H*tler saved in WWI by Jew -- possible origin of myth
JoAnne Schmitz
life saved in World War I by a Jew. I can't find it now, but I just
had a thought.
In 1940, Charlie Chaplin wrote and starred in a movie called "The
Great Dictator." In this movie, the main character was a German Jew,
a barber who became a soldier in World War I. He saved the life of an
aviator but in the process was seriously wounded and spent years in
the hospital recovering, unaware of the passage of time. The aviator
fared better, and became a high-ranking official in the movie's
version of the N*zi party.
The main character gets in trouble when he leaves the hospital, not
knowing about the new atmosphere of anti-Semitism. He reopens his
barber shop and when harrassed by goons, fights back. He is about to
be arrested when the official comes upon the scene, recognizes him,
and has him released.
I'm wondering if this part of the story might have evolved into the
"Jew saved H*tler's life" story.
JoAnne "it's actually a sad movie, as many comedies are" Schmitz
Kent Campbell
: Quoth jims...@bellsouth.net (Jim Skillman):
: >Paul Harvey once did a "rest of the story" riff that told of a Jewish
: >doctor who worked long and hard to treat H*tler's mother, who died
: >anyway. H*tler saw to it that the doctor was never harassed or penalized
: >during the holocaust that followed.
: Preposterous.
: Now if the riff had been that H*tler blamed the Jewish doctor for his
: mother's death...
: Steve "surely the real loons grep for H*tler with the asterisk too" Caskey
Hi Folks -
I don't know about the doctor story but I do know that
Hitler was very proud to win the Iron Cross in WW I and the sergeant who
nominated him for the honor was Jewish.
Best wishes,
Kent.
Jim Skillman
Hi Kent -
Not that I doubt you, but when you put forth information like that you
are supposed to give a cite of some kind. So like where did you come up
with that information?
Best wishes to you too,
Jim
Olivers
>
>
> Hi Folks -
> I don't know about the doctor story but I do know that
> Hitler was very proud to win the Iron Cross in WW I and the sergeant who
> nominated him for the honor was Jewish.
>
> Best wishes,
> Kent.
Does your rifle (Kar98) have any cites for that?
The Tscherman Army (1914-18) was not noted for recommendations for
citations by NCOs. I suspect that it took a Hauptman to write him up
for the IC2.
--
TMOliver
"Without occasional excess,
Moderation remains impossible."
Chris C
I've often been told by people that Hitler's mother was in fact Jewish (or
half Jewish) - no evidence given (of course).
Chris "who cares? he was still evil" C
(de-x email address to de-spam)
Mike Bremseth
>
> Hi Folks -
> I don't know about the doctor story but I do know that
> Hitler was very proud to win the Iron Cross in WW I and the sergeant who
> nominated him for the honor was Jewish.
>
> Best wishes,
> Kent.
>
According to Robert Payne in his book, The Life and Death of Adolf
Hitler, page 113, Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross on the recommendation
of Lieutenant Gutmann, "... a Jewish officer in the German Army." If you
are satisfied with Payne's research, or can verify it, seems extremely
ironic.
I don't know about Payne, as, for example, he is the only person I have
come across who says Hitler once visited England.
Mike Bremseth
--
Brem...@earthlink.gov
Change gov to net
cwp
> Why the asterisk in [...] H*tler?
To keep idiots/assholes/trolls/etc who search
for threads involving that name from responding
to the post.
cwp "g*n c*ntr*l"
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>I've often been told by people that Hitler's mother was in fact Jewish (or
>half Jewish) - no evidence given (of course).
>
>Chris "who cares? he was still evil" C
Douglas Reed, an extreme right-wing British author, was deeply
suspicious of Hitler, who he regarded as an agent of big business who
had been foisted on the German Right. He also bought the 'half-Jewish'
story. According to Reed (writing in 1940), Hitler's anti-semitic
policies had taken a wrong turn at the time of the Nuremberg Laws;
he'd become too extreme, *because he had something to prove*.
Phil "no, I don't know why I read this stuff either" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"How about if I admit to myself that I don't really care?"
- Ulo Melton
Frank Blackfire
cwp <cwpa...@alve.com> wrote in message
news:01bf7958$f6297be0$19dbe226@thanatos...
Dan Drake
>... In 1940, Charlie Chaplin wrote and starred in a movie called "The
> Great Dictator."...
>
> JoAnne "it's actually a sad movie, as many comedies are" Schmitz
Also has a few moments of immortal comedy; e.g., shaving a customer
while the radio is playing one of Brahms's Hungarian Dances. (The
5th, I think, but it's hard for me to keep the numbers straight).
But what I wanted to say is that now that the ice has been broken, I
can ask a question that's been bugging me.
After the fall of France, H did a little jig that was caught on film.
BUT it's a fake, made by doctoring a film of his raising one leg and
slapping his thigh. So says virtually every reference that I find in
a quick look on Google.
But without exception this is mentioned as a common-knowledge item.
So far I haven't found one reference to anything resembling the sort
of source that would satisfy afu. Well, OK, John Lukacs mentions it
in an interview, and he's probably not mistaken. But still, does
anyone know of any source concerning the exposure of this (alleged)
fraud, that's better than third- or fourth-hand unattributed stuff?
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com
JoAnne Schmitz
<kdmlive...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>cwp wrote:
>>
>> Frank Blackfire <jesc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Why the asterisk in [...] H*tler?
>>
>> To keep idiots/assholes/trolls/etc who search
>> for threads involving that name from responding
>> to the post.
>>
>> cwp "g*n c*ntr*l"
>
>Like those people don't search for the munged version of the
>word(s)?
You try searching deja for g*n c*ntr*l and get back to us on your
brilliant plan.
JoAnne "*" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
Hatunen) wrote:
>In article <1YfR77gdNJ3y-p...@dnai-207-181-236-87.cust.dnai.com>,
>Dan Drake <d...@dandrake.com> wrote:
>
>>After the fall of France, H did a little jig that was caught on
>>film. BUT it's a fake, made by doctoring a film of his raising
>>one leg and slapping his thigh. So says virtually every reference
>>that I find in a quick look on Google.
>>
>>But without exception this is mentioned as a common-knowledge
>>item. So far I haven't found one reference to anything resembling
>>the sort of source that would satisfy afu. Well, OK, John Lukacs
>>mentions it in an interview, and he's probably not mistaken. But
>>still, does anyone know of any source concerning the exposure of
>>this (alleged) fraud, that's better than third- or fourth-hand
>>unattributed stuff?
>
>If you watch the jig carefuly it's fairly easy to see that it's
>looped: the second step is identical to the first. He did do a big
>step, but the propagandist made it go over and over to create the
>jig.
At the time it might have been more novel and hence maybe more
believed. But then supposedly, in the very dawn of the cinema, when
the film of a train heading towards the camera was shown, people ran
from the theater in a panic.
I found it quite comically obvious. The people who would be fooled by
it today are the same ones who think the cats in the Purina Cat Chow
commercial are doing the chow-chow-chow.
JoAnne "that Lumiere moon landing was faked, too" Schmitz
Phil Edwards
<J...@micky.bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <88k1do$eg1$2...@news.jump.net>, Timothy A. McDaniel
><tm...@jump.net> writes
>>In article <q03pas48l63gmo2ul...@4ax.com>,
>>Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Not especially. Hitler was a runner; he was awarded the Iron Cross
>>>first class, along with another runner, for delivering important
>>>messages under fire. Nothing particularly heroic going on
>>
>>I believe it was John Keegan, _The Mask of Command_, who suggests
>>that, give the Devil his due, it *was* heroic. Message runners got
>>shot at a lot, and Hitler was dedicated.
>
>Also, from Alan Bullock's book, 'Parallel Lives':-
>
>There is no doubt that Hitler was a good soldier, and saw a lot of
>fighting, taking part in some three dozen engagements on the Western
>Front between 1914 and 1918. He served as a regimental runner, carrying
>messages when other means of communication broke down, as they
>frequently did. This was a dangerous job, but it suited him because he
>could work on his own. He was wounded and had many narrow escapes, but
>his courage and coolness under fire were described as exemplary in the
>citation which won him the Iron Cross, First Class.
My phrasing was too dismissive - what I meant was that Hitler didn't
gain the medal by exhibiting conspicuous personal heroism, which is
what the award to an enlisted soldier tends to suggest. Kershaw:
"the award was made - as it was also to a fellow dispatch runner - for
bravery shown in delivering an important dispatch ... from command
headquarters to the front under heavy fire. Gutmann, from what he
subsequently said, had promised both dispatch runners the [medal] if
they succeeded in delivering the message. But since the action was,
though certainly courageous, not strikingly exceptional, it was only
after several weeks of his belabouring the divisional commander that
permission for the award was granted."
Phil "and yes, there is a certain irony there" Edwards
Deborah Stevenson
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
[re Hitler's cinematically jigged jig]
> I found it quite comically obvious. The people who would be fooled by
> it today are the same ones who think the cats in the Purina Cat Chow
> commercial are doing the chow-chow-chow.
It does make me wonder about the changes in visual discernment over the
last century or so as special effects have evolved. Most of the
Cottingley Fairy pictures scream "cut out" to me as well, which makes them
useful examples in discussions of visual literacy.
But I also think we're missing the psychologically ULish aspect when we
focus merely on the visual in both these cases. When people are seeing
what corresponds with their truth, they're less likely to notice--or
pursue--any signs of artifice.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
J. Boland
Veering dangerously and rapidly off-topic, is there anybody who can
explain to me what exactly is this fascination some people have with
Hitler? When I go into used bookstores in my local university district,
I'm sure to see shelves upon shelves of books related to the topic of
Hitler/Nazism. And then there's the History channel....
What's the dilly, yo? (ahem. So to speak.)
Dustin K. Anderson
>
> Veering dangerously and rapidly off-topic, is there anybody who can
> explain to me what exactly is this fascination some people have with
> Hitler? When I go into used bookstores in my local university district,
> I'm sure to see shelves upon shelves of books related to the topic of
> Hitler/Nazism. And then there's the History channel....
>
> What's the dilly, yo? (ahem. So to speak.)
::Engage Wild Speculation::
For some people, I think H*tl*r/N*z*sm depicts a physical
realization of a deep, dark inner thought; Purity of some
sort - color, language, gender, form, purity of their own
choosing. Maybe some of these people are closet (or open)
neo-n*z*s, perhaps some have the same ideals but with their
own ethnic group in place of the Ary*n.
Perhaps the entire course of events is fascinating in itself,
to some. A man who rises to power, with an agenda of hatred -
an agenda that eventually leads to a world-wide war. Especially
interesting when you consider how close H*tl*r came to winning.
Lastly, there is the whole "car crash" effect - you cannot
help but watch, horrified as you may be. Think about it: when
you are witness to a car wreck, or even just the aftermath of
one, what is usually the first thing you do when you arrive at
your destination? Find someone to relate the details of the
accident to.
::Disengage Wild Speculation::
Dustin "hey, you asked" A.
Gabe
>
> Veering dangerously and rapidly off-topic, is there anybody who can
> explain to me what exactly is this fascination some people have with
> Hitler? When I go into used bookstores in my local university district,
> I'm sure to see shelves upon shelves of books related to the topic of
> Hitler/Nazism. And then there's the History channel....
>
> What's the dilly, yo? (ahem. So to speak.)
I think for some people they get fascinated by the things of the losing
side, eg their beliefs and other stuff. Especially if they look around
at the world and see themselves as the underdog and want someone to
blame. (this is only a theory, not gospel).
I say this because I have known some guys who were/are neo-nazis. They
seem to fit that mould quite well.
Also if you look at the nazi paraphenalia it envokes a sense of power
and unity , whereas a lot of the allied stuff looks quite ordinary and
boring. Maybe this attracts some people to hitler/nazism?
I once used to have a lot of old nazi war material, eg uniforms, SS
patches etc and a huge old nazi drop banner like the ones used in the
rallies. I collected that kind of military stuff because it looked
powerful etc... I had some brit stuff too but it just looked really
ordinary and unappealing. I burnt the flag and other stuff eventually
when I thought about what it stood for.
Cheers
Gabe
Fingerbob
"Gabe" <smar...@spam.sucks.iprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
news:38B108...@spam.sucks.iprolink.co.nz...
You burnt the Union Jack!! Thats very ungrateful considering the way we
saved you in the war.
JoAnne Schmitz
<tempu...@spamfilter.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> For some people, I think H*tl*r/N*z*sm depicts a physical
>realization of a deep, dark inner thought; Purity of some
>sort - color, language, gender, form, purity of their own
>choosing. Maybe some of these people are closet (or open)
>neo-n*z*s, perhaps some have the same ideals but with their
>own ethnic group in place of the Ary*n.
There's a seductive appeal to fascism. It means no silly bureaucratic
red tape, no worrying about keeping those whiny minorities happy, no
moral dilemmas. Just one person deciding what's right and everyone
shutting up and going along, or else.
Add to that dramatically staged events, fancy uniforms, catchy colors
and exciting spiky-looking diagonal line emblems, and you've got a
winner.
JoAnne "the devil has all the best tunes" Schmitz
Dustin K. Anderson
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 03:21:22 -0500, "Dustin K. Anderson"
> <tempu...@spamfilter.bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
> There's a seductive appeal to fascism. It means no silly bureaucratic
> red tape, no worrying about keeping those whiny minorities happy, no
> moral dilemmas. Just one person deciding what's right and everyone
> shutting up and going along, or else.
>
> Add to that dramatically staged events, fancy uniforms, catchy colors
> and exciting spiky-looking diagonal line emblems, and you've got a
> winner.
>
> JoAnne "the devil has all the best tunes" Schmitz
Actually, I have always felt that Anarchy has its seductive
appeal, for alot of the same reasons - no beaureaucracy,
minority means you have the fewest guns in your neighborhood,
morality is a personal issue. Best of all, there is no one
telling you what is good for you. Sure, there are the naysayers
who claim that Anarchy wouldn't work, but hey, this whole
democracy thing hasn't been ideal.
Dustin "no, I'm not an anarchist, unless you're interested" A.
Andrea Jones
>I find the era fascinating, but that is because it is something
>that happened to rather ordinary people. I keep asking myself just
>how an entire country could have done this, and sucked in some
>other countries in the process. I truly believe we all have in us
>some dark corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could
>have happened here, and I think it needs to be studied and
>recognized for what it is so that it never happens again.
