time, as it justified the "burdens" that a few European Nations had been undertaking for the past century or so.
That the Germans were fucked over by the Treaty of Versailles and had all the blame for WWI (rather unfairly) heaped on their heads just helped exagerate their anger at outsiders, and when a rather excited war veteran with ideas about how to revive the nation and teach the Allies a lesson came along, the Germans leapt on the bandwagon with abandon.
Later on, much like in WWI, the victors started inventing all this shit about the evils of Germany in general to excuse their own actions/inactions that let the whole mess happen in the first place.

And, technically, the Holocaust happened in Occupied Poland.

From a book I read years ago that was just smoke and mirrors. Something like a religion needs time to establish itself. So they mixed the elements of Christianity with Germanic mysticism. While in the meantime the SS was drilled not only to be a political army but also the first generation of Führer (Hitler) worshippers. And from there it was supposed to spread to the masses in time.
Yes. It was a strange mix of beliefs, one that Hitler believed to essentially be closer to the ancient Germanic race's.

Yes. It was a strange mix of beliefs, one that Hitler believed to essentially be closer to the ancient Germanic race's.
Yes. But it was just supposed to be a temporary thing. Until the final victory. And then Adi's acolytes would spread the new gospel.

Yes. But it was just supposed to be a temporary thing. Until the final victory. And then Adi's acolytes would spread the new gospel.
They were messed up. :confused:

They were messed up. :confused:
They were actually well organised.

It's really a percentage issue. You probably have enough German/Austrian blood to make calling you ethnically Jewish rather silly. Other Jewish populations have mixed less with the rest of Europe, and thus can probably still be considered a separate race. Your point is not so much that the thinking is dying out so much as that the race is, which may be true. The thinking and the race, however, are different things.

Yes...well like I said, the "race" is dying out but the thinking is being kept alive by the very religious Jews and by the anti semetics...this obviously excludes the ignorant.

They were actually well organised.
No, I mean the entire ideology behind it. Not their actual structure.

No, I mean the entire ideology behind it. Not their actual structure.
Mao did something similar unless I'm mistaking.
I just wished I could remember the title of the book!!!

No, I mean the entire ideology behind it. Not their actual structure.

I agree...I will never understand how such successful people were such madmen.

Its liek their abilities were totally wasted.

Imagine what could have been acomplished with that kind of power seeking, devotion, and brilliance...redirected at being good instead of evil.

I agree...I will never understand how such successful people were such madmen.

Its liek their abilities were totally wasted.

Imagine what could have been acomplished with that kind of power seeking, devotion, and brilliance...redirected at being good instead of evil.
Indeed. Sometimes, genius does border on madness.

So why did the Holocaust happen in Germany, of all places?

There are three major theories I can think of right now.

1) Germans are/were just particularly anti-semitic, envious, evil people. Or at least their culture is. Now, you might think that's a silly argument to make, but it's been done plenty of times, for example by Daniel Goldhagen.

No. Culture is not independent of other factors, and different peoples are not more or less evil than others. This kind of logic is far too simplistic; an attempt to replace a serious analysis with a convenient slur.

2) There is this position called "Sonderweg" (meaning something like 'special path'), which posits that the way Germany developed in earlier history, the Holocaust or something like that was bound to happen. It basically says that Germany is different from all the other European countries. It is somewhat similar to the first point, but it doesn't look for the fault with the people themselves, but with the historical realities the country experienced.

There is probably a good deal of truth to this one. Explanations as to why German nationalism was so pervasive can probably be found in the decades preceding World War I, and this is probably crucial to the matter.

3) Then there is the theory that it was losing WWI and the subsequent economic collapse and weakness of the Weimar government which got people to accept or at least ignore what was happening. But that of course suggests that the Holocaust could also have happened in France, or in Britain, or even in the US.

This one is closest to my own point of view, which is still unsure on many points. It was the perception of loss and failure on the part of a significant section of the German people - the idea that liberal capitalism had failed combined with a strong fear of the Radical Left and its influence. It was mostly the German middle class that formed the Nazi's base of support, and this follows logically - they were not working-class, so were somewhat neglected by the socialist movements, but were not rich enough not to feel the economic devastation severely.

Jews had the disadvantage of both being symbols of liberalism - because liberalism had liberated them, and they were extremely successful in the rationalist world it had created - and symbols of socialism - the Jewish Left had been strong since the late nineteenth century, and still is to this day, if in a less radical form.

Do you agree with that? Is there such a thing as collective guilt and the 'historical responsibility' that stems from that?

I don't think it's right, logically, but I do think the attitude is beneficial. If we are going to congratulate ourselves on being part of the "great German (or American, French, English, whatever) nation," we should acknowledge the atrocities of our nation in the past. Since we will think that way, it's part of human nature, efforts should be made to counteract the tribalistic and chauvinistic tendencies that would ordinarily result.

Mao did something similar unless I'm mistaking.
I just wished I could remember the title of the book!!!
If you can. do tell me. I'd love to read it.

Imagine what could have been acomplished with that kind of power seeking, devotion, and brilliance...redirected at being good instead of evil.
They actualy did some good. WHAT??!!?? Yes. Cancer research was high on Adi's list. They warned of the dangers of smoking. Something that was re-discovered decades later. Childsupport is another thing.

Mao did something similar unless I'm mistaking.
I just wished I could remember the title of the book!!!

Little red book?

They actualy did some good. WHAT??!!?? Yes. Cancer research was high on Adi's list. They warned of the dangers of smoking. Something that was re-discovered decades later. Childsupport is another thing.

Thats not what I meant...I meant if I used the ambition and will that Hitler and his cronies had, for good rather than evil.

You know thats not what I meant.

Little red book?
Nono. That about Hitler wanting to make the SS into the first generation of Führer cultists.

Thats not what I meant...I meant if I used the ambition and will that Hitler and his cronies had, for good rather than evil.

You know thats not what I meant.

Actually I didn't.

Well duh, thats where 3rd Reich comes from!

wrong.

1st Reich - HRE - 971-1801
2nd Reich - Kaiser, Imperial Germany, 1871-1918
3rd Reich - Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

wrong.

1st Reich - HRE - 971-1801
2nd Reich - Kaiser, Imperial Germany, 1871-1918
3rd Reich - Nazi Germany, 1933-1945

I know...we were talking about the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holocaust happened in Germany because Germany lost the war.

The Jews were the target because an anti-Semite took power.

Had the Germans won, there could have been a Holocaust in France against another target. Actually, in an alternate history I read where some people try to prevent WWII by allowing Germany to win WWI, DeGaulle and Petain become the Hitler of France. Ironically, their target is... the Aryans.