Any war happens to rather ordinary people, who will in the course of the
stress and adversity do rather extraordinary things. Some of them they
aren't proud of afterwards.
An interesting book on WW2 and the H*l*c**st is _H*tler's Willing
Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the H*l*c**st_, by Daniel Jonah
Goldhagen. Goldhagen makes some interesting points, although you
occasionally have to read between the lines of his agenda. Discussion of
the book's topic and premises really isn't appropriate to afu, but I'm open
to hashing it out in e-mail (no kooks, please).
Andrea "always open to a good discussion" Jones
--
". . . ordinary people will do extraordinary things out
of honour, and duty, and love, and . . . courage
is something you don't know you have until you need it."
--Paul Tomblin
Gabe
hehe, no I burnt the nazi stuff. I kept all my brit stuff except the gas
mask. I like my Gallipoli stuff best.
Cheers
Gabe
David Hatunen
Dustin K. Anderson <tempu...@spamfilter.bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the entire course of events is fascinating in itself,
>to some. A man who rises to power, with an agenda of hatred -
>an agenda that eventually leads to a world-wide war. Especially
>interesting when you consider how close H*tl*r came to winning.
I find the era fascinating, but that is because it is something
that happened to rather ordinary people. I keep asking myself just
how an entire country could have done this, and sucked in some
other countries in the process. I truly believe we all have in us
some dark corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could
have happened here, and I think it needs to be studied and
recognized for what it is so that it never happens again.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******
Stephen Devaux
> >that happened to rather ordinary people. I keep asking myself just
> >how an entire country could have done this, and sucked in some
> >other countries in the process. I truly believe we all have in us
> >some dark corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could
> >have happened here, and I think it needs to be studied and
> >recognized for what it is so that it never happens again.
>
> stress and adversity do rather extraordinary things. Some of them they
> aren't proud of afterwards.
> An interesting book on WW2 and the H*l*c**st is _H*tler's Willing
> Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the H*l*c**st_, by Daniel Jonah
> Goldhagen. Goldhagen makes some interesting points, although you
> occasionally have to read between the lines of his agenda. Discussion of
> the book's topic and premises really isn't appropriate to afu,
I liked Goldhagen's book, but recommend that it be read along with
Browning's Ordinary Men, which uses much the same material to arrive at
an almost diametrically opposite conclusion. Overall, I'm more persuaded
by Goldhagen.
ObUL: Three-four years ago, I was reading Goldhagen's book at the bar of
Grendl's Den, a pub in Harvard Sq. The guy next to me (who said he was
a History Professor at U. of Colorado in town for a seminar) started
chatting about Goldhagen and, in particular, his father Erich Goldhagen
(to whom Daniel's book is dedicated). According to the story, Erich was
a boy in the Ukraine when the N*zis marched in. He and the other Jews
from the town were lined up by the SS officer, who insisted on
addressing the prisoners and very formally introducing himself (the
grandson of one of the great composers: Shubert, I think) and his
Divisional commander.
When the Jews were mowed down, Erich Goldhagen was only wounded, but
played dead. After dark, he and a couple of other survivors were able
to crawl out and get help from some of the Gentile townspeople.
Eventually Erich was able to make his way through Europe to safety in, I
believe, Portugal.
Most of the above seems likely to be true. Here comes the really UL
part: After the war, Erich Goldhagen was a translator at the Nuremburg
Trials. In 1950, he was with the former SS Divisional Commander during
his final hours before execution. According to my bar acquaintance, he
told the Nazi where he had first heard his name, and of the ironic twist
of fate.
Steve the Bajan who hopes it's all true
JoAnne Schmitz
>On Sun, 18 Feb 3900 23:16:07, JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 21:20:39 GMT, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
>> Hatunen) wrote:
>>
>> >...
>> >
>> >If you watch the jig carefuly it's fairly easy to see that it's
>> >looped: the second step is identical to the first. He did do a big
>> >step, but the propagandist made it go over and over to create the
>> >jig.
>>
>>...
>>
>> I found it quite comically obvious. The people who would be fooled by
>> it today are the same ones who think the cats in the Purina Cat Chow
>> commercial are doing the chow-chow-chow.
>
>I'm not at all sure that I've ever seen the damn thing myself; odd,
>but maybe it has been suppressed by some sort of cabal. Anyway, I can
>easily believe it would be strangely unconvincing if created simply by
>looping a single step.
I haven't been able to find a copy of it on the web. But I did find more
information on it.
From http://www.lifesite.net/interim/1999/march/5kennedy.html :
"John Grierson, the Englishman who invented the "documentary" back in the 1940s,
is famous for making Adolf Hitler "dance." Hitler was filmed doing a joyous hop
as he strutted through the Arc de Triomph during World War II. Grierson got hold
of the film clip and proceeded to repeat the "hop" again and again. So there was
Hitler doing a crazy jig! If you didn't think that Hitler was crazy after that,
there was something the matter with your eyesight.
"This "revised" news reel was widely circulated by British intelligence in the
West and created gales of laughter in cinemas all over the world. Goodbye Hitler
the invincible, hello Hitler the "crazy" who had lost his marbles."
What I remember of it, it wasn't technically just a repeat, 1-2-3, 1-2-3. It
was a forward then backward repeat of the same few frames, something like this:
) ) ) ) )
O O O O O
--- --- `-- --- ---
| |_ |_ |_ |
/ \ / / / / \
1 2 3 2 1
only repeated again several times, 1-2-3-2-1-2-3-2-1-2-3-2-1-2-3 which is why I
mentioned the "chow chow chow" cat food commercials, which use the same
back-and-forth technique.
http://ellserver1.njcu.edu/TAEBMFF/bmffes87.htm says:
"Early filmmakers realized that film allowed them the ability to play with time
and space. Edwin S. Porter, D.W. Griffith and others pioneered in the use of
editing to collapse and to expand time (drawing out a chase for dramatic effect,
for example) and to cut from one location to another as an enhancement to
dramatic tension (as in intercutting between chaser and chased). One of the
measures of success in such creative editing was the ability to involve the
audience in the drama to such an extent that they were not made conscious of the
visual techniques employed. Perhaps the most interesting historical example of
film editors' capacity for misrepresenting facts is the famous footage of
Hitler's jig after stepping from the railway car in which he had accepted the
surrender of France in 1940. It never really happened. With the help of a
laboratory device called an optical printer, a team of patriotic-minded British
film editors were able to take an otherwise benign image of Hitler raising his
leg and turn it into a diabolical little dance -- and a powerful piece of
propaganda."
JoAnne "palindromic propaganda" Schmitz
Nathan Tenny
me feel better, so there.]
In article <38B108...@spam.sucks.iprolink.co.nz>,
Gabe <smar...@spam.sucks.iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>J. Boland wrote:
>> Veering dangerously and rapidly off-topic, is there anybody who can
>> explain to me what exactly is this fascination some people have with
>> H*tl*r?
>I think for some people they get fascinated by the things of the losing
>side, eg their beliefs and other stuff. Especially if they look around
>at the world and see themselves as the underdog and want someone to
>blame. (this is only a theory, not gospel).
[...]
>Also if you look at the n*z* paraphenalia it envokes a sense of power
>and unity , whereas a lot of the allied stuff looks quite ordinary and
>boring. Maybe this attracts some people to h*tl*r/n*z*sm?
It's illuminating to read Norman Spinrad's satirical novel _The Iron Dream_
in the context of this question. The idea of n*z*-as-underdog and the general
powerful-stuff effect are both played out fairly deftly; it makes it very
clear, in an uncomfortably personal sense, just how effective those two
things are at insinuating themselves under one's skin.
It's especially striking to read as an alienated teenager (I suspect being
male helps too); it's intellectually clear why that group would be a natural
target for recruitment into a whole variety of wacked-out causes and organ-
izations, but I think the experience of feeling the hooks in *yourself*,
with the actual intent of the book serving as a kind of safety net, is a
useful one.
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | Words I carry in my pocket, where they
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | breed like white mice.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> | - Lawrence Durrell
Viv
Hatunen) wrote:
:I find the era fascinating, but that is because it is something
:that happened to rather ordinary people. I keep asking myself just
:how an entire country could have done this, and sucked in some
:other countries in the process. I truly believe we all have in us
:some dark corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could
:have happened here, and I think it needs to be studied and
:recognized for what it is so that it never happens again.
I absolutely agree with you, but have found it difficult to convince
other people that "it could have happened anywhere" (having killed a
couple of dinner parties with this years ago, I now save it for
face-to-face discussion only with people who are very mellow on pot).
There seems to be an element of the psyche that wants to paint all
those who commit atrocities as monsters rather than fellow humans, or
at least as psychotic/psychopathic. Arguably some of the members of
the high command, some of the ones who dressed in black with the
lightning bolt emblem, and some of the unethical experimenters in
concentration camps were mentally abnormal. It is hard, however, to
extend that argument to the entire nation, or even to the entire
membership of the N*z* party.
And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
Segueing back on topic, I also think the portrayal of the atrocious
evildoer as a "monster" (ie freak, unnatural, inhuman, predator) is a
folkloric defense mechanism - a self-propelling propaganda chain
subconsciously embroidered to ensure ourselves and each other "that it
couldn't happen here to us".
I guess the H*l*c**st deniers have taken this a step further - because
they admire some elements of the 3rd R**ch or the German nation (and
there are many things to admire about the Germans) they don't want to
accept that "it happened to them" because of the perceived affinity -
there is a deep-down recognition that "those people were just like me"
therefore the drive to prove that they couldn't have been part of
(even as passive bystanders) something as monstrous as the H*l*c**st
becomes compelling.
Vivienne "my wrists are tired from the hand-waving - I'll stop now"
Smythe
--
_.~:*'*:~Sydney, Australia - Olympics 2000 Construction site.~:*'*:~._
Fight gullibility now: see www.urbanlegends.com
_.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._.~:'*':~._~:*'*:~._
Ignorance may be bliss, but it's poor life insurance. -Sheri S. Tepper
Andrea Jones
<snip>
>I absolutely agree with you, but have found it difficult to convince
>other people that "it could have happened anywhere" (having killed a
>couple of dinner parties with this years ago, I now save it for
>face-to-face discussion only with people who are very mellow on pot).
>
In _H*tl*er's Willing Executioners_, Goldhagen makes a fairly convincing
case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He persuasively makes
the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was both present in German society
and necessary for the H*l*c**st to occur.
>There seems to be an element of the psyche that wants to paint all
>those who commit atrocities as monsters rather than fellow humans, or
>at least as psychotic/psychopathic. Arguably some of the members of
>the high command, some of the ones who dressed in black with the
>lightning bolt emblem, and some of the unethical experimenters in
>concentration camps were mentally abnormal. It is hard, however, to
>extend that argument to the entire nation, or even to the entire
>membership of the N*z* party.
>
But where do you draw the line at atrocities? I know a US Navy Fire
Controlman who has 500 confirmed kills to his name. Is he a monster? Or
is it only an atrocity when the enemy does it? Or are the ones who gave
the orders to launch the missiles the monsters? Where do you draw the line
on who gets to kill whom, and with what consequences? To quote _Pitch
Black_[1]:
Johns: Military doctors decide who lives and who dies. It's called
triage.
Riddick: They kept calling it murder when I did it.
>And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
>"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
>impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
>
But are they necessarily perceived as "dark impulses" when they're your
own? Why is it that the same people think N*z*sm a "dark impulse" but
the fact that I voluntarily joined the Navy and took a job where I will be
required to kill people[2] admirable?
>Segueing back on topic, I also think the portrayal of the atrocious
>evildoer as a "monster" (ie freak, unnatural, inhuman, predator) is a
>folkloric defense mechanism - a self-propelling propaganda chain
>subconsciously embroidered to ensure ourselves and each other "that it
>couldn't happen here to us".
>
It makes us more comfortable to believe that those committing evil are, in
fact, monsters. It especially makes us more comfortable if we're the ones
on the front lines shooting them. There's a world of difference between
killing a N*z* bastard, one step (if that) removed from a flesh-eating
demon, and shooting an 18 year old kid, some woman's son, some young girl's
brother, who joined the army through lack of other options rather than any
particular belief in the ideas espoused by the leaders.
>I guess the H*l*c**st deniers have taken this a step further - because
>they admire some elements of the 3rd R**ch or the German nation (and
>there are many things to admire about the Germans) they don't want to
>accept that "it happened to them" because of the perceived affinity -
>there is a deep-down recognition that "those people were just like me"
>therefore the drive to prove that they couldn't have been part of
>(even as passive bystanders) something as monstrous as the H*l*c**st
>becomes compelling.
>
I think anyone who denies they've ever felt any murderous impulses is
probably lying through his or her teeth. Either that, or he or she is, in
fact, not human. I find it interesting that H*l*c**st deniers are so often
the ones who espouse views that would make it all too easy for them to
commit a second one.
>Vivienne "my wrists are tired from the hand-waving - I'll stop now"
>Smythe
Andrea "I think I sprained my elbow replying" Jones
Andrea Jones
finished kicking myself in the head, here they are:
[1] _Pitch Black_: a sci-fi thriller released in the USofA 18 Feb 00. It
has now replaced _The Matrix_ as my new favorite movie. As a sci-fi
thriller it is absolutely ordinary, but the subtexts are fairly
enthralling. Go see it, if only because it stars Vin Diesel, who is built
like a brick wall.
[2] Fire Controlman, US Navy. Specific specialty involving cruise
missiles. Having particular moral difficulties with this at the moment.
Thank you for bearing with me. I am beating myself with a wet noodle and
promise to attach footnotes to the actual message next time.
Andrea "*whap* *whap* *whap*" Jones
Viv
wrote:
:Viv wrote in message ...
:<snip>
:>I absolutely agree with you, but have found it difficult to convince
:>other people that "it could have happened anywhere" (having killed a
:>couple of dinner parties with this years ago, I now save it for
:>face-to-face discussion only with people who are very mellow on pot).
:>
:In _H*tl*er's Willing Executioners_, Goldhagen makes a fairly convincing
:case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He persuasively makes
:the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was both present in German society
:and necessary for the H*l*c**st to occur.