I also propose that a different group could have been targeted had someone else become the charismatic leader of Germany, though I can't think of a target apart from the Jews.

Had the Germans won, there could have been a Holocaust in France against another target. Actually, in an alternate history I read where some people try to prevent WWII by allowing Germany to win WWI, DeGaulle and Petain become the Hitler of France. Ironically, their target is... the Aryans.

And how did they do in that alternate history?

For the Indians...hey! You show me a great Empire that HASNT taken over another peoples land...the fact is...cultures clash and when they do, the superior culture wins..thats just how it is. The indians had their shot at this land...and now its ours.

"The earth is awarded by providence to people who in their hearts have the courage to conquer it, the strength to preserve it, and the industry to put it to the plough. Hence every healthy, vigorous people sees nothing sinful in territorial acquisition, but something in keeping with nature."

Yes...well like I said, the "race" is dying out but the thinking is being kept alive by the very religious Jews and by the anti semetics...this obviously excludes the ignorant.

It's not just the crazy that still think of there as being a Jewish race. Me, I think of there as being a Jewish race because it's simpler to say I'm 75% Jewish than to go to the trouble of splitting it up into countries of origin.

I'd like to see backup to your claim that said thinking is rare. Perhaps a big scientific organization of some sort?

"The earth is awarded by providence to people who in their hearts have the courage to conquer it, the strength to preserve it, and the industry to put it to the plough. Hence every healthy, vigorous people sees nothing sinful in territorial acquisition, but something in keeping with nature."

Now I'm going to say I stand by that, and your gonna say THATS WHAT HITLER SAID!

And I am supposed to feel bad because me and millions of other people share ONE view with some guy that lived 60 years ago.

So what.

Or am I totally wrong?

From a book I read years ago that was just smoke and mirrors. Something like a religion needs time to establish itself. So they mixed the elements of Christianity with Germanic mysticism. While in the meantime the SS was drilled not only to be a political army but also the first generation of Führer (Hitler) worshippers. And from there it was supposed to spread to the masses in time.

I hope you do know Führer means Leader, well you probably do know I just want to make sure.

It's not just the crazy that still think of there as being a Jewish race. Me, I think of there as being a Jewish race because it's simpler to say I'm 75% Jewish than to go to the trouble of splitting it up into countries of origin.

I'd like to see backup to your claim that said thinking is rare. Perhaps a big scientific organization of some sort?

I didnt say its rare...I said its being kept alive by the two groups iv mentioned.

I said the actual "race" is dying.

Ok, so would you say your 75% Christian?

No, of course not.

Your 75% German...which has nothing to do with religion.

So why not with Judaism?

Had the Germans won, there could have been a Holocaust in France against another target. Actually, in an alternate history I read where some people try to prevent WWII by allowing Germany to win WWI, DeGaulle and Petain become the Hitler of France. Ironically, their target is... the Aryans.


How does this work? DeGaulle and Petain were Aryans.

I hope you do know Führer means Leader, well you probably do know I just want to make sure.
Of course I know that. It also means guide. Why?

The Holocaust happened in Germany because Germany lost the war.

The Jews were the target because an anti-Semite took power.

Had the Germans won, there could have been a Holocaust in France against another target. Actually, in an alternate history I read where some people try to prevent WWII by allowing Germany to win WWI, DeGaulle and Petain become the Hitler of France. Ironically, their target is... the Aryans.

I also propose that a different group could have been targeted had someone else become the charismatic leader of Germany, though I can't think of a target apart from the Jews.

Well, there are Blacks and Gays and Cripples and Retards and much much more to target.

Infact, Hitler didn't only target Jews.

Basically, any race out there could have been targeted. I am sure if Hitler had made an alliance with America first hand and hated Blacks more than Jews, then both America and Germany would have ultimately had a 'Black' Holocaust.

Infact, Hitler did try to ally with America but kind of did it at a wrong time...as we were still rebuilding our selves because of the massive parts of the Great Depression. Either way, well if it happened any other way for that matter, there would still be a Holocaust most likely and we would be talking about it here today.

( Okay depends really beacuse some bloodlines could be severed for some of us, but you get my point...I hope :-P )

Of course I know that. It also means guide. Why?

Well you referred to Hitler which also makes sense, I just don't want anyone else who doesn't know too much about this topic to get interested and read and ultimately bastardize the word :-P. Because really, that word is used a LOT in German culture.

How does this work? DeGaulle and Petain were Aryans.

Yea it would make sense, I mean...Hitler wanted Blue Eyed Blond Haired people to be his 'Ubermensch' but was Hitler Blue Eyed Blond Haired? Nope.

As long as you can convince such a massive ammount of people to fight for a cause, or just to be able to establish your leadership like Hitler did and put those who didn't like you into fear, you can target whoever you want.

Hell you could own 50 Pink shirts, and target those who own a single pair of Pink anything if they are Male or w/e you want really.

So yea it would make sense.

Now I'm going to say I stand by that, and your gonna say THATS WHAT HITLER SAID!

And I am supposed to feel bad because me and millions of other people share ONE view with some guy that lived 60 years ago.

So what.

Or am I totally wrong?

It was a very major element of Hitlerian doctrine - the pseudo-Nieztschean idea that the "stronger race" should dominate everyone else regardless of such "weak" ideas as justice, equality, democracy, etc. If it were an irrelevancy I would not have brought it up. Hitler and I undoubtedly share certain views, but Social Darwinism and apologetics for genocide are definitely not among them.

I didnt say its rare...I said its being kept alive by the two groups iv mentioned.

I said the actual "race" is dying.

Ok, so would you say your 75% Christian?

No, of course not.

Your 75% German...which has nothing to do with religion.

So why not with Judaism?

It's because, as I explained earlier, it's both a religion and an ethnic group, because of the hundreds of years of genetic separation from the rest of the European population. You could probably make a similar argument about the Parsees in India. As more and more intermarriage happens, less and less people who are Jewish by religion will be able to be called Jewish by race. That doesn't mean there still aren't those out there who can perfectly reasonably be called Jewish by race, it just means we can't apply the term to every Jew.

Yea it would make sense, I mean...Hitler wanted Blue Eyed Blond Haired people to be his 'Ubermensch' but was Hitler Blue Eyed Blond Haired? Nope.

As long as you can convince such a massive ammount of people to fight for a cause, or just to be able to establish your leadership like Hitler did and put those who didn't like you into fear, you can target whoever you want.

Hell you could own 50 Pink shirts, and target those who own a single pair of Pink anything if they are Male or w/e you want really.

So yea it would make sense.
Actually I think he was blue eyed. Not 100% sure though.

Yea it would make sense, I mean...Hitler wanted Blue Eyed Blond Haired people to be his 'Ubermensch' but was Hitler Blue Eyed Blond Haired? Nope.

As long as you can convince such a massive ammount of people to fight for a cause, or just to be able to establish your leadership like Hitler did and put those who didn't like you into fear, you can target whoever you want.

Hell you could own 50 Pink shirts, and target those who own a single pair of Pink anything if they are Male or w/e you want really.

So yea it would make sense.

It works if you're promoting the majority, but you can't start a campaign of genocide against those who are both in the majority and are you. Petain and DeGaulle trying to kill off the Aryans would be ridiculous, unless they emigrated to outside of France and used another nation's government. There are certainly other groups they would have attacked (Masons, for example), but Aryans would be a little to improbable.

Actually I think he was blue eyed. Not 100% sure though.
Piercing blue eyes.

Well, the story was a little short.

It was a very major element of Hitlerian doctrine - the pseudo-Nieztschean idea that the "stronger race" should dominate everyone else regardless of such "weak" ideas as justice, equality, democracy, etc. If it were an irrelevancy I would not have brought it up. Hitler and I undoubtedly share certain views, but Social Darwinism and apologetics for genocide are definitely not among them.

I disagree with killing simply to exterminate a people....but as for killing in a war over land...well thats just human nature...its unrealistic to think that war wont happen...the best you can do is make sure you win.

I agree totally with this Niztschean idea of conqueering but instead of it being with race....I look upon it more as culture.

For instance...American culture isnt a race...its a culture.

So for me..I guess I agree with social darwinsim if every time you used the word race, you switched it with culture.

There fore I beleive there are stronger and weaker cultures....and when they clash...and yes they do clash...the stronger wins.

It has nothing to do with race or religion.

Piercing blue eyes.

Really? Well then he may have been trying to find a permanent bleach for his hair :-P.

But the DeGaulle thing would still make sense.

Actually you kind of have me stuck with DeGaulle other than only one thing that could work -

Destroying the German Race would perhaps still work for the French.

Meh I am just going to creep out of this topic with DeGaulle for now lol.

It's because, as I explained earlier, it's both a religion and an ethnic group, because of the hundreds of years of genetic separation from the rest of the European population. You could probably make a similar argument about the Parsees in India. As more and more intermarriage happens, less and less people who are Jewish by religion will be able to be called Jewish by race. That doesn't mean there still aren't those out there who can perfectly reasonably be called Jewish by race, it just means we can't apply the term to every Jew.

Fair enough.

Yea it would make sense, I mean...Hitler wanted Blue Eyed Blond Haired people to be his 'Ubermensch' but was Hitler Blue Eyed Blond Haired? Nope.

As long as you can convince such a massive ammount of people to fight for a cause, or just to be able to establish your leadership like Hitler did and put those who didn't like you into fear, you can target whoever you want.

Hell you could own 50 Pink shirts, and target those who own a single pair of Pink anything if they are Male or w/e you want really.

So yea it would make sense.

It doesnt have to be blonde haired blue eyed.

It just meant the lighter people from the north. Thats all.

You could, theoretically have green eyes and red hair and be aryan...etc.

I ask again. How did that alternate history thing, in which WW1 was won by Germany, in the end work out for Petain and De Gaulle.

It doesnt have to be blonde haired blue eyed.

It just meant the lighter people from the north. Thats all.

You could, theoretically have green eyes and red hair and be aryan...etc.
Or any colour. Skin had to be light though.

I am using the word Race simply because it is apparently a popular word in this thread :-P.

Also then, Cultures were not as mixed. Even in America, Americans stuck with marrying those who had the same background as them. Italian-Americans stuck with Italians/Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans stuck with Irish/Irish-Americans, etc. So really, there was such a thing as 'Race' then but as time moved on, there has been a MAJOR loss in 'Pure Breeds', making it impossible to really use Race as a classification for Humans anymore.

Actually, Race wouldn't be the correct term no matter what. More like 'Class', Homo Sapien Germanicus for example would be Human - German. Well my Latin isn't too sharp but I'd imagine it'd be like that.

But in the modern world, I guess you can say 'Culture' makes more sense than 'Race'.

I disagree with killing simply to exterminate a people....but as for killing in a war over land...well thats just human nature...its unrealistic to think that war wont happen...the best you can do is make sure you win.

I agree totally with this Niztschean idea of conqueering but instead of it being with race....I look upon it more as culture.

For instance...American culture isnt a race...its a culture.

So for me..I guess I agree with social darwinsim if every time you used the word race, you switched it with culture.

There fore I beleive there are stronger and weaker cultures....and when they clash...and yes they do clash...the stronger wins.

It has nothing to do with race or religion.

Here's the issue, and indeed the issue with most concepts of Social Darwinism: inspiring pity and guilt is a perfectly acceptable tactic. If you can exploit a memetic weakness in another society (like their concepts of equality, for example), then that is just as valid a conquest and just as valid a proof of cultural superiority as if you had invaded them.

I disagree with killing simply to exterminate a people....but as for killing in a war over land...well thats just human nature...its unrealistic to think that war wont happen...the best you can do is make sure you win.

I agree totally with this Niztschean idea of conqueering but instead of it being with race....I look upon it more as culture.

For instance...American culture isnt a race...its a culture.

So for me..I guess I agree with social darwinsim if every time you used the word race, you switched it with culture.

There fore I beleive there are stronger and weaker cultures....and when they clash...and yes they do clash...the stronger wins.

It has nothing to do with race or religion.

I said pseudo-Nieztschean, not Nieztschean. Take some of Nieztsche's rhetoric, distance it from the philosophy (that is to say, distort it), and apply it to nationalities instead of individuals, you get essentially Nazi doctrines.

Hitler didn't exterminate people simply to exterminate people. Nobody exterminates people simply to exterminate people.

As for the rest, perhaps you are not quite as bigoted as Hitler was, but your ideology is just as morally abhorrent. You realize, of course, that by the logic you are promoting the Holocaust was fine, because the "superior German culture" promoted by Hitler crushed the "inferior Jewish culture" of his victims?

Here's the issue, and indeed the issue with most concepts of Social Darwinism: inspiring pity and guilt is a perfectly acceptable tactic. If you can exploit a memetic weakness in another society (like their concepts of equality, for example), then that is just as valid a conquest and just as valid a proof of cultural superiority as if you had invaded them.