I agree that an ingrained societal prejudice against "the other" is
probably a prerequisite to institutionalised genocide, however I fail
to think of any society which does not have ingrained societal
prejudices against *somebody*.
I don't even think of myself as unprejudiced - I am, however, aware of
my acculturated prejudiced responses to people/events that arise from
growing up a WASP in Oz, and I refuse to act upon them and am dismayed
when I recognise them. I really wish I was enlightened enough to no
longer even feel/have to combat bigoted impulses - but I truly believe
that very few people are that elevated above their upbringing as a
member of their particular tribe.
:>There seems to be an element of the psyche that wants to paint all
:>those who commit atrocities as monsters rather than fellow humans, [snip]
:>
:But where do you draw the line at atrocities? I know a US Navy Fire
:Controlman who has 500 confirmed kills to his name. Is he a monster? Or
:is it only an atrocity when the enemy does it? Or are the ones who gave
:the orders to launch the missiles the monsters? Where do you draw the line
:on who gets to kill whom, and with what consequences? To quote _Pitch
:Black_[1]:
:
:Johns: Military doctors decide who lives and who dies. It's called
:triage.
:Riddick: They kept calling it murder when I did it.
I don't think we're really disagreeing here - I personally think that
there are very few monsters - there are however lots of humans who can
be persuaded that it is "right" to do ethically repugnant actions, and
there are very few who have the moral courage to refuse to perform an
atrocity when the Powers That Be mandate such acts.
:
:>And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
:>"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
:>impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
:>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
:>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
:>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
:>
:But are they necessarily perceived as "dark impulses" when they're your
:own? Why is it that the same people think N*z*sm a "dark impulse" but
:the fact that I voluntarily joined the Navy and took a job where I will be
:required to kill people[2] admirable?
Those people are in severe need of a "Mote, meet Beam" introduction.
And of course, soldiers are not encouraged to be introspective because
it gets in the way of rapid reaction time.
I think the problem is that the line between "noble warriors
protecting the weak and safeguarding the future" and "sadistic bandits
preying upon the weak and destroying cherished traditions" is often
fuzzy, situational and disturbing - people would much rather view it
as black and white with a huge gulf between (the huge gulf,
folklorically, being starkly defined and avoidable by individuals of
goodwill and nobility and those who fall into it are obviously flawed
and/or evil).
I guess that whilever mass violence continues to be perceived as a
legitimate form of conflict resolution between nations/other political
groups, the dichotomy between "their guys are evil murdering bastards"
and "our guys are noble self-sacrificing warriors" will be
simplistically accepted by those who forward every email hoax
unquestioningly, and disturb the sleep of those who are more
discerning students of human nature.
:>Segueing back on topic, I also think the portrayal of the atrocious
:>evildoer as a "monster" (ie freak, unnatural, inhuman, predator) is a
:>folkloric defense mechanism - a self-propelling propaganda chain
:>subconsciously embroidered to ensure ourselves and each other "that it
:>couldn't happen here to us".
:>
:It makes us more comfortable to believe that those committing evil are, in
:fact, monsters. It especially makes us more comfortable if we're the ones
:on the front lines shooting them. There's a world of difference between
:killing a N*z* bastard, one step (if that) removed from a flesh-eating
:demon, and shooting an 18 year old kid, some woman's son, some young girl's
:brother, who joined the army through lack of other options rather than any
:particular belief in the ideas espoused by the leaders.
Good summary. Isn't that part of what infantry training in particular
is all about - training frontline troops to perceive the enemies as
"targets" rather than "people"?
I see the pragmatic necessity for this as the world stands in regard
to modern warfare - but I grieve for it.
Vivienne "" Smythe
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive,difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least
expect it." - Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
Gabe
The whole alientated teenager / male thing does bring back memories of
when I left high school and was buying that military gear I mentioned in
a previous post. I was in the shop one day and I suspected the guys who
ran the place were actually neo-nazis. I figured this by the way they
always talked with admiration and praise for all things nazi.
Anyway, I was in there buying an SS armband and another big bearded guy
walks up (typical redneck stereotype guy covered in tattoos etc) and
asks me if I am interested in german stuff. I replied that I was and
enjoyed collecting original military pieces as well as studying that
era. He then invited me to come and join a nazi rally! That certainly
shocked me as I didnt think those guys were so open like that. He told
me where it was and what they did etc (thankfully I never went along).
A couple of years later there was a newspaper article about a bunch of
neo-nazis called Unit 88 that met in a warehouse each week. I realised
that was the same group and watched with interest how the Mongrel Mob
and Black Power paid a visit but by the time they got there the group
had fled! All that was left was a few items like KKK hoods and nazi
stuff.
Cheers
Gabe
maxbe...@my-deja.com
Pardon me. One of the problems for me with "Willing Executioners" is
exactly the point about it not happening anywhere else. Genocide of the
nature of the Holocaust, attemtped extermination of "racial" or
"political" groups, has mapped before WWII and after. A few minutes
perusal of the accounts of the survivors of the Gulag in Stalin's time,
for example, reveals that his willing executioners acted in very much
the same way as those of the N*z*s.
>
> :>There seems to be an element of the psyche that wants to paint all
> :>those who commit atrocities as monsters rather than fellow humans,
[snip]
> :>
> :But where do you draw the line at atrocities? I know a US Navy Fire
> :Controlman who has 500 confirmed kills to his name. Is he a monster?
Or
> :is it only an atrocity when the enemy does it? Or are the ones who
gave
> :the orders to launch the missiles the monsters? Where do you draw
the line
> :on who gets to kill whom, and with what consequences? To quote
_Pitch
> :Black_[1]:
> :
> :Johns: Military doctors decide who lives and who dies. It's called
> :triage.
> :Riddick: They kept calling it murder when I did it.
>
> I don't think we're really disagreeing here - I personally think that
> there are very few monsters - there are however lots of humans who can
> be persuaded that it is "right" to do ethically repugnant actions, and
> there are very few who have the moral courage to refuse to perform an
> atrocity when the Powers That Be mandate such acts.
Absolutely. The terrifying thing is that there seems to be no shortage
of them in any society.
It is also very important for some people to promote the idea that a
given ideology (Fa*c*i*m for example) is the *only* evil idea.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andrea Jones
>wrote:
<snip>
>:In _H*tl*er's Willing Executioners_, Goldhagen makes a fairly convincing
>:case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He persuasively makes
>:the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was both present in German
society
>:and necessary for the H*l*c**st to occur.
>
>I agree that an ingrained societal prejudice against "the other" is
>probably a prerequisite to institutionalised genocide, however I fail
>to think of any society which does not have ingrained societal
>prejudices against *somebody*.
>
Roger that. I'm wondering just how widespread it gets in some places,
though. In most countries, on a modern basis, I think that an attempt to
replay the H*l*c**st would more likely result in wide-spread rioting, but
then I'm an optimist when it comes to human nature. How much of pre-WW2
Germany's situation, for instance, was not just anti-s*m*t*sm, but also the
poor economic situation the country was in?
>I don't even think of myself as unprejudiced - I am, however, aware of
>my acculturated prejudiced responses to people/events that arise from
>growing up a WASP in Oz, and I refuse to act upon them and am dismayed
>when I recognise them. I really wish I was enlightened enough to no
>longer even feel/have to combat bigoted impulses - but I truly believe
>that very few people are that elevated above their upbringing as a
>member of their particular tribe.
>
No disagreement here. I agree that what separates "normal" people from
bigots is the ability to recognize acculturated prejudice for what it is,
and do their best to combat it in themselves.
<snip>
>I don't think we're really disagreeing here - I personally think that
>there are very few monsters - there are however lots of humans who can
>be persuaded that it is "right" to do ethically repugnant actions, and
>there are very few who have the moral courage to refuse to perform an
>atrocity when the Powers That Be mandate such acts.
Not really intending to pull a president Clinton, but it depends on what
your definition of "atrocity" is. It all comes back to the stuff below...
>:
>:>And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
>:>"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
>:>impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
>:>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
>:>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
>:>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
>:>
>:But are they necessarily perceived as "dark impulses" when they're your
>:own? Why is it that the same people think N*z*sm a "dark impulse" but
>:the fact that I voluntarily joined the Navy and took a job where I will
be
>:required to kill people[2] admirable?
>
>Those people are in severe need of a "Mote, meet Beam" introduction.
>
They're mostly the same people who need a good whacking with the clue by
four, really. Polite introductions are much to gentle.
>And of course, soldiers are not encouraged to be introspective because
>it gets in the way of rapid reaction time.
>
It doesn't stop us, though. While I can't speak for infantry, I don't know
any US Navy Fire Controlmen who haven't spent more than a few restless
nights staring at the ceiling and wondering just what the hell they think
they're doing.
>I think the problem is that the line between "noble warriors
>protecting the weak and safeguarding the future" and "sadistic bandits
>preying upon the weak and destroying cherished traditions" is often
>fuzzy, situational and disturbing - people would much rather view it
>as black and white with a huge gulf between (the huge gulf,
>folklorically, being starkly defined and avoidable by individuals of
>goodwill and nobility and those who fall into it are obviously flawed
>and/or evil).
>
I find it interesting that it usually takes a war to rouse this kind of
focused patriotic fervor, and it makes me uneasy every time. How can
people be so fanatically sure that they're right and the other guy is dead
wrong? I guess the guy who wins gets to decide who the rapacious evil
bastards were, but it still makes me want to take a long hot shower when I
end up dealing with that kind of attitude.
>I guess that whilever mass violence continues to be perceived as a
>legitimate form of conflict resolution between nations/other political
>groups, the dichotomy between "their guys are evil murdering bastards"
>and "our guys are noble self-sacrificing warriors" will be
>simplistically accepted by those who forward every email hoax
>unquestioningly, and disturb the sleep of those who are more
>discerning students of human nature.
>
What struck me about Operation Desert Fox, the USofA's most recent spate of
Tomahawk launchings at Iraq (and the first such operation after I came on
active duty) was that by and large the people who were all for sending in
the Marines when we were done with the Tomahawks were the same people who
had these great excuses as to why _they_ couldn't possibly join the
military and put their own hides on the line, but were so very, very eager
to send someone else's child, spouse, or sibling over to kill a few Iraqi
soldiers. That was definitely the part I found most disturbing, that there
was a section of the USofAn public willing to put the lives of my friends
at risk, but not willing to risk anything of its own.
<snip>
>:It makes us more comfortable to believe that those committing evil are,
in
>:fact, monsters. It especially makes us more comfortable if we're the
ones
>:on the front lines shooting them. There's a world of difference between
>:killing a N*z* bastard, one step (if that) removed from a flesh-eating
>:demon, and shooting an 18 year old kid, some woman's son, some young
girl's
>:brother, who joined the army through lack of other options rather than
any
>:particular belief in the ideas espoused by the leaders.
>
>Good summary. Isn't that part of what infantry training in particular
>is all about - training frontline troops to perceive the enemies as
>"targets" rather than "people"?
>
I honestly have no clue about infantry training. Fire Controlmen get no
formal training designed to aid us in detaching ourselves from the logical
consequences of lobbing explosives at other human beings, but within the FC
community we tend to be gentle with each other when it comes to the crunch.
>I see the pragmatic necessity for this as the world stands in regard
>to modern warfare - but I grieve for it.
It's been said before, but whatever happened to the good ol' tribal
tradition of sending out the chieftains to do battle? It would make life
so much easier.
Andrea Jones
FC3 US Navy
David Hatunen
>>I absolutely agree with you, but have found it difficult to
>>convince other people that "it could have happened anywhere"
>>(having killed a couple of dinner parties with this years ago, I
>>now save it for face-to-face discussion only with people who are
>>very mellow on pot).
>>
>
>convincing case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He
>persuasively makes the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was
>both present in German society and necessary for the H*l*c**st to
>occur.
I haven't read the book, but it sounds like an attempt to distance
American human beings from German human beings. I am old enough to
remember a lot of American antipathy towards Jews. And the American
treatment of Blacks, while not approaching Holocaust, did draw near
at times: consider the Tulsa Incident, or that little town in
Florida. And American treatment of its aborigines also at times
approached Holocaust.
Had America suffered the ignominy of a major loss in WW1, followed
by the horrendous inflation and financial troubles Germany had in
the 1920s I am not so certain demogogures couldn't have whipped up
a lot of hatred for Jews.
But it's not just the Holocaust at question here. "It could have
happened here" would also include the tyranical Fuherprinzip,
whether it went so far as to include death camps or not. Even the
forcing of Jews into ghettoes could have happened happened here;
after all, we did exactly that with Blacks.
John Francis
Andrea Jones <aegi...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>Roger that. I'm wondering just how widespread it gets in some places,
>though. In most countries, on a modern basis, I think that an attempt to
>replay the H*l*c**st would more likely result in wide-spread rioting, but
>then I'm an optimist when it comes to human nature.
I'm morbidly certain that it would be all too easy to replay such events.
The last couple of decades have seen fairly blatant attempts to wipe out
large populations of Serbs/Croats/Turks/Huutus/Tutsis/YFEG[1]s.
If people are willing to kill people they don't know just because they
are Catholic/Protestant/Jewish/American/Gay/etc. why would anyone expect
it to be hard to find "willing executioners"? In fact, as long as it
took place on foreign soil, most of the 'civilised world' wouldn't even
pay much attention. How many people died as a result of "Desert Storm"?
What percentage of that ethnic group was this?
[1] Your Favo(u)rite Ethnic Group - a generic "Them" in Us v. Them.
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>In most countries, on a modern basis, I think that an attempt to
>replay the H*l*c**st would more likely result in wide-spread rioting, but
>then I'm an optimist when it comes to human nature. How much of pre-WW2
>Germany's situation, for instance, was not just anti-s*m*t*sm, but also the
>poor economic situation the country was in?
What we now think of as the H*l*c**st was a very complex phenomenon
and a very gradual one: if it began with Wannsee, it also began with
the Commissar Order, and with the 'euthanasia' programme, and with the
1939 Decree for the Strengthening of German Nationality. It's complex.
When Eichmann worked with Zionist groups in an abortive attempt to get
German Jews to Palestine, was that part of the H*l*c**st?