Are you being sarcastic..its hard to tell?

I said pseudo-Nieztschean, not Nieztschean. Take some of Nieztsche's rhetoric, distance it from the philosophy (that is to say, distort it), and apply it to nationalities instead of individuals, you get essentially Nazi doctrines.

Hitler didn't exterminate people simply to exterminate people. Nobody exterminates people simply to exterminate people.

As for the rest, perhaps you are not quite as bigoted as Hitler was, but your ideology is just as morally abhorrent. You realize, of course, that by the logic you are promoting the Holocaust was fine, because the "superior German culture" promoted by Hitler crushed the "inferior Jewish culture" of his victims?

No. Because he wanted to kill the Jews to exterminate them...just to wipe them out.

I'm not advocating murder.

I'm saying that war is just something that happens and its better to be the winner.

I'm saying that we shouldnt feel sorry for taking over the indians land for ourselves...because thats what people do.

My point is...we didnt attack the indians simply to kill all the indians for being indians...we simply wared against them for their land...killing them wasnt the goal...where as in the holocaust...complete and utter murder and genocide was the goal.

If we could take America without harming a single Indian...I would have been happy....now apply that to Hitler.

If he could have exterminated every Jew without harming them, he would have been happy....see it doesnt work.

Thats my point.

Are you being sarcastic..its hard to tell?
I dunno 'bout Vegas-Rex, but I (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10651514&postcount=2) sure was.

I ask again. How did that alternate history thing, in which WW1 was won by Germany, in the end work out for Petain and De Gaulle.

Actually, I could see Russia becomming like WWII Germany if Prussia had won WWI.

It would make sense, as Russia would most likely do it to Muslims so they could perhaps 'Re-Populate' the Middle East with pure Russians, since their goal was to try and control the lands there.

Also makes sense if the Russians sought out to eliminate the Germans in Russia, and attempt to take control Germany.

It would be weird actually, as Britain would be shattered most likely or forced into a peace treaty, most of Europe a part of Prussia, and France being part of Prussia or splat into two ( one being Prussian and one being the rest of France basically forced into a Dominion with Prussia ). It would also be aquard, as America would have to ally with Germany to help defeat the Russians.

But then again, most of Europe would possibly join Russia in a realistic sense because at that time the Ottomans sort of wrecked the view towards Muslims with their long lasted occupation of most of the Balkans.

It is very difficult to tell really, and I am sure we could come up with thousands of things that could have happened.

----

About the blue eyed blonde haired thing -

Hitler, in a general description, wanted Blue Eyed Blonde Haired men to be his 'Chosen' men for the new Generation, to help mix in with races he decided to leave behind to sort of make the world Aryan instead of having to go through the resources with killing everyone out there minus the Japanese and the Italians.

But yes, you could also be Black Haired Brown Eyes and be Aryan. You could be anything and you may still be Aryan. But Hitler just believed flat out that Blondes-Blue Eyed men and women were superior to the other races, not just Aryans being superior to all races.

Yea I know I think I lost my ability to make sense for the moment.

Yea I know I think I lost my ability to make sense for the moment.

How bout us Blonde haired green eyed people??:p

Are you being sarcastic..its hard to tell?

Not really. It's based on the same logic as my contention that government intervention is actually part of the free market. Evolutionary processes in general aren't the sort of thing you can circumvent, and thus saying they're inevitable is relatively meaningless, because all it really means is that what happens is what happens. If the people invading the americas had been a bit less genocidal (I.E. the natives had been able to exploit holes in their memetic structure) the various atrocities would not have taken place. If the US acted altruistically, it wouldn't be varying any bit from Social Darwinian principles.

How bout us Blonde haired green eyed people??:p

Don't make it hard for me, :( ...because then I get sad.

Actually, I could see Russia becomming like WWII Germany if Prussia had won WWI.

It would make sense, as Russia would most likely do it to Muslims so they could perhaps 'Re-Populate' the Middle East with pure Russians, since their goal was to try and control the lands there.

Also makes sense if the Russians sought out to eliminate the Germans in Russia, and attempt to take control Germany.

It would be weird actually, as Britain would be shattered most likely or forced into a peace treaty, most of Europe a part of Prussia, and France being part of Prussia or splat into two ( one being Prussian and one being the rest of France basically forced into a Dominion with Prussia ). It would also be aquard, as America would have to ally with Germany to help defeat the Russians.

But then again, most of Europe would possibly join Russia in a realistic sense because at that time the Ottomans sort of wrecked the view towards Muslims with their long lasted occupation of most of the Balkans.

It is very difficult to tell really, and I am sure we could come up with thousands of things that could have happened.

----

About the blue eyed blonde haired thing -

Hitler, in a general description, wanted Blue Eyed Blonde Haired men to be his 'Chosen' men for the new Generation, to help mix in with races he decided to leave behind to sort of make the world Aryan instead of having to go through the resources with killing everyone out there minus the Japanese and the Italians.

But yes, you could also be Black Haired Brown Eyes and be Aryan. You could be anything and you may still be Aryan. But Hitler just believed flat out that Blondes-Blue Eyed men and women were superior to the other races, not just Aryans being superior to all races.

Yea I know I think I lost my ability to make sense for the moment.
WW1???Prussia???

WW1???Prussia???
Russia I gather.

Don't make it hard for me, :( ...because then I get sad.

lol.

the Holocaust never happened annywherez.
See the thing is, you can go to prison for years if you say that anywhere (learn to spell, asshole) in Germany. Think it's not true? Just happened to a guy not two weeks ago. Google it, or are you too nervous when it comes to actual facts? I really hope you're not as dumb as you write and postulate because that would just be a sad reflection of your miserable existence.

See the thing is, you can go to prison for years if you say that anywhere (learn to spell, asshole) in Germany. Think it's not true? Just happened to a guy not two weeks ago. Google it, or are you too nervous when it comes to actual facts? I really hope you're not as dumb as you write and postulate because that would just be a sad reflection of your miserable existence.
Now I know you are a first-timer, but he is being sarcastic.

See the thing is, you can go to prison for years if you say that anywhere (learn to spell, asshole) in Germany. Think it's not true? Just happened to a guy not two weeks ago. Google it, or are you too nervous when it comes to actual facts? I really hope you're not as dumb as you write and postulate because that would just be a sad reflection of your miserable existence.

Nice first post!

By the way..whenever he gets out of hand...we usually just shut him up with a good Polish joke....he doesnt seem to like those ;) :p

Now I know you are a first-timer, but he is being sarcastic.

Lol, no hes not.

He talked about it on another thread.

Hes no being sarcastic at all....He truley beleives the holocaust never happend.

Lol, no hes not.

He talked about it on another thread.

Hes no being sarcastic at all....He truley beleives the holocaust never happend.
Then why the awful mispelling?

Russia I gather.

Oh good God don't tell me you have no idea what Prussia is...

Oh good God don't tell me you have no idea what Prussia is...
2/3 of Germany in WW 1. I know well what it is. Yet I have no idea why you used Prussia when Germany was already united. :confused:

Okay good, you confused me at first.

I say Prussia because well it was the official International name of the Empire at the time of WWI.

Oh good God don't tell me you have no idea what Prussia is...
What does Prussia have to do with WW1???

Then why the awful mispelling?

Hes Polish and English isnt his first language...I dont know. :p

Okay good, you confused me at first.

I say Prussia because well it was the official International name of the Empire at the time of WWI.
Wasn't it Germany? :confused:

Okay good, you confused me at first.

I say Prussia because well it was the official International name of the Empire at the time of WWI.
Actually it was Das Deutsche Reich. Prussia was a state of it. Like Bavaria. Or Baden.

What does Prussia have to do with WW1???

Hmm, oh the fact that the Empire went by the name 'The Prussian Empire' and the Germans were referred to as 'The Prussians' and the first Chancellor was PM of Prussia and thus they kept 'Prussia' as their international title to honor the Unification of Germany under von Bismarck. So yea, it has EVERYTHING to do with WWI.

Hmm, oh the fact that the Empire went by the name 'The Prussian Empire' and the Germans were referred to as 'The Prussians' and the first Chancellor was PM of Prussia and thus they kept 'Prussia' as their international title to honor the Unification of Germany under von Bismarck. So yea, it has EVERYTHING to do with WWI.
The state kept its title, but I don't think the Second Reich adopted it.

No. Because he wanted to kill the Jews to exterminate them...just to wipe them out.

He saw them as a threat to the might of the German nation and its capability to dominate the world.

I'm not advocating murder.

Yes, you are. Don't try to obscure the issue. You are advocating a murderous doctrine, the idea that superior "cultures" have the right to pillage and destroy "inferior" cultures.

I'm saying that war is just something that happens and its better to be the winner.

It's better not to have it in the first place, and when you are the aggressor, that's a choice that's in your hands.

I'm saying that we shouldnt feel sorry for taking over the indians land for ourselves...because thats what people do.

Yeah, and people massacre Jews for stupid reasons, too. That doesn't mean that the Holocaust was justified.

My point is...we didnt attack the indians simply to kill all the indians for being indians...we simply wared against them for their land...killing them wasnt the goal...where as in the holocaust...complete and utter murder and genocide was the goal.

In order to secure the domination of the German nation. Just as getting rid of the Native Americans was necessary to secure the domination of the White American Nation.

If we could take America without harming a single Indian...I would have been happy....now apply that to Hitler.

If Hitler had believed that the German nation was capable of world domination without getting rid of the Jews first, I doubt he would have cared much about them.

Actually it was Das Deutsche Reich. Prussia was a state of it. Like Bavaria. Or Baden.

Yes, but internationally it was dubbed ' The Prussian Empire ' although yes with-in German boundries it may have been mostly referred to as ' Der Deutsches Reich ' because of the strong German Unity spirit the Germans, Prussians, Brandenburgians, Bavarians, etc felt.

The state kept its title, but I don't think the Second Reich adopted it.

Of course the State kept it's title and of course it is a state much like Brandenburg and others.

The state kept its title, but I don't think the Second Reich adopted it.
It didn't.

Of course the State kept it's title and of course it is a state much like Brandenburg and others.
Brandenburg at the time was a province of the state Prussia.

Of course the State kept it's title and of course it is a state much like Brandenburg and others.
I see your reasoning, and Prussia was 2/3 of Germany, but the Second Reich was Germany, not Prussia.

I see your reasonig, and Prussia was 2/3 of Germany, but the Second Reich was Germany, not Prussia.
What am I? Invisible?

Brandenburg at the time was a province of the state Prussia.

Vise Versa actually.

What am I? Invisible?
No, chopped liver.

You agreed with me, so why go over it again? :p

Okay now that we have gotten off topic, I think we could get back to the thread name and try to see if we can get any new ideas.

Vise Versa actually.
Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that Prussia was a province of Brandenburg and Brandenburg was the actual state?

Excuse me? Are you trying to tell me that Prussia was a province of Brandenburg and Brandenburg was the actual state?
He is a bit mixed up it would seem.

He is a bit mixed up it would seem.
It appears so.

Actually I think we are all mixed up.

You probably just looked at a map and saw Brandenburg and Prussia highlighted with a few enclaves of land.

Really I don't have a thought on the statehood between the two, I was actually just trying to make a General description and it got turned inside out.

There were several KEY causes which perpetuated those unfortunate events.

I would say (and some would agree) WWI had a psychological effect on the mindset of the German people. The mark had fallen to such a dreadful low that people were leaving work midday so they could buy a loaf of bread before the price got to high. This is, and was obviously embaressing to these people, and not just embaressing, it obviously impacted their way of life greatly. These people before WWI found themselves living in a nation with a fairly stable economic track, this was a drastic turn of events which broke down the psyche of the average citizen.

As a result of the previous dilema the German people were eager to rebuild and stabalize their government yet they had lost trust in their current regime. Because of this, as in any governing system, when political factions and cleavages begin to open up, tyrannical leaders tend to establish power more easy because the society is more open to radical changes.

The average German citizen had no idea what was going on as far as the holocost is concerned. They had their nationalist blinders on as all grand and small nations have done in the past. Propaganda is a marvelous tool which Hitler used to his advantage well.

Hitler wasn't really a natural tyrannt, he could have been a swell guy but he had so many physical conditions which were all treated in a very poor manner, by administering large regimines of cocaine, speed, and methanphetamines, the man was out of his mind for the majority of the time...

Another, and probably my final explanation which caused this tragedy to unfold was the practice of appeasement by the other western european (and north american) powers. As a result of this Hitler was able to establish a strong foothold in Europe and continue the downward spiral of socio-extermination.

A lot of factors contributed to this horrible moment in history, but lets not forget the same basic thing has happened throughout history, and continues to happen as we speak. Uganda has been at war with a tyrannt rebel leader whos army consists of kidnapped children, millions of people have died. In Rawanda millions died when the tutsi and hutu parties waged war in an exterminate the other. It's very unfortunate this happens...but welcome to humanity, it's ironic really, it's not that humane.