I'm a Goldhagen-sceptic; yes, anti-semitism had deep roots in German
culture, but the same could be said of many other nations. The key, to
my mind, was the structure of the N*z* regime - a kind of mechanism
for cumulative radicalisation - and the anti-political leader-worship
which put it there. One of the most important factors, I believe, was
the sheer idleness of H*tl*r - if he'd done a full day's work things
would have been different and almost certainly better.
Phil "pining for s.h.w-i" Edwards
Stephen Devaux
>
> In article <gOmxOI9D4IoXsZ...@4ax.com>,
> v...@au.mensa.org wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:03:50 -0800, "Andrea Jones"
> > :In _H*tl*er's Willing Executioners_, Goldhagen makes a fairly
> convincing
> > :case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He persuasively
> makes
> > :the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was both present in German
> society
> > :and necessary for the H*l*c**st to occur.
> >
> > I agree that an ingrained societal prejudice against "the other" is
> > probably a prerequisite to institutionalised genocide,
> Pardon me. One of the problems for me with "Willing Executioners" is
> exactly the point about it not happening anywhere else. Genocide of the
> nature of the Holocaust, attemtped extermination of "racial" or
> "political" groups, has mapped before WWII and after. A few minutes
> perusal of the accounts of the survivors of the Gulag in Stalin's time,
> for example, reveals that his willing executioners acted in very much
> the same way as those of the N*z*s.
I don't think that should be one of your problems with the book. The
fact of the matter is, Goldhagen's book is not about "(g)enocide of the
nature of the H*l*caust, attempted extermination of 'racial' or
'political' groups," or about the Gulag; it's *specifically* about
Germany and the Holocaust. To quote Goldhagen (p. 456): "This book is
not only about the perpetrators of the H*l*caust... (T)his book is about
Germany during the N*z* period and before, its people and its culture."
In that regard, why other people committed genocide is no more discussed
than why this girl with whom I went to high school got a job with the
telephone company.
Goldhagen writes exclusively about one historical event, and maintains
that "extermination antisemitism" (his term) was a specifically German
phenomenon. He does not write about other genocidal events in Turkey or
Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia, and any attempt to extrapolate his
theories to other events is dangerous. It seems to me unlikely that
German extermination antisemitism had much to do with Rwanda. However,
that does nothing to falsify Goldhagen's theory -- the only way to do
that is to show that the Holocaust of N*z* Germany was *not* caused by
an extermination antisemitism specific to Germany.
Goldhagen uses well-researched historical specifics about the especially
gratuitous cruelty to Jews, as well as a thorough analysis of the
evolution of German antisemitic belief systems and folklore (ObULs
follow) such as the Chr*st-killer label (p. 52), defiling of
unsuspecting German virgins (p. 63), ritual murder accusations and
trials (pp. 63-4), and WW I draft evasion and black market exploitation.
His purpose is to show that this specific event was a direct outgrowth
of historical German antisemitism. And he certainly convinces me.
But it is mostly irrelevant if one is examining the root causes of
Nanking or My Lai.
> > :>Then
> > :>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power
> came
> > :>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
> > :>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
All seven of 'em. That *is* one of the main theories that Goldhagen
explodes. He provides a huge amount of evidence, but perhaps two quotes
will suffice here:
(1) "In the election of 1893, parties avowedly antisemitic gained a
majority in the Reichstag... In Saxony, where the Jewish population was
as of 1880 an infinitesimal one-quarter of 1 percent, the Conservative
and (other) antisemitic parties together polled 42.6 percent of the
vote..." (p. 74)
(2) "Klemens Felden... has done a content analysis of fifty-one
prominent antisemitic writers and publications that appeared between
1861 and 1895 in Germany. The findings are startling. Twenty-eight of
the proposed 'solutions' to the 'Jewish problem.' Of those, nineteen
called for the physical extermination of the Jews."
The almost-cliche scene in the movie Cabaret, where the "German
liberals" are surprised when the N*z* youths lead the Volk in singing
"Tomorrow Belongs to Me," is, I suggest, a classic UL. Virulent
antisemitism had, for well over a century, been deep and ubiquitous.
> It is also very important for some people to promote the idea that a
> given ideology (Fa*c*i*m for example) is the *only* evil idea.
And here we agree completely.
Steve the "An antisemite times it, Nana!" Bajan
Dan Drake
wrote:
>...
>
> The almost-cliche scene in the movie Cabaret, where the "German
> liberals" are surprised when the N*z* youths lead the Volk in singing
> "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," is, I suggest, a classic UL. Virulent
> antisemitism had, for well over a century, been deep and ubiquitous.
>
Double UL? In the movie, all the Germans get up and join emotionally
in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the one who's shocked is
an Englishman.
--
Dan "What's the German for 'pogrom'?" Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com
Dan Drake
wrote:
>...
>
> I haven't read the book, but it sounds like an attempt to distance
> American human beings from German human beings. I am old enough to
> remember a lot of American antipathy towards Jews....
Are you referring to the country whose most revered business leader
propagated the Protocols of the Elder of Zion? Or the one where
Jewish kids in big-city schools had to learn to deal with being beaten
up by kids who called them "Christ-killer"?-- not German-American
kids, mostly, but Irish- or Italian-.
I think you're being silly, Next thing, you'll tell me there was
anti-Semitic violence in Russia or something. Or that a virulent
anti-Semite could have had one of the most popular radio shows in
America in the 30s, if there had just been one to take on the job; but
maybe Coughlin is a German name.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 3900 16:13:07, Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> > The almost-cliche scene in the movie Cabaret, where the "German
> > liberals" are surprised when the N*z* youths lead the Volk in singing
> > "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," is, I suggest, a classic UL. Virulent
> > antisemitism had, for well over a century, been deep and ubiquitous.
> >
>
> Double UL? In the movie, all the Germans get up and join emotionally
> in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the one who's shocked is
> an Englishman.
Nope. There is also the German nobleman who earlier had said: "Don't
worry, we can control them." To which Michael York now replies: "Still
think you can control them?" The German does not reply.
Steve the Bajan to whom tomorrow really belongs
Stephen Devaux
>
> In article <#BbkEIZf$GA.264@cpmsnbbsa04>,
> Andrea Jones <aegi...@msn.com> wrote:
> >In _H*tl*er's Willing Executioners_, Goldhagen makes a fairly
> >convincing case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He
> >persuasively makes the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was
> >both present in German society and necessary for the H*l*c**st to
> >occur.
>
> I haven't read the book, but it sounds like an attempt to distance
> American human beings from German human beings.
A dangerous thing, don't you think, leaping to conclusions based on a
one-paragraph description, about the motive behind a book you haven't
read?
> I am old enough to
> remember a lot of American antipathy towards Jews. And the American
> treatment of Blacks, while not approaching Holocaust, did draw near
> at times: consider the Tulsa Incident, or that little town in
> Florida.
Thare's a nice quote in the Stanley Kramer movie "Ship of Fools," where
the Lee Marvin character says: "What they got against Jews? Hell, down
in (Southern state), we ain't got nuthin' against Jews!" (1) To which
the Vivien Leigh character replies: "That's because you're busy
lynching Negroes!"
> And American treatment of its aborigines also at times
> approached Holocaust.
>
> Had America suffered the ignominy of a major loss in WW1, followed
> by the horrendous inflation and financial troubles Germany had in
> the 1920s I am not so certain demogogures couldn't have whipped up
> a lot of hatred for Jews.
Nope. They'd have whipped it up against blacks. All of which has
nothing to do with the book -- it is ONLY about the German H*l*c**st.
In fact, it is precisely intended to show the unique qualities of that
event.
And, by the way, as I mentioned in another post, WW I and the inflation
of the '20s may have been the match, but kindling had been heaped up in
Germany for over a 100 years before.
Steve the Bajan who has read the book
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 3900 15:38:58, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen)
> wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> > remember a lot of American antipathy towards Jews....
>
> Are you referring to the country whose most revered business leader
> propagated the Protocols of the Elder of Zion? Or the one where
> Jewish kids in big-city schools had to learn to deal with being beaten
> up by kids who called them "Christ-killer"?-- not German-American
> kids, mostly, but Irish- or Italian-.
>
> I think you're being silly, Next thing, you'll tell me there was
> anti-Semitic violence in Russia or something. Or that a virulent
> anti-Semite could have had one of the most popular radio shows in
> America in the 30s, if there had just been one to take on the job; but
> maybe Coughlin is a German name.
Your point is well taken. I am under no illusions about the
pervasiveness of antisemitism, nor the potential for brutality among all
humans (I'm very familiar with the Milgrom experiments, and the details
of My Lai). While reading the Goldhagen book, I also read Browning's
Ordinary Men. While the Browning book is insightful, the Goldhagen book
is overwhelmingly persuasive in making a point with which I would
previously have disagreed. Sure, the Russians, Ukrainians, Balts,
Romanians, Poles, French, English, Irish, and USAns all had antisemitic
streaks of varying breadths, depths, and brutality. But the N*z*
H*l*c**st, as it unfolded historically, could only have been a German
event.
Steve the Bajan who recommends reading the book
David Hatunen
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Had America suffered the ignominy of a major loss in WW1, followed
>> by the horrendous inflation and financial troubles Germany had in
>> the 1920s I am not so certain demogogures couldn't have whipped up
>> a lot of hatred for Jews.
>
>Nope. They'd have whipped it up against blacks. All of which has
>nothing to do with the book -- it is ONLY about the German H*l*c**st.
>In fact, it is precisely intended to show the unique qualities of that
>event.
All evnts have unique qualities. I don't think that precludes other
events from having similar qualities. In any case, and going back
to my post which pretty much started this subthread, I never
addressed the Jewish Holocaust specifically (and one has to
remember there was a concurrent Gypsy Holocaust not covered by
claims of historical antisemitisim) but rather my fascination with
the Nazi Era and it's potential lessons in avoiding future such
events, large and small. Perhaps today, and for the last century,
Americans might not have had the ingrained antisemitism needed to
create a Jewish holocaust, but we certainly demonstrated our
ability to creater smaller such events.
I do wonder if books like that might not create a more generalized
feeling that only those nasty old Germans could have instigated
such a nasty business and that us good old Americans would never do
anything like it, ignoring the fact that we had, in fact, done
similar things but never quite carrying it to the logical
conclusion the Nazis did. I realize that's bit unfair to the
author.
But this is straying very far from the AFU charter. I'm suprised
some sort of Godwin's Law hasn't been evident.
>And, by the way, as I mentioned in another post, WW I and the inflation
>of the '20s may have been the match, but kindling had been heaped up in
>Germany for over a 100 years before.
America had at least some kindling for the 100 years before.
Don Whittington
(David Hatunen) wrote:
Well, maybe it's worthy of discussion since this kind of propaganda works
much like Urban Legends. I remember being very confused about
antisemitism simply because I'd never seen or met any jews. Why were they
so hated? Or at best, distrusted?
Don "The South US circa 60's" Whittington
--
"Absolutely. There are laws against murder, and they are instrumental
in keeping the little bitch alive." Casady on the state of KD's group regard.
Phil Edwards
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Goldhagen writes exclusively about one historical event, and maintains
>that "extermination antisemitism" (his term) was a specifically German
>phenomenon. He does not write about other genocidal events in Turkey or
>Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia, and any attempt to extrapolate his
>theories to other events is dangerous. It seems to me unlikely that
>German extermination antisemitism had much to do with Rwanda. However,
>that does nothing to falsify Goldhagen's theory -- the only way to do
>that is to show that the Holocaust of N*z* Germany was *not* caused by
>an extermination antisemitism specific to Germany.
The problem is that it's impossible for Goldhagen (or anyone else) to
substantiate that word 'specific' without referring to all the other
comparable countries which were unmarred by anything analogous to
'extermination antisemitism'. I'm not aware that he does this, and
it's actually a crucial step in his argument. Antisemitism flourished
in this century in many countries beside Germany, complete with the
'Christ-killer' and blood libel themes; Germany wasn't even the only
country to consider seriously the mass deportation of Jews.
Government-sponsored mass murder of ethnic minorities has been known
in many countries beside Germany. The H*l*c**st combined both of
these; that doesn't and can't make it a uniquely German phenomenon.
Phil "" Edwards
Charles A. Lieberman
>In most countries, on a modern basis, I think that an attempt to
>replay the H*l*c**st would more likely result in wide-spread rioting, but
>then I'm an optimist when it comes to human nature.
If you turn the heat up slowly enough, the frog just sits there.
It might be a little difficult to work the ethnic angle here, but that's
not an insurmountable obstacle.
Charles "I'm a pessimist" Lieberman
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Do your piss in your mother's living room
Brooklyn, NY, USA | because 'that's where your dick is?'"
| --Jim Skillman, giving the morays a place to swim
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
Michael Glaser
[snip]
> Antisemitism flourished
> in this century in many countries beside Germany, complete with the
> 'Christ-killer' and blood libel themes; Germany wasn't even the only
> country to consider seriously the mass deportation of Jews.
OK, so far.
> Government-sponsored mass murder of ethnic minorities has been known
> in many countries beside Germany. The H*l*c**st combined both of
> these; that doesn't and can't make it a uniquely German phenomenon.
But phrases like *Final-Solution* or *absolute extermination* do set the
H*l*c**st apart from other countries who explored themes of mass
deportation. Consider the use of technology, the resources that were
marshaled (during a war) and organization that called upon all sectors
of the state and the speed of the extermination---These are just a few
of the conditions that made the H*l*c**st *unique*. It was both uniquely
German and also unique to one generation of Germans. Don't contemporary
Germans also wish to distance themselves from *those* Germans.
David wrote on Monday: "I truly believe we all have in us some dark
corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could have happened
here, and I think it needs to be studied and recognized for what it is
so that it never happens again."
One can conclude that the components that brought about the events were
unique, but not coincidental. If we say "unique, so far", we can truly
grasp the gravity of the past and appreciate the potential for it to be
repeated.
Michael
Please direct e-mail to both of the following addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com
mitc...@att.net
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Dan Drake
wrote:
> Dan Drake wrote:
> >... In the movie, all the Germans get up and join emotionally
> > in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the one who's shocked is
> > an Englishman.
>
> Nope. There is also the German nobleman who earlier had said: "Don't
> worry, we can control them." To which Michael York now replies: "Still
> think you can control them?" The German does not reply.