Actually I think we are all mixed up.

You probably just looked at a map and saw Brandenburg and Prussia highlighted with a few enclaves of land.
Prussian history was a hobby of mine. I did alot more then just look at a map.

Really I don't have a thought on the statehood between the two, I was actually just trying to make a General description and it got turned inside out.
What general description?

Prussian history was a hobby of mine. I did alot more then just look at a map.
Same here. And this is the first time I have ever heard of Prussia being a Brandeburger district.

Off topic, great quotes. :)

Prussian history was a hobby of mine. I did alot more then just look at a map.


What general description?

Well I won't doubt that perhaps your Prussian knowledge is greater than mine.

And I was trying to give a general description on the states...which I can't remember as to why now.

Same here. And this is the first time I have ever heard of Prussia being a Brandeburger district.
Me too.

Off topic, great quotes. :)
Thanks.

The holocaust happened for a painfully obvious reason, in my opinion.

The unfair punishment, not to mention complete blame of germany after WWI ended sent all of germany into a overall feeling of enragement and dispise for the state of their country ( not to mention their economy). Whate Great Britain and France did was out of sheer lust for revenge, no true justice was achieved. With these feelings of hatred brooding in Germany, Adolf Hitler was able to find a group to blame all the horrible happenings of Germany on, just happening to be the jews, people were eager to rally to Hitlers cause, and support his acts of war. He promised the people of Germany a quick road to recovery from the state of the economy after paying for all the damages to all the allies from WWI, and he promisesd retribution to those who had cause this. Of course patriotism aided his rise to power to, all he really needed was a group of people to blame, as i said, the jews. Pure genius if you look at it from a detatched point of view.

And sorry if this theory has been posted before, i didnt feel up to reading through 11 pages of posts.

And sorry if this theory has been posted before, i didnt feel up to reading through 11 pages of posts.
It's 13 pages.;)

I'll go with 2 - with a bit of 1 thrown in there (which is not to say "the Germans as a people did it").
My initial observation is that the Holocaust had Germany as a catalysis: it has immense contributions from Hungary, Croatia, Vichy France, Romania, the Salo Republic, Latvia etc (excluding places where Germany was actually in charge - Denmark, Belgium, etc - but perhaps pointing out "contribution" of some Poles, Russians, Ukrainians,...).
I also want to point out that picking option 1 would have another flaw: the Holocaust was not just anti-semitism, it was anti-"others" (with Jews first and foremost, of course).
Now, my thesis: Volkisch nationalism implies collective responsability, as well as Herder's "geist". Any judgement passed through such "logic" would find atavic enemies, especially after the contribution of Fascism and its rhetoric of "oneness" (as violent as Fascism may be on its own, I think that Hitler and movements such as the Iron Guard or the Arrow Crosses made use of something which they had essential, but little things in common with: left on on its own, Mussolini's Fascism, Integralism, or Falangism etc. would have developped in reaction to Volkish, as the syncretical and revolutionary movement they were - I think that anti-semitism and ethnicity would have tended to clash with the "integralist" and "über-state worship" drive of Fascisms).
This would have to be indeed an ancestral phenomenon, the violent fulfilment of what Bismarck left unanswered in Germany, or the latter stage of various jingoisms in other places. Nationalism in Western Europe was meant to address über-patriotism (ie: an identity forged through an entity that was already in place - the state; the most conservative force in France prior to the 1940 defeat would understand that France is more "of the French citizens" than "of the French ethnos"). The translation of nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe meant searching for ethnicity to become state, with all the faults implied. In fact, the effect this had was that most "would-be-state" identities (Germanism, Romanianness, Yugoslavian ethos as well as Croatian identity, Ukrainianness etc etc) has triggered reactions in identities already in place (France-Vichy France, Hungary etc), forcing them to adopt the ethnic nationalism. Of course, the "they say jump you say how high" that happened with German dominance in 1941 did play a crucial part in bringing that about, but my bet is that the reaction of ethnos against state (with the Jews as the perfect, cosmopolitan, and would-be-citizen vs are-of-the-same-race enemies) would have led half of Europe near the same watershed.

Of course, option 1 remains there only in the measure where we take into account the fact that the notion of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos" did in fact create a measure of "collective responsability" and "ethos for the ethnos".

Tell me if this is a good explanation.

*snip*
Whilst you gave a very well thought out thesis, I will ask one thing. What in your view is a nation? Something organic and with a mind of its own, or merely the collection of people who presently populate it?

Whilst you gave a very well thought out thesis, I will ask one thing. What in your view is a nation? Something organic and with a mind of its own, or merely the collection of people who presently populate it?
A collection of people who presently populate a state is a more accurate definition (though, indeed, we could without one at all).

A collection of people who presently populate a state is a more accurate definition (though, indeed, we could without one at all).
Precisely. Do you believe that a nation can bear blame eternally then? This being disparate for apologising for a previous generation's misconduct and remembering rather than forgetting. I mean carrying actual guilt for what was done in the past. Much like a child bearing blame for what their parent did.

Precisely. Do you believe that a nation can bear blame eternally then? This being disparate for apologising for a previous generation's misconduct and remembering rather than forgetting. I mean carrying actual guilt for what was done in the past.
Definately not. But an ideology or a vision on ethnicity can and should.

Definately not. But an ideology or a vision on ethnicity can and should.
Yes, absolutely. What I am getting to really is that it is slightly hypocritical for some to hold Germans (of the new generation) accountable for the Holocaust, when they in fact maintain this definition of a nation (usually as a weapon against nationalism).

By what I understand, you would say Nazism itself and that particular view of ethnicity are eternally culpable though? If so, I agree.

Yes, absolutely. What I am getting to really is that it is slightly hypocritical for some to hold Germans (of the new generation) accountable for the Holocaust, when they in fact maintain this definition of a nation (usually as a weapon against nationalism).

Indeed. (Stress on: "of the new generation")

By what I understand, you would say Nazism itself and that particular view of ethnicity are eternally culpable though? If so, I agree.

Indeed.

hold Germans (of the new generation) accountable for the Holocaust.

Yes, until the world drops the culture of guilt bullshit, I'm holding everyone accountable for everything. That pretty much puts Russia in front in the "We're all evil!" competition.

Yes, until the world drops the culture of guilt bullshit, I'm holding everyone accountable for everything. That pretty much puts Russia in front in the "We're all evil!" competition.
Just ask them to explain their reasoning to you. If its basis is flawed, the entire reasoning crumbles as both hypocritical and unfounded. Asked if you should be held accountable for your ancestor's traspassings, few would argue that this is so.

Just ask them to explain their reasoning to you. If its basis is flawed, the entire reasoning crumbles as both hypocritical and unfounded. Asked if you should be held accountable for your ancestor's traspassings, few would argue that this is so.
Again, this should not affect the need to asign guilt to the immense number of people who were responsible for it.

Again, this should not affect the need to asign guilt to the immense number of people who were responsible for it.

Here's one: should my grandfather feel guilty? He served in the Hitler Youth in France near the end of the war. Didn't do any Holocausting though,

Again, this should not affect the need to asign guilt to the immense number of people who were responsible for it.
Agreed. I was referring more to those who cast blame on current, non-implicated generations.

Here's one: should my grandfather feel guilty? He served in the Hitler Youth in France near the end of the war. Didn't do any Holocausting though,
Does anyone claim that he should? Or are you just using equivocation to argue for revisionism?

Does anyone claim that he should? Or are you just using equivocation to argue for revisionism?

I'm just asking.

I'm just asking.
On principle, no.
Ask me if the Hitlerjugend as an institution should be condemned. The answer is yes.
Ask me if your grandfather was ever accused for just serving in it. My guess is no, and thus I see no point in your original question (unless your grampa was a war criminal - which I guess is not the case).

On principle, no.
Ask me if the Hitlerjugend as an institution should be condemned. The answer is yes.
Ask me if your grandfather was ever accused for just serving in it. My guess is no, and thus I see no point in your original question (unless your grampa was a war criminal - which I guess is not the case).
Too true. His question was interesting from a theoretical standpoint.

Too true. His question was interesting from a theoretical standpoint.
But it stood for little. I mean, no official entity has ever accused the Germans as a people.

But it stood for little. I mean, no official entity has ever accused the Germans as a people.
No, but I think in his case he is referring more to individuals he knows.

No, but I think in his case he is referring more to individuals he knows.
Well, yeah. But knowing Kievan's post, I also have to point out his own forray into nationalist revisionism (prominents post he had that I remember were about his Ustaša friend and race identity in Australia). Relativism meant to bring forth that philosophy I can't agree with.

Well, yeah. But knowing Kievan's post, I also have to point out his own forray into nationalist revisionism (prominents post he had that I remember were about his Ustaša friend and race identity in Australia). Relativism meant to bring forth that philosophy I can't agree with.
True. Could be that he has changed though. Either way, only KP knows.

Well, yeah. But knowing Kievan's post, I also have to point out his own forray into nationalist revisionism (prominents post he had that I remember were about his Ustaša friend and race identity in Australia). Relativism meant to bring forth that philosophy I can't agree with.

Well, there are different race identities in Australia. And pretty much every Croatian teenager over here has a degree of Ustasha pride.

Well, there are different race identities in Australia.

It would be perfectly justified for someone who agrees with you on that topic to easily assume that all Germans are responsible for the Holocaust. I do not share that opinion, but my guess is that you are, as we say in Romania, cutting off the branch you're sitting on.

And pretty much every Croatian teenager over here has a degree of Ustasha pride.

Yeah, and that is a good alternative to Nazi pride...

kaiser led the german people to war and destroyed the austro-hungarian empire during WW1. the german people needed a release for their anger, if kaiser controlled france...the same would have happened.

Yeah, and that is a good alternative to Nazi pride...

Jesus, back off. It's not like I control the Croatians, I don't tell them what to think.

kaiser led the german people to war and destroyed the austro-hungarian empire during WW1. the german people needed a release for their anger, if kaiser controlled france...the same would have happened.

Learn history better you must.

Jesus, back off. It's not like I control the Croatians, I don't tell them what to think.
He is questioning your friend's nationalism's justifiability, not whether or not you are to blame for it.

Jesus, back off. It's not like I control the Croatians, I don't tell them what to think.
If I remeber correctly, what brought that about was your own statement in another thread: "you are who you associate with" (which is also ironic, considering the view you took in this thread). So yeah, tell me about it.
Am I to understand that you had nothing to comment on my other point?

Am I to understand that you had nothing to comment on my other point?

Not really, since your answer didn't make much sense. I said "there are different races in Australia." You replied "someone who agrees with you might blame Germans for the Holocaust."

Not really, since your answer didn't make much sense. I said "there are different races in Australia." You replied "someone who agrees with you might blame Germans for the Holocaust."
Trusting races with "containing identity" leads to "races have responsabilities". The clear thesis of ethnic nationalism. The inevitable connection and why I don't agree with it something which would be obvious to you were you to read all my posts.

Because France was OCCUPIED! Get it? Occupied?!

Oh.

Sorry. I thought this was a "finish the punchline" thread.

Now I know you are a first-timer, but he is being sarcastic.Utterly incorrect. Not only is Swilatia serious, she believes it too...

Utterly incorrect. Not only is Swilatia serious, she believes it too...
You have to wonder about the sanity of a Pole! like Swilatia posting what (s)he did.

Utterly incorrect. Not only is Swilatia serious, she believes it too...
Or at least she has us thinking she does, if she is but a troll.

Hitler wasn't really a natural tyrannt, he could have been a swell guy but he had so many physical conditions which were all treated in a very poor manner, by administering large regimines of cocaine, speed, and methanphetamines, the man was out of his mind for the majority of the time...

Hitler didn't use drugs. He didn't even smoke. He was a healthnut.

Hitler didn't use drugs. He didn't even smoke. He was a healthnut.

After 1942-1943 onwards, his personal physician placed him on a series of 'Miracle Pills' that would help him calm down and de-stress supposedly. One of his staff opened one up to find it was a mixture of barbitrates, cocaine and other conflicting drugs including mild doses of poisons. These contributed majorly to his pyscosis and irrational decisions and paranoia during the later years of the war, as well as his many outbursts.

After 1942-1943 onwards, his personal physician placed him on a series of 'Miracle Pills' that would help him calm down and de-stress supposedly. One of his staff opened one up to find it was a mixture of barbitrates, cocaine and other conflicting drugs including mild doses of poisons. These contributed majorly to his pyscosis and irrational decisions and paranoia during the later years of the war, as well as his many outbursts.
And you have a source for that?

And you have a source for that?

Both The Battle of the Bulge by John Toland and The Last Battle by Cornelius Ryan have accounts of several of Hitler's Generals referring to the medicine; one officer (Possibly Guderian) stated that he had opened one and found pure poison in one. The medication was prescribed by Theodore Morell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Morell), Hitler's personal physician, and included Potassium Bromide and Cocaine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Morell#Substances_given_to_Hitler) amongst other ingredients.