>
I stand corrected. Funny coincidence time. Last night I saw
_Casablanca_ for (oddly enough) only the second time. When the band
plays the Marseillaise and the audience joins and drowns out the
Germans, it's one of the most stirring moments in moviedom.[1] Makes
a difference which side you're on, doesn't it?
*And* the German major asks the French prefect of police whether he
still thinks he can keep the people under control!
I don't know whether the Future Belongs to Us scene was in the
original non-musical movie _I Am a Camera_, though I think it wasn't.
Anyway, I now have to wonder: was this a conscious bit of homage to
Bogart?
[1] Unfortunately the showing was in a place slightly less
cosmopolitan than Berkeley, where the UC Theater[2] turns on speakers
all around the place for just this one scene -- and the audience
stands.
[2] Three guesses what shared the double bill. No, it's not another
Bogart movie. No, it's a comedy, but not with Casablance in the
title. Right.
--
Dan "avoids trite comments about usual suspects" Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com
Paul Hanley
for the Origins of his Evil," by Ron Rosenbaum) which surveys the
various Hitler explanations in the literature, and the author finds
that many of them take psychological comfort in distancing Hitler and
the Nazis from humanity, so as not to have to think of themselves as
having anything in common with them. Needless to say, this is a
barrier to good research. Look at what just happened in Austria.
When you don't understand the past, and what people are really capable
of, your defenses against repetition are lowered. At least many in
the rest of Europe as well as in Austria itself are alarmed by it.
Paul
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:55:47 +1100, Viv <v...@au.mensa.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 04:12:53 GMT, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
>Hatunen) wrote:
>
>:I find the era fascinating, but that is because it is something
>:that happened to rather ordinary people. I keep asking myself just
>:how an entire country could have done this, and sucked in some
>:other countries in the process. I truly believe we all have in us
>:some dark corner that could have followed Hitler, that it could
>:have happened here, and I think it needs to be studied and
>:recognized for what it is so that it never happens again.
>
>I absolutely agree with you, but have found it difficult to convince
>other people that "it could have happened anywhere" (having killed a
>couple of dinner parties with this years ago, I now save it for
>face-to-face discussion only with people who are very mellow on pot).
>
>There seems to be an element of the psyche that wants to paint all
>those who commit atrocities as monsters rather than fellow humans, or
>at least as psychotic/psychopathic. Arguably some of the members of
>the high command, some of the ones who dressed in black with the
>lightning bolt emblem, and some of the unethical experimenters in
>concentration camps were mentally abnormal. It is hard, however, to
>extend that argument to the entire nation, or even to the entire
>membership of the N*z* party.
>
>And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
>"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
>impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
>
>Segueing back on topic, I also think the portrayal of the atrocious
>evildoer as a "monster" (ie freak, unnatural, inhuman, predator) is a
>folkloric defense mechanism - a self-propelling propaganda chain
>subconsciously embroidered to ensure ourselves and each other "that it
>couldn't happen here to us".
>
>I guess the H*l*c**st deniers have taken this a step further - because
>they admire some elements of the 3rd R**ch or the German nation (and
>there are many things to admire about the Germans) they don't want to
>accept that "it happened to them" because of the perceived affinity -
>there is a deep-down recognition that "those people were just like me"
>therefore the drive to prove that they couldn't have been part of
>(even as passive bystanders) something as monstrous as the H*l*c**st
>becomes compelling.
>
JoAnne Schmitz
Lieberman) wrote:
>Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:31:32 -0800
>Andrea Jones
>>In most countries, on a modern basis, I think that an attempt to
>>replay the H*l*c**st would more likely result in wide-spread rioting, but
>>then I'm an optimist when it comes to human nature.
>
>If you turn the heat up slowly enough, the frog just sits there.
>It might be a little difficult to work the ethnic angle here, but that's
>not an insurmountable obstacle.
Hey, leave the frogs out of it.
JoAnne "grandma was a Cayott" Schmitz
Paul Herzberg
Charles A. Lieberman wrote:
> If you turn the heat up slowly enough, the frog just sits there.
Isn't this an UL in itself? This URL seems to debunk the Parable of the
Boiled Frog:
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/frog.html
The following quotes sum it up:
First we spoke with national scientific authorities. According to Dr. George
R. Zug, curator of reptiles and amphibians, the National Museum of Natural
History, "Well that's, may I say, bullshit. If a frog had a means of getting
out, it certainly would get out. And I cannot imagine that anything dropped
in boiling water would not be scalded and die from the injuries."
Professor Doug Melton, Harvard University Biology Department, says, "If you
put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die. If you put it
in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot - they don't sit still for
you."
These don't lend themselves to convenient metaphors quite so easily, though.
Cheers
Paul "Can we test 'cats have nine lives' next?" Herzberg
maxbe...@my-deja.com
Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> maxbe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <gOmxOI9D4IoXsZ...@4ax.com>,
> > v...@au.mensa.org wrote:
> > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 16:03:50 -0800, "Andrea Jones"
>
> > convincing
> > > :case that it could _not_ have "happened anywhere." He
persuasively
> > makes
> > > :the case that a pervasive anti-s*m*t*sm was both present in
German
> > society
> > > :and necessary for the H*l*c**st to occur.
> > >
> > > I agree that an ingrained societal prejudice against "the other"
is
> > > probably a prerequisite to institutionalised genocide,
>
> > exactly the point about it not happening anywhere else. Genocide of
the
> > nature of the Holocaust, attemtped extermination of "racial" or
> > "political" groups, has mapped before WWII and after. A few minutes
> > perusal of the accounts of the survivors of the Gulag in Stalin's
time,
> > for example, reveals that his willing executioners acted in very
much
> > the same way as those of the N*z*s.
>
the
> nature of the H*l*caust, attempted extermination of 'racial' or
> 'political' groups," or about the Gulag; it's *specifically* about
> Germany and the Holocaust. To quote Goldhagen (p. 456): "This book is
> not only about the perpetrators of the H*l*caust... (T)his book is
about
> Germany during the N*z* period and before, its people and its
culture."
> In that regard, why other people committed genocide is no more
discussed
> than why this girl with whom I went to high school got a job with the
> telephone company.
>
> that "extermination antisemitism" (his term) was a specifically German
> phenomenon. He does not write about other genocidal events in Turkey
or
> Rwanda or Bosnia or Cambodia, and any attempt to extrapolate his
> theories to other events is dangerous. It seems to me unlikely that
> German extermination antisemitism had much to do with Rwanda.
However,
> that does nothing to falsify Goldhagen's theory -- the only way to do
> that is to show that the Holocaust of N*z* Germany was *not* caused by
> an extermination antisemitism specific to Germany.
>
especially
> gratuitous cruelty to Jews, as well as a thorough analysis of the
> evolution of German antisemitic belief systems and folklore (ObULs
> follow) such as the Chr*st-killer label (p. 52), defiling of
> unsuspecting German virgins (p. 63), ritual murder accusations and
> trials (pp. 63-4), and WW I draft evasion and black market
exploitation.
> His purpose is to show that this specific event was a direct outgrowth
> of historical German antisemitism. And he certainly convinces me.
>
> But it is mostly irrelevant if one is examining the root causes of
> Nanking or My Lai.
Agreed that the Nazi anti-semitism was a descendent of the anti-semitic
behabiour present in large portions of German society.
To me the book tends towards the "Nazis were a special aberation that
could only have happened here" concept. Possibly true if your narrowly
looking at anti-semitism. However, similar genocidal attacks have been
made in other times and places.
The events in Rawanda were a particular example of the same general
thing, though modified by the culture and politics of country in
question.
>
> > > :>Then
> > > :>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power
> > came
> > > :>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been
complacently
> > > :>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
>
> All seven of 'em. That *is* one of the main theories that Goldhagen
> explodes. He provides a huge amount of evidence, but perhaps two
quotes
> will suffice here:
>
> (1) "In the election of 1893, parties avowedly antisemitic gained a
> majority in the Reichstag... In Saxony, where the Jewish population
was
> as of 1880 an infinitesimal one-quarter of 1 percent, the Conservative
> and (other) antisemitic parties together polled 42.6 percent of the
> vote..." (p. 74)
>
> (2) "Klemens Felden... has done a content analysis of fifty-one
> prominent antisemitic writers and publications that appeared between
> 1861 and 1895 in Germany. The findings are startling. Twenty-eight
of
> the proposed 'solutions' to the 'Jewish problem.' Of those, nineteen
> called for the physical extermination of the Jews."
>
> The almost-cliche scene in the movie Cabaret, where the "German
> liberals" are surprised when the N*z* youths lead the Volk in singing
> "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," is, I suggest, a classic UL. Virulent
> antisemitism had, for well over a century, been deep and ubiquitous.
>
> > It is also very important for some people to promote the idea that a
> > given ideology (Fa*c*i*m for example) is the *only* evil idea.
>
> And here we agree completely.
Yes, it's not uncommon to meet people who think that Nazis should all be
shot, imprisoned without trial, depried of political rights etc. They
can't seem to understand why there would be any problem with that.
Len Berlind
>To me the book tends towards the "Nazis were a special aberation that
>could only have happened here" concept. Possibly true if your narrowly
>looking at anti-semitism. However, similar genocidal attacks have been
>made in other times and places.
I have some difficulty equating the H*l*caust with a "genocidal attack".
Seems to me that a 10+ year effort to exterminate the J*ws, and others
deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
the economy of the state, and I think we're talking orders of magnitude
different.
>The events in Rawanda were a particular example of the same general
>thing, though modified by the culture and politics of country in
>question.
Much smaller scale in terms of time, effort and goal. Still obscene, but
different.
L""B
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 3900 19:40:52, Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dan Drake wrote:
> > >... In the movie, all the Germans get up and join emotionally
> > > in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the one who's shocked is
> > > an Englishman.
> >
> > Nope. There is also the German nobleman who earlier had said: "Don't
> > worry, we can control them." To which Michael York now replies: "Still
> > think you can control them?" The German does not reply.
> >
>
> I stand corrected. Funny coincidence time. Last night I saw
> _Casablanca_ for (oddly enough) only the second time. When the band
> plays the Marseillaise and the audience joins and drowns out the
> Germans, it's one of the most stirring moments in moviedom.[1] Makes
> a difference which side you're on, doesn't it?
>
> *And* the German major asks the French prefect of police whether he
> still thinks he can keep the people under control!
>
> I don't know whether the Future Belongs to Us scene was in the
> original non-musical movie _I Am a Camera_, though I think it wasn't.
> Anyway, I now have to wonder: was this a conscious bit of homage to
> Bogart?
Fascinating! Fosse must certainly have intended the echo (although I
also don't know how (if?) the singing scene is handled in the play or "I
Am a Camera").
This reminds me of a similar movie echo, which has actually become a bit
of a UL. It's the "Are you talking to me? There ain't no one else
here!" routine.
First, I was recently told by someone who had never seen "Taxi Driver"
that it came from yet another movie (where, obviously, the character
does the Deniro routine).
However, everyone I've ever met identifies the routine as *originating*
with Travis Bickle, when it is clearly an echo from the bar scene in
"Shane." (Which, if you think about it, sheds light on how Travis sees
himself and his relationship with the Jody Foster character.)
> [2] Three guesses what shared the double bill. No, it's not another
> Bogart movie. No, it's a comedy, but not with Casablance in the
> title. Right.
Heaven's Gate?
Steve the Bajan who's seen Casablanca at least 25 times (my fave!)
Paul Tomblin
>deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
>modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
>is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
That's an important point - the resources used in the H*l*c**st took important
resources away from the life and death struggle of the on-going war. If
Germany could have devoted those soldiers, rail lines, box cars, etc to
fighting the war, they could have dragged *that* horrendous stuggle on much
longer. It seems that the level of anti-semitism in Germany was so high that
they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
their survival as they did the war. Of all the mind boggling aspects of the
H*l*c**st, I find that part the mind bogglingest.
--
Paul Tomblin, not speaking for anybody.
'Usenet "belongs" to those who administer the hosts of which it is comprised'
- RFC 1036, draft revision
David Hatunen
>> > "German liberals" are surprised when the N*z* youths lead the
>> > Volk in singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Me," is, I suggest, a
>> > classic UL. Virulent antisemitism had, for well over a
>> > century, been deep and ubiquitous.
>> >
>> emotionally in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the
>> one who's shocked is an Englishman.
>
>Nope. There is also the German nobleman who earlier had said:
>"Don't worry, we can control them." To which Michael York now
>replies: "Still think you can control them?" The German does not
>reply.
Going back a step to the stage version of "Cabaret" from which the
movie is supposedly derived[1][2], the song is handled quite
differently. As written, the employees of the KitKat Club sing the
song quie nicely, without any chauvinistic overtones. In the
version I played in the song was given to a small contingent of hte
Tucson Boys Chorus and was sung as an inter-scene; needless to say,
the boys made it really sweet.
It is the reprise that become sinister. On stage, Sally and Cliff's
landlady (played originally by Lotte Lenya) is being courted by the
aging Herr Schultz, proprietor of a nearby fruit store. They have
an engagement party at the fruit store, to which Sally invites the
KitKat Club employeess.
Ernst Ludwig (my part), a likable German taking English lessons
from Cliff shows up at the party wearing a swastika armband. During
the course of the party it is revealed that Herr Schultz is a Jew,
and the first act closes with Ernst leading the song "Tomorrow
Belongs to Me" and joined by nearly everyone at the party. I
concluded with a stiff-arm salute[3], sending a chill through the
audience. The EmCee then finishes off the act with a prance across
stage in front of the singers who freeze at the end of the song.
It was one of the only shows I was ever in that never elicited
applause at the end of the act, and the first couple of times the
cast was kind of puzzled.
One of the more poignant moments in the stage version comes when
the landlady must tell Herr Schultz she cannot marry him after all.
[1] The movie revives a subplot from a different Isherwood story,
and is more similar to "I am a Camera".
[2] The movie was contrived to make sure Liza got lots of screen
time. Sally Bowles, of necessity, should be lacking in talent. It
kind of bothered me knowing that someone as talented as Liza
Minelli was simply not going to be stuck in a sleazy place like the
KitKat Club.
[3] http://www.sonic.net/~hatunen/theater/pix/Tomorr~1.jpg
Stephen Devaux
>
> In article <38B44D...@ix.netcom.com>,
> Stephen Devaux <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > maxbe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
(snip)
> > His purpose is to show that this specific event was a direct outgrowth
> > of historical German antisemitism. And he certainly convinces me.