Although the article does state that many historians discount the effect that the medications had on Hitler's decisions, I do question this. The accounts of Guderian amongst others states that he believed the drugs were deeply affecting Hitler's behaviour, as did several other lesser staff members( Ryan, The Last Battle. Though not the only reason for his increasingly erratic outbursts and decisions, paranoia from the Bomb Plot and increasing stress at the war being lost, a combination of cocaine, mild poisons and chemicals undoubtedly had an effect on his overall behaviour and some decisions, especially when one considers the length of time he took them, and the combination stress and paranoia had on him.

EDIT: Here are two quotes from The Last Battle and The Last Days of Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper as sources to back my point up; my library doesn't have Toland unfortunately.

'...Contrary to generally accepted belief, the deterioration of Hitler's health was not a result of injuries sustained during the attempted bomb plot on his life in 1944, though it seems to have marked the beginning of a rapid dehabilitation[...]In addition, there is abundant evidence that he was being slowly poisoned by the indiscriminate use of drugs administered to him in massive injections by his favourite physician, Professor Theodor Morell.These ranged from prescriptions containing morphia, arsenic and strychnine to various artificial stimulants and mysterious "miracle drugs" that the doctor himself compounded...' Ryan, Cornelius, The Last Battle, Simon and Schuster Inc, 1966, p.264

'...The way in which Morell made use of these drugs is thus described by Dr Brandt:

'..."...He would give large doses of sulphonamides for slight colds[...]Hitler came to depend more and more on these injections; his dependence became very obvious during the last year..."...'

'...By the time Brandt was interned, he had good reason to hate Morell and his opinion might therefore seem at first to be biased against him; but there can be no doubt of its accuracy. It is supported by every other doctor who had opportunities of knowing the facts; and the professional verdict of the faculty is supported by intelligent lay observers...' Trevor-Roper, H.R, The Last Days of Hitler, PAN Books, 1962, pp.108-109

I hope this is enough evidence for you. I can use my library again if you desire more affirmation.

You have to wonder about the sanity of a Pole! like Swilatia posting what (s)he did.

Swilatia is a girl!?!

Swilatia is a girl!?!

Gender means nothing when denying historical fact, I'm afraid to say.

sorry to interfere,
but i'm responding to the TO

what about, it has nothing to do whit germany

holocaust happen at every war, look at:

Yougoslavia, Rwanda for eminent proof!


*on the other side, maybe it's those germans :D

'omg, itz l1k3 da jewz is always oppressed!!! we f33l b@d!'
not like the russians did the same thing, not only to jews but to 'regular russians'.
native americans have yet to be remembered.
anyone i forgot?
OH RIGHT, I'M NOT ALLOWED TO REMEMBER
the victors write history


Cant forget the Armenians

Cant forget the Armenians

No one is forgeting about what the Russians...etc did.

Thats simply a thing used by nazi apologists.

Person A: This is what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Nazi Apologist: Oh yeah well look over at Russia!

No, who cares...this is about Germany....No one is forgeting about Russia...but it doesnt need to be brought up when talking about the holocaust under Nazi Germany.

Americans had really nothing to do with it except end it.

Americans had really nothing to do with it except end it.
The Treaty of Versailles? The USA never helped enforce it either...

No one is forgeting about what the Russians...etc did.

Thats simply a thing used by nazi apologists.

Person A: This is what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Nazi Apologist: Oh yeah well look over at Russia!

No, who cares...this is about Germany....No one is forgeting about Russia...but it doesnt need to be brought up when talking about the holocaust under Nazi Germany.

Actually, the average person thinks that Soviet Russia's greatest crime was looking scary. Everybody is forgetting about Russia.

And the turks killed the Armenians, not the Russians.

Actually, the average person thinks that Soviet Russia's greatest crime was looking scary. Everybody is forgetting about Russia.
Agreed. Same with Mao and China.

And the turks killed the Armenians, not the Russians.
Indeed.

Swilatia is a girl!?!
I don't know. I always assumed Swilatia was a guy, but all people in the thread kept referring to a she-Swilatia.

Actually, the average person thinks that Soviet Russia's greatest crime was looking scary. Everybody is forgetting about Russia.

And the turks killed the Armenians, not the Russians.

Well...people are stupid...but that doesnt mean you have to bitch we we teach them about the holocaust and say...BUT LOOK WHAT RUSSIA DID...they are two seperate things.

I know what Russia did.

Also...I put an etc...after Russia implying that I was talking about the places where mass murder has happend...not that it was ONLY Russia.

The Treaty of Versailles? The USA never helped enforce it either...

It had nothing to do with us.

It was up to the British to enforce...as soon as America won the war...we got out of there and went back to being isolationist...or so we thought...

The Treaty of Versailles was mainly between England, France and Germany.

I don't know. I always assumed Swilatia was a guy, but all people in the thread kept referring to a she-Swilatia.

I wonder if shes hot...I heard Polish girls can be quite sexy.

It had nothing to do with us.

It was up to the British to enforce...as soon as America won the war...we got out of there and went back to being isolationist...or so we thought...

The Treaty of Versailles was mainly between England, France and Germany.
The USA helped write it, although yeah it was pretty much between France and Britain (and mainly the inaction of the latter at the expense of the former).

I wonder if shes hot...I heard Polish girls can be quite sexy.
Until she decides to carry on where Hitler left off...

The USA helped write it, although yeah it was pretty much between France and Britain (and mainly the inaction of the latter at the expense of the former).

Ok, then we agree.

Until she decides to carry on where Hitler left off...

Eh...I'd *ride* those views out of her....that is, if shes hot.

Anyway a neo nazi women would just scare me in real life. lol.

Hitler used it as a means to unite the people against a common "enemy," or "threat." By convincing the people, or even forcing them to be convinced, that the Jews were the cause of their problems, he united the Germans. George W. Bush, in a much less violent, murderous way, used 9/11 to unite the people of America against the "terrorists."

Hitler used it as a means to unite the people against a common "enemy," or "threat." By convincing the people, or even forcing them to be convinced, that the Jews were the cause of their problems, he united the Germans. George W. Bush, in a much less violent, murderous way, used 9/11 to unite the people of America against the "terrorists."

Sigh....When are these Bush-Hitler comparison gonna stop.

Eh...I'd *ride* those views out of her....that is, if shes hot.
Or you might just convince her to hurry it up :p

Anyway a neo nazi women would just scare me in real life. lol.
Yeah, well it's not as if they're out there to make friends. ;)