> >
> > But it is mostly irrelevant if one is examining the root causes of
> > Nanking or My Lai.
>
> Agreed that the Nazi anti-semitism was a descendent of the anti-semitic
> behabiour present in large portions of German society.
>
> To me the book tends towards the "Nazis were a special aberation that
> could only have happened here" concept. Possibly true if your narrowly
> looking at anti-semitism. However, similar genocidal attacks have been
> made in other times and places.
It seems to me that there are two separate and important issues:
1. Could the N*z* H*l*c**st have occurred without the *specifically
German* historical context?
2. What causes other genocides occur which share characteristics (but,
necessarily, are also unique) with the N*z* H*l*c**st?
Goldhagen deals exclusively with the first. And in so doing, provides a
significant service. The second question, while Goldhagen's work may
shed a *little* light on it, remains unanswered.
> The events in Rawanda were a particular example of the same general
> thing, though modified by the culture and politics of country in
> question.
There were also major differences, not the least of which is the short
duration of that slaughter. Killing half a million people a week for a
couple of weeks is very different from maintaining an industrial rate of
homicide month after month for three years. It's different in terms of
impetus, and it's *very* different in terms of its impact on the general
populace and the requirements for complicity and prolonged support.
That said there are also similarities, certainly in the historical
interactions between the ethnic groups involved.
Interestingly, Goldhagen (who wrote his book before the Rwandan
genocide) identifies the Khmer Rouge genocide as the one most similar to
that of the N*z*s (p.412). But he also points out a number of unique
aspects of the H*l*c**st, including geographic scope and unwillingness
to spare anyone, regardless of age, sex, circumstance, or willingness to
rehabilitate/assimilate/convert. He also points out the aspects that
make it of interest to AFU: "The Germans' characterizations of the Jews
and their beliefs about them were absolutely fantastical, the sorts of
beliefs that only madmen would have of others." (p. 412)
(snip)
> Yes, it's not uncommon to meet people who think that Nazis should all be
> shot, imprisoned without trial, depried of political rights etc. They
> can't seem to understand why there would be any problem with that.
I frequently meet people who think that My Lai was some sort of
aberration. It is sad to have to admit, but had I been a
nineteen-year-old grunt in Song My hamlet that day, I honestly can say
that I might not have done anything different.
Steve the "Intolerance will be punished by death!" Bajan
Stephen Devaux
>
> In a previous article, lber...@xcski.com (Len Berlind) said:
> >deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
> >modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
> >is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
>
> That's an important point - the resources used in the H*l*c**st took important
> resources away from the life and death struggle of the on-going war. If
> Germany could have devoted those soldiers, rail lines, box cars, etc to
> fighting the war, they could have dragged *that* horrendous stuggle on much
> longer. It seems that the level of anti-semitism in Germany was so high that
> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
> their survival as they did the war. Of all the mind boggling aspects of the
> H*l*c**st, I find that part the mind bogglingest.
And, of course, it's one of the aspects that Goldhagen explores most
fully.
Steve the mindboggled Bajan
Michael Glaser
[snip]
> It seems that the level of anti-semitism in Germany was so high that
> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
> their survival as they did the war.
It that true, was that the case? How much of a *burden* was the h-cost
to system?
If tremendous resources were used, did the military take second place?
I'd heard that slave-labor gave the German military an edge. Wasn't
slave labor necessary for the (underground) production of V-1/2's?
Paul Tomblin
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
>> their survival as they did the war.
>
>
>It that true, was that the case? How much of a *burden* was the h-cost
>to system?
I read that there wasn't enough boxcars to transport supplies to the front
lines nearest Stalingrad, during the seige, but during the same period boxcars
full of people were still being delivered to the death camps.
>If tremendous resources were used, did the military take second place?
If the military had first place, the H*l*c**st would have been postponed until
after the war, or at least the boxcars would have been "loaned" to the
military at times when the military had great and urgent need for them.
That didn't happen.
>I'd heard that slave-labor gave the German military an edge. Wasn't
>slave labor necessary for the (underground) production of V-1/2's?
Slave labour generally didn't come from the death camps, but from the occupied
territories.
Olivers
>
> In a previous article, lber...@xcski.com (Len Berlind) said:
> >deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
> >modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
> >is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
>
> That's an important point - the resources used in the H*l*c**st took important
> resources away from the life and death struggle of the on-going war. If
> Germany could have devoted those soldiers, rail lines, box cars, etc to
> fighting the war, they could have dragged *that* horrendous stuggle on much
> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
> H*l*c**st, I find that part the mind bogglingest.
>
I can remember clearly at about age 10 (1949-50) when I looked closely
at a belt buckle that my uncle had brought back to me several years
before from his time in Hell. The basic 'everyday' model for Wehrmacht
uniforms, the most startling part was neither the 'new' eagle or the
hakenkreuz, but the simple bold stement: "Gott Mit Uns" (which may have
summed up how the Germans felt about themselves and their actions).
My uncle had had the fortune, ill or good, to lead a column of tanks
which "liberated" one of the camps, a small one in Western Germany. At
78, a retired rancher/land appraiser, he remains quite clear about the
H*l*c**t.
--
TMOliver
"Without occasional excess,
Moderation remains impossible."
Brian Yeoh
> In a previous article, lber...@xcski.com (Len Berlind) said:
> >deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
> >modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
> >is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
> That's an important point - the resources used in the H*l*c**st took important
> resources away from the life and death struggle of the on-going war. If
> Germany could have devoted those soldiers, rail lines, box cars, etc to
> fighting the war, they could have dragged *that* horrendous stuggle on much
> longer. It seems that the level of anti-semitism in Germany was so high that
<snip>
Not to mention the contributions those people being exterminated could
have made to the struggle. Imagine more von Mansteins, Milchs (both of
whom were not officially considered Jewish, though it was semi-public
knowledge that they were) etc distributed around the various parts of the
Wehrmacht. Or more willing ex-Soviet soldiers fighting alongside German troops.
The list goes on and on.
Brian "but not here" Yeoh
--
"Bein' human means judgin' all the time. This and that, good and bad,
making choices every day... that's human."
"And are you so sure you make the right decisions?"
"No. But I do the best I can."
Granny Weatherwax and Mightily Oats discuss morality.
Terry Pratchett - _Carpe Jugulum_
Paul Hanley
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It seems to me that there are two separate and important issues:
>
>1. Could the N*z* H*l*c**st have occurred without the *specifically
>German* historical context?
>
>2. What causes other genocides occur which share characteristics (but,
>necessarily, are also unique) with the N*z* H*l*c**st?
My two cents:
1. The specifically German historical context was unique, and so the
"Nazi Holocaust" could not have happened without it, but it
manifested, I believe, common themes from throughout human history.
2. Part of the unique historical contexts within which other
genocides occur are shared (or analogous) characteristics with regard
to the belief systems at work in those unique historical contexts.
<snip>
>Interestingly, Goldhagen (who wrote his book before the Rwandan
>genocide) identifies the Khmer Rouge genocide as the one most similar to
>that of the N*z*s (p.412). But he also points out a number of unique
>aspects of the H*l*c**st, including geographic scope and unwillingness
>to spare anyone, regardless of age, sex, circumstance, or willingness to
>rehabilitate/assimilate/convert. He also points out the aspects that
>make it of interest to AFU: "The Germans' characterizations of the Jews
>and their beliefs about them were absolutely fantastical, the sorts of
>beliefs that only madmen would have of others." (p. 412)
I agree with most everything here except Goldhagen's remark about the
beliefs being "absolutely fantastical" and that "only madmen" would
have them. These are the types of shared characteristics with regard
to belief systems that I'm talking about. You can find many instances
of such "fantastical" beliefs that only "madmen" would have, both past
and present. If you agree with Goldhagen, it might be necessary to
redefine "madness" to include a much larger proportion of humanity
within this category, both from historical periods and also from
today.
>> Yes, it's not uncommon to meet people who think that Nazis should all be
>> shot, imprisoned without trial, depried of political rights etc. They
>> can't seem to understand why there would be any problem with that.
Churchill put forward that suggestion (that the major Nazi war
criminals be put to death without trial), the only procedure being to
establish their identities when captured as the ones they were
seeking, so as to avoid cases of mistaken identity. He also proposed
that a list be drawn up of the major Nazi war criminals to be treated
this way. These ideas were shot down. (_The Anatomy of the Nuremberg
Trials_ by Telford Taylor, Little, Brown and Co., 1992, pp. 30-33).
Paul Hanley
Ian Munro
> Dan Drake wrote:
[re: "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" in "Cabaret"]
> > Double UL? In the movie, all the Germans get up and join emotionally
> > in the song, at least as far as one can tell; the one who's shocked is
> > an Englishman.
> Nope. There is also the German nobleman who earlier had said: "Don't
> worry, we can control them." To which Michael York now replies: "Still
> think you can control them?" The German does not reply.
Also, if I'm remembering correctly, there is an older, working class
German at the beer garden, obviously meant to be a Communist, who refuses
to take part.
The German nobleman (Max?) had originally been pro-Nazi because they were
doing such a good job of intimidating/exterminating the Communists, whom
he felt were the bigger threat to his conception of Germany.
Ian "even the orchestra is beautiful" Munro
--
"It isn't a 'line of reasoning'; it's a squiggle of flawed analysis and
erroneous conclusion."--Paraic O'Donnell
Stephen Devaux
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 12:16:28 -0500, Stephen Devaux
> <ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Interestingly, Goldhagen (who wrote his book before the Rwandan
> >genocide) identifies the Khmer Rouge genocide as the one most similar to
> >that of the N*z*s (p.412). But he also points out a number of unique
> >aspects of the H*l*c**st, including geographic scope and unwillingness
> >to spare anyone, regardless of age, sex, circumstance, or willingness to
> >rehabilitate/assimilate/convert. He also points out the aspects that
> >make it of interest to AFU: "The Germans' characterizations of the Jews
> >and their beliefs about them were absolutely fantastical, the sorts of
> >beliefs that only madmen would have of others." (p. 412)
>
> I agree with most everything here except Goldhagen's remark about the
> beliefs being "absolutely fantastical" and that "only madmen" would
> have them. These are the types of shared characteristics with regard
> to belief systems that I'm talking about. You can find many instances
> of such "fantastical" beliefs that only "madmen" would have, both past
> and present. If you agree with Goldhagen, it might be necessary to
> redefine "madness" to include a much larger proportion of humanity
> within this category, both from historical periods and also from
> today.
Come to think of it, after a month or two of reading AFU, I think you're
absolutely correct. I think Goldhagen overstated the case.
Steve the Bajan
JoAnne Schmitz
>In a previous article, mitc...@image-link.com, mitc...@att.net said:
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
>>> their survival as they did the war.
>>
>>
>>It that true, was that the case? How much of a *burden* was the h-cost
>>to system?
>
>I read that there wasn't enough boxcars to transport supplies to the front
>lines nearest Stalingrad, during the seige, but during the same period boxcars
>full of people were still being delivered to the death camps.
Not an argument, but a question: could those boxcars run on the rails
going to Stalingrad, or might there have been a rail gauge problem?
How quickly can one convert rail cars from one gauge to the next?
Were there bogeys (unsure if this is the right word) available to do
so? Was there fuel enough to get them that far? Engines? Were the
death camp trips short compared to a trip to Stalingrad?
>>If tremendous resources were used, did the military take second place?
>
>If the military had first place, the H*l*c**st would have been postponed until
>after the war, or at least the boxcars would have been "loaned" to the
>military at times when the military had great and urgent need for them.
>
>That didn't happen.
So it seems that neither was first place, because if the H was first
place the war would have been abandoned while they spent all their
bullets on killing the people they wanted rid of.
Isn't it possible that even the people in charge of planning were able
to truly believe that the people they wanted to get rid of were enough
of a drain on the system that it was worth getting rid of them even if
it cost the war effort something? That they thought it was an ounce
of prevention to buy a pound of cure?
And while Jews were obviously not the cause of Germany's problem,
here's a thought experiment: If the H part did not happen, Jews were
not gotten rid of, yet anti-Semitism did continue and people continued
to blame Jews for problems during the war, would that have made
Germany better or worse off? I'm certainly not defending the H but I
am thinking that the war might have gone even less well for the
Germans had they allowed Jews to remain in Germany without official
acts against them, because if I were a Jew in Germany with that kind
of anti-Semitism around I'd be quite inclined to harm the war machine.
JoAnne "but I wasn't and they didn't" Schmitz
Michael Glaser
I don't agree, though I believe it was not limited to the Germans.
Goldman still fails to find that *more universal quality* that
allowed/cause this. However, Madman is a characterization that does not
serve argument well.
It is not the shared characteristics with other events that interests
me---it is the differences.
1. The Russians in the thirties, the Chinese a couple of times and the
Cambodians---all eliminated/exterminated based on class/poltical
orientation for political/class goals. The targets were not specific
racial, religious or ethnic groups.
2. This was not limited to the Germans. There is some discussion that
the Vichy French, with not too much pressure from the Germans were
*more* than cooperative. Throw in the P*ope and a couple of other less
than resistant groups and one sees a festering that boiled.
Again, the J#ws were *seperate*, definable and a ready target for
centuries=---as opposed to an immediate, political/class-only scapegoat.
While all of these situations are *fantastical*, the degree of
cooperation, *volunteerism* from seemingly disinterested *non-Na#*s in
Germany and other countries did set it apart.
We need not enter the final-stage, extermination into evidence. Even if
the final conlcusion was not allowed, it would still rank as a most
*unique-event, so far*.
Michael "I can't believe we're gettin' away with this?" Glaser
Joe Boswell
<ptom...@xcski.com> writes
>In a previous article, lber...@xcski.com (Len Berlind) said:
>>deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
>>modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
>>is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
>
>That's an important point - the resources used in the H*l*c**st took important
>resources away from the life and death struggle of the on-going war. If
>Germany could have devoted those soldiers, rail lines, box cars, etc to
>fighting the war, they could have dragged *that* horrendous stuggle on much
>longer. It seems that the level of anti-semitism in Germany was so high that
>H*l*c**st, I find that part the mind bogglingest.
It's an important point, but you could be exaggerating the significance
of the effect on the German military effort by concentrating solely on
the resources swallowed up in the Holocaust.
For much of WW2 Germany did not move its economy onto a full war footing
and so sacrificed some military effectiveness by using resources for
non-military purposes. Hitler and other top Nazis seemed willing to
gamble that it would be possible to win without all that trouble, and
the course of events up to late 1941 served only to reinforce their
optimism. There were several critical decisions that they took that
resemble the behaviour of a gambler who is convinced that when you are
on a winning streak you just cannot lose.
Declaring war on the USA for no good reason comes high up the list.
Detouring into the Balkans and therefore leaving Operation Barbarossa
late is another. Being vicious and vindictive to all the people they
over-ran on the way into Russia succeeded in alienating many millions of
people in countries like the Ukraine whose first instinct was to welcome
the Germans as liberators and to help them smash the Russians. Within a
short time of realising that the Germans intended to simply enslave
them, partisan armies were creating a very significant problem for the
Germans. And so on.
--
Joe Boswell * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
[spam block - take the micky from the address or it won't work]
Joe Boswell
writes
>I can remember clearly at about age 10 (1949-50) when I looked closely
>at a belt buckle that my uncle had brought back to me several years
>before from his time in Hell. The basic 'everyday' model for Wehrmacht
>uniforms, the most startling part was neither the 'new' eagle or the
>hakenkreuz, but the simple bold stement: "Gott Mit Uns" (which may have
>summed up how the Germans felt about themselves and their actions).
That slogan goes back well before the N*zis
Brian Yeoh
<snip>
> And while Jews were obviously not the cause of Germany's problem,
> here's a thought experiment: If the H part did not happen, Jews were
> not gotten rid of, yet anti-Semitism did continue and people continued
> to blame Jews for problems during the war, would that have made
> Germany better or worse off? I'm certainly not defending the H but I
> am thinking that the war might have gone even less well for the
> Germans had they allowed Jews to remain in Germany without official
> acts against them, because if I were a Jew in Germany with that kind
> of anti-Semitism around I'd be quite inclined to harm the war machine.
I'd say quite the reverse might have happened. People like von Manstein
and Milch were both at least part-Jewish, and they were perfectly happy to
aid the regime. Milch went so far as to proclaim his bastardy, so that he
could be pure *ry*n and von Manstein's memoirs are rather silent about the
topic of extermination squads.
Von Manstein (nee Lewinsky) was the best operational art practicioner the
Germans had, and Milch was instrumental in building the Luftwaffe into a
real air-force.
Brian "again, not here, though." Yeoh
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>Isn't it possible that even the people in charge of planning were able
>to truly believe that the people they wanted to get rid of were enough
>of a drain on the system that it was worth getting rid of them even if
>it cost the war effort something? That they thought it was an ounce
>of prevention to buy a pound of cure?
No. Remember Schindler's List? Oskar S. was a real person; moreover,
there were several cases of Nazis who wanted to keep entire ghettos
going, not for humanitarian reasons but because of the contribution
their Jews could make to the war effort. They were all overruled. Jews
were not seen as (and did not act as) enemies of Germany in any sense
that we understand the word enemy; they were seen as racial enemies,
inherently unsuited to be allowed to live in the Reich.
>And while Jews were obviously not the cause of Germany's problem,
>here's a thought experiment: If the H part did not happen, Jews were
>not gotten rid of, yet anti-Semitism did continue and people continued
>to blame Jews for problems during the war, would that have made
>Germany better or worse off? I'm certainly not defending the H but I
>am thinking that the war might have gone even less well for the
>Germans had they allowed Jews to remain in Germany without official
>acts against them, because if I were a Jew in Germany with that kind
>of anti-Semitism around I'd be quite inclined to harm the war machine.
Most German Jews did leave Germany; initially they were encouraged to
leave (albeit without their money), which is one of the things that
make Len's reference to the H. as a ten-year program problematic. The
now-canonical figure of six million is made up almost entirely of Jews
from the occupied territories; as I recall it includes three million
from Poland and a million from Russia.
And no, that wasn't an invitation to argue numbers with anyone.
Phil "did a fuck of a lot of people die? yes, they did" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"How about if I admit to myself that I don't really care?"
- Ulo Melton
Phil Edwards
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>It seems to me that there are two separate and important issues:
>
>1. Could the N*z* H*l*c**st have occurred without the *specifically
>German* historical context?
>
>2. What causes other genocides occur which share characteristics (but,
>necessarily, are also unique) with the N*z* H*l*c**st?
>
>Goldhagen deals exclusively with the first. And in so doing, provides a
>significant service. The second question, while Goldhagen's work may
>shed a *little* light on it, remains unanswered.
But the first question is either unanswerable (since we don't have any
other examples of N*z* H*l*c**sts to compare, thankfully) or a truism
(could any specific historical event have happened outside its
specific historical context? clearly, no).
I'm sure Goldhagen's done some useful work, but it really doesn't
sound like he's answered the question he thinks he has.
Phil "" Edwards
Len Berlind
>Most German Jews did leave Germany; initially they were encouraged to
>leave (albeit without their money), which is one of the things that
>make Len's reference to the H. as a ten-year program problematic.
I date it from the Nuremburg Laws, because I see them as the first
enabling move in what followed. Date it from the first murders of
"defectives" in the name of eugenics, or Kristalnacht, or Wannsee, or the
establishment of the first concentration camps within Germany, or the
first Einsatzgruppen actions in Poland, or the establishment of ghettoes
as collection points, or some other milestone. No argument from me.
>Phil "did a fuck of a lot of people die? yes, they did" Edwards
And a fuck of a lot of planning, personnel, effort, and resources went
into making it happen and sustaining it for as long as the war in Europe
went on.
Paul Tomblin
>On 25 Feb 2000 17:41:40 GMT, ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>In a previous article, mitc...@image-link.com, mitc...@att.net said:
>>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>importance to
>>>> their survival as they did the war.
>Not an argument, but a question: could those boxcars run on the rails
>going to Stalingrad, or might there have been a rail gauge problem?
I never heard of any rail guage problem - certainly the way I read it was
"rail cars (including locomotives) that were badly needed to rush supplies to
Stalingrad were instead being used to move people to death camps". Not in
those exact words, of couse, because I don't have the book any more.
>Isn't it possible that even the people in charge of planning were able
>to truly believe that the people they wanted to get rid of were enough
>of a drain on the system that it was worth getting rid of them even if
>it cost the war effort something? That they thought it was an ounce
>of prevention to buy a pound of cure?
Isn't that what I said at the very start of your quoted text when I said "they
considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
their survival as they did the war"
Remember that the Nazis liked to blame Jewish interference for the defeat in
WW-I, so obviously they thought prosecuting an internal war front against them
was part of their strategy for victory.
Phil Edwards
>Remember that the Nazis liked to blame Jewish interference for the defeat in
>WW-I, so obviously they thought prosecuting an internal war front against them
>was part of their strategy for victory.
Yes and no. Actually, mainly no. War and mass murder were both means
to the same end: building a racially-pure Greater Germany.
I'm hammering on this point because the idea that the N*z*s treated
German Jews as enemy aliens is the stock-in-trade of some H't deniers
(Faurisson vectors this one, I believe); concede that one and all
sorts of spurious parallels open up. Also because it's wrong.
Phil "still nothing funny here" Edwards
Nick Spalding
> I never heard of any rail guage problem - certainly the way I read it was
> "rail cars (including locomotives) that were badly needed to rush supplies to
> Stalingrad were instead being used to move people to death camps". Not in
> those exact words, of couse, because I don't have the book any more.
There probably was. The gauge in the Soviet Union was 5ft, in
Germany 4ft 8.5in. Poland I don't know about. The furthest that
German locomotives and rolling stock could have 'rushed' would have
been the Russian-Polish border.
--
Nick Spalding
Olivers
>
> In article <38B6DBE4...@calpha.com>, Olivers <ol...@calpha.com>
> writes
> >I can remember clearly at about age 10 (1949-50) when I looked closely
> >at a belt buckle that my uncle had brought back to me several years
> >before from his time in Hell. The basic 'everyday' model for Wehrmacht
> >uniforms, the most startling part was neither the 'new' eagle or the
> >hakenkreuz, but the simple bold stement: "Gott Mit Uns" (which may have
> >summed up how the Germans felt about themselves and their actions).
>
> That slogan goes back well before the N*zis
> --
...and that's all the more frightening. The "Gott Mit Uns" certainly
dates back to Prussian uniforms of the period of Frederick the Great,
while the Panzerarmee "Deathshead/skull" (worn also by Waffen SS Pz and
PzGrenadier units) dates from even earlier as part of the insignia of a
cavalry regiment (Hussars?). While there were both Protestants and
Roman catholics who actively opposed the NSDAP party and government, the
record of support for the regime and its activities by the "organized
church" seems pretty clear (as was the regime's coopting of traditional
religion as a part of its folklore).
Wouldn't that be considered a signal that the German attitude was not
new at all?
Or that the N*zis were carefully about preserving (and fitting)
traditional "things" into their view and vision?
Paul Hanley
<ap...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Paul Hanley wrote:
>> I agree with most everything here except Goldhagen's remark about the
>> beliefs being "absolutely fantastical" and that "only madmen" would
>> have them. These are the types of shared characteristics with regard
>> to belief systems that I'm talking about. You can find many instances
>> of such "fantastical" beliefs that only "madmen" would have, both past
>> and present. If you agree with Goldhagen, it might be necessary to
>> redefine "madness" to include a much larger proportion of humanity
>> within this category, both from historical periods and also from
>> today.
>
>Come to think of it, after a month or two of reading AFU, I think you're
>absolutely correct. I think Goldhagen overstated the case.
>
>Steve the Bajan
Yes, this is a good place to get some idea of the range of weird
things that people can believe! ;) From what I know about
Goldhagen's ideas, he does what a lot of people do, which is focus in
on one aspect of a complex web of psycho-socio-cultural factors (in
his case, "German eliminative anti-semitism") as if it were the only
or the primary factor involved--the "magic bullet" (or magic lens) to
explain the whole thing. I think that things are always much more
complicated than that, but the "one simple factor" explanation makes
it easier for people to make sense of things, and many people find
that appealing. (I myself believe in a sort of "one simple factor"
myself, but when this "simple factor" is looked at more closely,
layers of complexity appear, sort of like peeling an onion.)
Paul Hanley
Charles A. Lieberman
Len Berlind
>I have some difficulty equating the H*l*caust with a "genocidal attack".
>Seems to me that a 10+ year effort to exterminate the J*ws, and others
>deemed undesirable, and involving a good part of the resources of a
>modern state (and the resources of states other than N*z* G*rm*ny),
>is a different matter. Add also the integration of the death camps into
>different.
It is not *literally* true to call this a difference in degree, not in
kind. But they can be equated for the purpose of Santayana's axiom. The
duration, and intigrating it into the economy, aren't the problem here.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | "Do your piss in your mother's living room
Brooklyn, NY, USA | because 'that's where your dick is?'"
| --Jim Skillman, giving the morays a place to swim
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html
Charles A. Lieberman
Paul Herzberg
>Charles A. Lieberman wrote:
>> If you turn the heat up slowly enough, the frog just sits there.
>
>Isn't this an UL in itself? This URL seems to debunk the Parable of the
>Boiled Frog:
>
>http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/frog.html
I'll take your word for it. You know what I mean, dammit.
David Hatunen
>Joe Boswell wrote:
>> That slogan goes back well before the N*zis
>...and that's all the more frightening. The "Gott Mit Uns" certainly
>dates back to Prussian uniforms of the period of Frederick the
Great, [...]
>Wouldn't that be considered a signal that the German attitude was not
>new at all?
>
>Or that the N*zis were carefully about preserving (and fitting)
>traditional "things" into their view and vision?
Some variant of "Gott mit Uns" has accompanied virtually every army
in sevewral millenia into the field
David Hatunen
>David Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Or that the N*zis were carefully about preserving (and fitting)
>> >traditional "things" into their view and vision?
>>
>> Some variant of "Gott mit Uns" has accompanied virtually every army
>> in sevewral millenia into the field
>>
>any good...
It usually only does one side any good.
JoAnne Schmitz
>>Isn't it possible that even the people in charge of planning were able
>>to truly believe that the people they wanted to get rid of were enough
>>of a drain on the system that it was worth getting rid of them even if
>>it cost the war effort something? That they thought it was an ounce
>>of prevention to buy a pound of cure?
>
>Isn't that what I said at the very start of your quoted text when I said "they
>considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal importance to
>their survival as they did the war"
But that's not including their effect on the war machine specifically as an
extra component.
What I meant was that they could have considered them potential spies or
saboteurs or destroyers of morale in terms of the war effort, in addition
to being a drain on their economy and threat to their way of life at any
time, war or peace.
I was considering the two as possibly separate, though obviously they could
be thought of as both simultaneously.
JoAnne "just bought some clogs last week" Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>I'm hammering on this point because the idea that the N*z*s treated
>German Jews as enemy aliens is the stock-in-trade of some H't deniers
>(Faurisson vectors this one, I believe); concede that one and all
>sorts of spurious parallels open up. Also because it's wrong.
I'm afraid you're accepting their false dilemma: "were they hated because
they were Jews or because they were enemy aliens?" You're not required to
select only one answer.
I don't think it's necessary to say that an added layer of anti-Semitism
makes the first layer inconsequential. If they were more hated during the
war because they were perceived as enemy aliens as well as "dirty Jews,"
that doesn't make them unhated without the war as context. They would have
still been hated if the N's had won and peace restored.
JoAnne "logical fallacies abound in revisionist tirades like Dr H's, too"
Schmitz
JoAnne Schmitz
<mitc...@image-link.com> wrote:
>Throw in the P*ope
Poope? Prope? Plope? Pfope? Pjope? Pnope? Ppope? Psope? Ptope?
Puope? Pwope? Pyope? Pzope?
JoAnne "Peope? Piope? Phape?" Schmitz
Phil Edwards
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 07:51:53 +0000, Phil Edwards <amr...@zetnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm hammering on this point because the idea that the N*z*s treated
>>German Jews as enemy aliens is the stock-in-trade of some H't deniers
>>(Faurisson vectors this one, I believe); concede that one and all
>>sorts of spurious parallels open up. Also because it's wrong.
>
>I'm afraid you're accepting their false dilemma: "were they hated because
>they were Jews or because they were enemy aliens?" You're not required to
>select only one answer.
Well, they weren't enemy aliens; they were German citizens who were
Jewish (or rather, they had been German citizens until 1938, when
citizenship was redefined along racial lines). But even if some Nazis
did regard Jews as potential saboteurs - and I certainly can't prove
that nobody did - it didn't make any difference: they weren't
*treated* in ways that a state at war treats enemy aliens. They were
treated worse than that, starting earlier and for different reasons.
Phil "hammering in the evening" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"How about if I admit to myself that I don't really care?"
- Ulo Melton
Eric Hocking
> Charles A. Lieberman wrote:
> > If you turn the heat up slowly enough, the frog just sits there.
>
> Isn't this an UL in itself? This URL seems to debunk the Parable of the
> Boiled Frog:
> out, it certainly would get out. And I cannot imagine that anything dropped
> in boiling water would not be scalded and die from the injuries."
Personal anecdote time:
While living in Darwin, NT (Austria), i visisted Douglas Hot Springs
which, due to a very unAustrian show of pendantry, describes the place
exactly. The thermal springs are *extremely* hot. The flow from the
springs meet with another stream, but this one is quite cool, and form a
pool. The trick is to find a lovely spot where the temperature mix in
the pool is to your liking.
One day, quite close to the confluence of the two streams, I found a
hard-boiled frog in the hot stream. I presumed it had hopped from the
cooler, more amphibian pleasing stream and hopped in the hot stream and
karked it. I fished it out for inspection with the aid of a stick, as
there was no way I could stand bare-foot in the hot stream.
--
Eric "nothing to add" Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
=== London, England (ex Melbourne, Australia) ===
http://www.twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk
Mike Holmans
<jsch...@qis.net> decided to impart
Penelope. Those International Rescue guys can really ruin a newsgroup.
Mike "Thunderbirds are go" Holmans
--
"It is obvious that I'm am really confused. I am going to shut up until I have
all the facts." - James Pruitt
Len Berlind
>
>Poope? Prope? Plope? Pfope? Pjope? Pnope? Ppope? Psope? Ptope?
>Puope? Pwope? Pyope? Pzope?
>
>JoAnne "Peope? Piope? Phape?" Schmitz
All of the above.
Richard Brandt
> I had a class (mixed bag English/film class) on "The Western." My
> instructor said that "Taxi Driver" was consciously a "remake" (loosely
> speaking) of John Ford's "The Searchers." He said (though I forget the
> cite) that the filmmaker(s) had actually said as much in an interview.
> It was the idea of rescuing the unwilling that was echoed, primarily.
See also "Paris, Texas," "Star Wars," and "Close Encounters
of the Third Kind," among others. Sometimes willingness is optional,
but a whole generation of filmmakers imprinted on "The Searchers."
Richard "Pilgrim" Brandt
--
=== Richard Brandt is at http://www.zenation.com/rsbrandt ===
"The moral [of "Man in the Moon"] is that anybody's life can
have a plot if they have an agent."--Andrei Codrescu
Paul Tomblin
>universalized approach than most previous military groups, ranking right
>up there with the Crusaders' crosses (which seem to have cloaked an
>attracity or two upon resident non-Christians. Certainly, just as
Actually, the Crusaders weren't that selective about who they perpetrated
atrocities against. They did plenty of harm to Christians as well, including
laying seige to Christian cities.
Michael Glaser
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:21:13 -0500, Michael Glaser
> <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote:
>
P†ope
Michael "Blessed be the graphlexic" Glaser
Mike Muth
On 26-Feb-2000, Olivers <ol...@calpha.com> wrote:
<snip>>
> ...and that's all the more frightening. The "Gott Mit Uns" certainly
> dates back to Prussian uniforms of the period of Frederick the Great,
> while the Panzerarmee "Deathshead/skull" (worn also by Waffen SS Pz and
> PzGrenadier units) dates from even earlier as part of the insignia of a
> cavalry regiment (Hussars?).
Worn by _all_ Waffen and Totenkopf SS personnel. I'm not sure about
Allgemeine SS personnel. The death's head insignia (for German units) goes
back to the King's German Legion - Hannoverian troops serving Britain.
Later, one of the Prussian cavalry divisions wore the insignia. If I recall
correctly, the division fought at Mars La Tour and continued in active
service until the end of WW I. Panzer troops picked up the insignia as part
of the mounted arm tradition. Himmler chose the emblem for his own reasons.
Certainly, it seems most appropriate for the SS.
> While there were both Protestants and
> Roman catholics who actively opposed the NSDAP party and government, the
> record of support for the regime and its activities by the "organized
> church" seems pretty clear (as was the regime's coopting of traditional
> religion as a part of its folklore).
The history of state churches in Europe persecuting anyone not of their ilk
is pretty clear. I find the scale of resistance by German clergy more
surprising than the general cooperation the Nazi's received throughout much
of Europe. There does not seem to have been as much resistance by clergy in
the rest of Europe. Perhaps that was because the clergy in the occupied
areas felt more threatened than the Germany clergy.
> Wouldn't that be considered a signal that the German attitude was not
> new at all?
Neither new nor uniquely German. What makes the Holocaust so uniquely
German is the organized, routine manner in which the victims were killed.
Typically, pogroms were characterized by emotion and hate. In the 3d Reich,
extermination was carried out (mostly) without any hate. While there were
those who enjoyed killing Jews, most of the killing was done by people who
were just doing their job. I find that to be the single, most horrifying
thing about the Holocaust. Not "willing executioners," obedient, compliant
executioners.
Mike
Mike Muth
On 25-Feb-2000, JoAnne Schmitz <jsch...@qis.net> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2000 17:41:40 GMT, ptom...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
> >In a previous article, mitc...@image-link.com, mitc...@att.net said:
> >>Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >>> they considered the extermination of the "lesser races" of equal
> >>> importance to
> >>> their survival as they did the war.
<snip>
> Not an argument, but a question: could those boxcars run on the rails
> going to Stalingrad, or might there have been a rail gauge problem?
The Soviet rail gauge was different from standard European. The Germans had
to either change the tracks or use rolling stock built for the Soviet
railways. In the event, they did both.
> How quickly can one convert rail cars from one gauge to the next?
> Were there bogeys (unsure if this is the right word) available to do
> so?
> Was there fuel enough to get them that far? Engines? Were the
> death camp trips short compared to a trip to Stalingrad?
Engines, fuel and rolling stock don't seem to have been in short supply
until the Allies started targeting them specifically. The biggest obstacles
on the Eastern front were partisans, the lack of railways, the lack of paved
roads, and the rapid changes in the front lines (they were static for long
periods and then moved large distances in short times).
> >>If tremendous resources were used, did the military take second place?
Initially, movement of Jews to concentration camps was on a relatively
(compared to later in the war) small scale. In the early years of the
Holocaust, killing was done locally by units like the reserve police
battalions and the einsatzgruppen. Some freelance killing was done by
Ukrainian groups. However, the effect his had on the units involved was
deemed unacceptable by Himmler and crew. A more "acceptable" method for
killing Jews was sought. A number of things were tried. One thing that was
common was movement to a central location - an extermination camp such as
Auschwitz. The scale of the killing which followed was horrendous.
However, the overall effect on Germany's economy was neglible. Instead of
denying the military or Germany's civilians, Himmler simply pulled rolling
stock from occupied areas - with concomitant results on the local populace.
Even at that, a relatively small amount was used since the camps had a
limited (if large) killing capacity. All, in all, I don't think the
military suffered that much loss of logistic capability until the air
campaign began to focus of the transportation network.
> >If the military had first place, the H*l*c**st would have been postponed
> >until
> >after the war, or at least the boxcars would have been "loaned" to the
> >military at times when the military had great and urgent need for them.
What the military needed most was a way to move materiel from the railheads
to the troops.
The military didn't get that absolute priority on equipment until after
Speer began managing production. Until that point, Hitler had not made the
guns or butter decision.
> >That didn't happen.
> So it seems that neither was first place, because if the H was first
> place the war would have been abandoned while they spent all their
> bullets on killing the people they wanted rid of.
Relatively few resources were used for the extermination campaigns. Himmler
was able to rely on local resources for considerable assistance and even
fleshed out the einsatzgruppen with local levies. The SS even raised 22
cossack cavalry regiments for "security" duty. The reserve police
battalions were SS units (there was even an SS Polizei division).
> Isn't it possible that even the people in charge of planning were able
> to truly believe that the people they wanted to get rid of were enough
> of a drain on the system that it was worth getting rid of them even if
> it cost the war effort something? That they thought it was an ounce
> of prevention to buy a pound of cure?
The people who orchestrated the killing had received orders [1] and went
about carrying out those orders as best they could. (Important disclaimer:
In my opinion, orders are not an excuse. People who carried out the
killings and other crimes are just as guilty as if they had received no
orders.) There was never a question of not eliminating people they
considered undesirable as quickly as they could.
> And while Jews were obviously not the cause of Germany's problem,
> here's a thought experiment: If the H part did not happen, Jews were
> not gotten rid of, yet anti-Semitism did continue and people continued
> to blame Jews for problems during the war, would that have made
> Germany better or worse off? I'm certainly not defending the H but I
> am thinking that the war might have gone even less well for the
> Germans had they allowed Jews to remain in Germany without official
> acts against them, because if I were a Jew in Germany with that kind
> of anti-Semitism around I'd be quite inclined to harm the war machine.
The anti-semitism found in Nazi Germany was, to some extent, an artificial
thing. Sure, there was anti-semitism in Germany prior to 1933. However,
Goebbels and crew conducted a prolonged campaign to stoke the anti-semitic
fires and prepare the way for the eventual elimination of Jews from Germany.
Goebbels' role in all this was probably more important than Himmler's.
After all, Himmler only provided the trigger men and organized the slaughter
while Goebbels made it all possible. Once Goebbels had set the stage, there
was no turning back.
The Jews were never a threat to Germany. In fact, there were a number of
Jews who served in the German military in WW II. Employers were able to
obtain exemptions for Jews who were considered to be in key positions.
There was some sabotage done in the SS factories. I think it's likely these
same people would not have committed any acts of sabotage had they not been
treated as they were.
Mike
Laurence Doering
Except that the Germans undertook a major effort to regauge
railroads in the occupied parts of the Soviet Union so they
could use German rolling stock on them.
On the other hand, the real problem the Germans had with
supplying their troops in Stalingrad was after Operation
Uranus, when the Soviets encircled the city in November
1942. At that point, the problem was that the only way
to bring supplies in was by air. Extra railroad cars
wouldn't have helped.
ljd
Dan Drake
wrote:
>...
>
> Going back a step to the stage version of "Cabaret" from which the
> movie is supposedly derived[1][2], the song is handled quite
> differently....
Thanks for the description of the stage show.
(Odd, when you think about it, for anyone to write a first-act closer
that leaves the audience too stunned to want to applaud. Double-odd
for a work approached with such serious intent to be a major hit.)
That the scene in the movie handled it so differently seems to confirm
my suspicion, in a different subthread, of homage to Casablanca.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com
JoAnne Schmitz
<ehoc...@twofromoz.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>One day, quite close to the confluence of the two streams, I found a
>hard-boiled frog in the hot stream. I presumed it had hopped from the
>cooler, more amphibian pleasing stream and hopped in the hot stream and
>karked it.
No reason it couldn't have just died of natural causes and floated into the
hot area and cooked.
JoAnne "mayhap you are leaping to conclusions" Schmitz
Bill Kinkaid
>
>And this is where I think the danger is - if you think that only
>"monsters" do terrible things, you are not looking out for the dark
>impulses within yourself and surrounding you in your own society. Then
>they can come sneaking up on you, much as H*tl*r's rise to power came
>as a surprise to the good German burghers who'd been complacently
>laughing at his Br*wnsh*rts.
>
>Segueing back on topic, I also think the portrayal of the atrocious
>evildoer as a "monster" (ie freak, unnatural, inhuman, predator) is a
>folkloric defense mechanism - a self-propelling propaganda chain
>subconsciously embroidered to ensure ourselves and each other "that it
>couldn't happen here to us".
>
"I don't believe these stories about what's going on are true because
they are Germans. I believe the stories because they are human."
- Arthur Miller, _Incident at Vichy_, 1944 (paraphrased because I
can't remember the exact line)
It certainly can happen again, and to us. Unless we wake up and
reverse some current trends, I'm convinced it will. Maybe not the
Jews, but there will be scapegoats.
Bill in Vancouver
My friend went to Disneyland, and all I got was this lousy sig file.
Paul Herzberg
JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
> Eric Hocking wrote:
> >One day, quite close to the confluence of the two streams, I found a
> >hard-boiled frog in the hot stream. I presumed it had hopped from the
> >cooler, more amphibian pleasing stream and hopped in the hot stream and
> >karked it.
>
> No reason it couldn't have just died of natural causes and floated into
the
> hot area and cooked.
Or it fell into the hot stream had was paralysed by shock and then boiled.
Or ... Well it could have got there in any number of ways. What we need to
do is to set up surveillance at the site on the off-chance that more frogs
will die there and present the video evidence to AFU.
Paul "Killed a frog just to watch it die" Herzberg
Otto J. Makela
[Tells about "Cabaret" performance]
> Ernst Ludwig (my part), a likable German taking English lessons
> from Cliff shows up at the party wearing a swastika armband. During
> the course of the party it is revealed that Herr Schultz is a Jew,
> and the first act closes with Ernst leading the song "Tomorrow
> Belongs to Me" and joined by nearly everyone at the party. I
> concluded with a stiff-arm salute[3], sending a chill through the
> audience. The EmCee then finishes off the act with a prance across
> stage in front of the singers who freeze at the end of the song.
[...]
> [3] http://www.sonic.net/~hatunen/theater/pix/Tomorr~1.jpg
Have you ever thought what kind of a picture that would give people of
you if someone cropped the image to just you? ;-)
Thanks for the story, it certainly gave me the chills.
--
/* * * Otto J. Makela <o...@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
/* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, FAX: +358 2040 64652, ICBM: 60N 25E */
/* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27, FIN-00100 Helsinki, FINLAND */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * */