Nazi Anti-Semitism 1933: Why Were They Sadistic?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Nazi Anti-Semitism 1933: Why Were They Sadistic?

#1

Post by David Thompson » 31 Mar 2003, 22:10

Seventy years ago -- at the beginning of March, 1933 -- members of the Nazi party (NSDAP) began a series of anti-semitic demonstrations and attacks on Jews living in Germany. Some of these incidents are documented in the threads:

"Nazi Attacks on US Citizens Mar 1933" at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15133

"An American Diplomat in Germany 1929-1939" at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=14954 and

American Consul in Berlin 1930-1934 at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15121

The Nazi party had a history of anti-semitic agitation in German politics. Some of the anti-semitic publications and utterances of Nazi officials are documented in the thread

"Nazi Persecution of the Jews" at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=16116

The newly-established Nazi government appeared to condone those March, 1933 demonstrations and attacks. As a result, there were a series of international protests. On 28 Mar 1933, Chancellor Adolf Hitler designated 1 Apr 1933 as "National Boycott Day" against Jewish shops in Germany. This act was announced to be in response to anti-German atrocity stories and anti-German boycotts in foreign countries, inspired by German Jews.

What is the explanation for the Nazi acts of social humiliation and violence against individual German Jews in Mar-Apr 1933?

(The following cartoon by David Low on this subject was published on 31 Mar 1933 -- 70 years ago today.)
Attachments
The Aryan Race.jpg
The Aryan Race.jpg (125.31 KiB) Viewed 6430 times

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#2

Post by michael mills » 02 Apr 2003, 06:11

The cartoon is interesting.

Is it portraying Hitler as merely a lackey? The figure in the wheelchair being towed by Hitler is presumably Hindenburg.

Does it portray Hitler as dragging Hindenburg in a certain direction? The image may be meant to suggest a pet dog tied to a wheelchair that spots a cat and goes chasing after it, dragging the wheelchair along behind.


James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 23:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

#3

Post by James McBride » 02 Apr 2003, 07:26

Why wouldn't Germans go along? I see lots of reasons for Germany to be proud of what they did in WWI and also reasons to be resentful of the Treaty. As an individual German, who feels cheated of what he or she deserves, having something physical to blame satisfies a need. Jews had been the scapegoat in Europe for a thousand years, and it seems natural that the Germans do the same. I am not saying I agree, but I would have had a just big enough part of me that would say "Why should they sell goods that I should be selling, and make money that I should be making." Especially when their were lots of people already telling me that it was Jewish peoples' fault for losing the war. It is disgusting, and makes me glad I never had to live throught that era, but I think as an average German, I would have been able to stand by and watch Jews be harassed.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#4

Post by David Thompson » 02 Apr 2003, 08:11

Michael -- I think that David Low's cartoon does portray Hitler as a lackey. Hitler's chasing after the SA guy, while pulling von Hindenburg and what appears to be Franz von Papen hanging on to von Hindenburg.

I got the impression that Low was portraying the SA primitive as an out-of-control element leading the NSDAP, and that Hitler was trying to keep up, dragging von Hindenburg and von Papen with him. However, your interpretation is equally valid.
Last edited by David Thompson on 02 Apr 2003, 08:35, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#5

Post by David Thompson » 02 Apr 2003, 08:34

James -- You said: "It is disgusting, and makes me glad I never had to live throught that era, but I think as an average German, I would have been able to stand by and watch Jews be harassed."

Your answer is interesting, because it takes the viewpoint of a passive German spectator. But as a spectator, what would be your reaction if you saw a group of people beating up an individual on the street and trying to humiliate him? Would you speculate about reasons why the victim probably deserved it? Or would you find the scene disgusting?

Do you think that when the Nazi bands grabbed people they had any reason to believe that this German Jew or that one was responsible for the German defeat in WWI? That's the question I wanted to get answered: "What is the explanation for the Nazi acts of social humiliation and violence against individual German Jews in Mar-Apr 1933?"

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#6

Post by Scott Smith » 02 Apr 2003, 10:30

David Thompson wrote:Do you think that when the Nazi bands grabbed people they had any reason to believe that this German Jew or that one was responsible for the German defeat in WWI? That's the question I wanted to get answered: "What is the explanation for the Nazi acts of social humiliation and violence against individual German Jews in Mar-Apr 1933?"
Well, for a civil war or a revolution it was one of the most peaceful ever, certainly less bloody than our own revolution or civil war, and the same with the English civil war or the French and Russian revolutions. I don't think it was fair to blame the Jews but they were universally seen as supporting international and liberal causes and not Germany when it came down to it. Hatred for the Jews was also something that crossed class lines and played well with Germans generally, and lots of other people for that matter including Americans, who increasingly passed immigration controls against "unassimilable" groups. Of course, we didn't have the hurt of a Versailles treaty, and particularly its War-Guilt clause, to galvanize us either, but our patriotism easily could have taken the form of persecution against minorities if we felt ourselves in the vice and needed an enemy to focus on. No Versailles War-Guilt=No Hitler.
:)

James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 23:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

#7

Post by James McBride » 02 Apr 2003, 22:53

Well, it is very difficult to speculate. I would hope that I would feel disgust, and probably part of me would. But I can also see myself justifying the harrassment to myself, to erase feelings of guilt I would have for not stepping in. Nazism was so effective because they were able to dehumanize Jews to so much more of the population than I would have expected.
If I had little involvement with Jews, it would be possible for me to believe that maybe Jews are not as good as Germans, maybe they don't deserve that nice house. The less similar to me that they seem, the easier it would be to take part in or at least tolerate Nazism. It is all speculation, who really knows what my situation or beliefs would have been, but I think that is probably along the lines of what I would be going through.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#8

Post by michael mills » 03 Apr 2003, 00:13

Perhaps an understanding of German attitudes toward Jews after the First World War can be gained by examining current attitudes of the general population in the United States and other Western countries toward Muslims in the context of the "war and terror".

Some people are strongly anti-Muslim, and commit acts of violence against them. Yet others come out publicly to support Muslims who are under attack.

Probably the majority of the population feel a fear of Muslims, and are prepared to tolerate acts of violence against them, and also official suppression, even if they would not commit violence themselves.

Western governments generally deplore any hooliganism against Muslims, but do not greatly exert themselves to stop it where it occurs, while cracking down on any signs of Muslim ideological assertiveness.

All of the above phenomena mirror what was happening in Germany after the First World War.

James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003, 23:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

#9

Post by James McBride » 03 Apr 2003, 01:54

But what did Jews do to recieve blame?

User avatar
Andrew E. Mathis
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 15:49
Location: Bryn Mawr, Pa., U.S.A.
Contact:

#10

Post by Andrew E. Mathis » 03 Apr 2003, 02:55

I see a lot of immense misunderstanding of the German mindset in the foregoing discussion.

Scott and I had discussed this in e-mail recently; Goldhagen's thesis that the Germans were, by nature, anti-Semitic is bullshit. German culture had not (and still has not) encapsulated anti-Semitism to the degree that Eastern European (or even French) culture had.

It took a strong and concerted effort by Hitler, from his release from Lansberg in 1925 until the passing of the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, to get the majority of the German people to accept an anti-Semitic program. The first anti-Semitic action taken by the Nazi-dominated government in 1933 was a one-day boycott of Jewish business. In comparison to what would come later on, this was nothing.

Would the average German, in 1933, have stood by while SA men humiliated a Jew? Probably not, except perhaps out of fear of the SA. But, at the same time, it's important to remember that by Hitler's appointment as Kanzler, the SA had exhausted their usefulness -- thus the Night of the Long Knives.

Would the average German have stood by while the SS did the same thing to a Jew in 1938? Probably, but only because s/he had slowly but surely been inured to such treatment of Jews, as well as the propagandistic dehumanization of Jews in the media by Goebbels, Streicher, et al.

Compare this to, say, Russia or Poland. Would it have taken anything to get the average Russian or Pole to sit by and watch, if not actually enjoy, such an action to take place? Frankly, they'd have made a small party of it, most likely. Look at how easy it was for Ukrainians to turn on and kill their Jewish neighbors. Germans wouldn't do this. Their conception of Jews was totally different. This is why the Holocaust had to be hidden from Germans, but not from Slavs or Lithuanians or other willing collaborators.

The difference between cultures is not innate, either, just to be clear. Eastern European anti-Semitism was much stronger on a religious level than in Germany, where the Enlightenment had helped with assimiliation, which was a non-phenonenom in Poland, Ukraine, and Russia. Also, Germany had not suffered under the Soviets, like Ukraine in particular had, and had not been fed the standard line that all Bolsheviks were Jews until the Nazis started that up. Even Luxemburg and Liebknecht couldn't convince the Germans that communism was "Jewish"; there were too many Jewish Germans who had fought on the Eastern Front to believe that. Thus the loopholes in the original Nuremberg Laws that exempted decorated WWI veterans.

a.m.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#11

Post by David Thompson » 03 Apr 2003, 03:18

So what's with the sadistic element in the 1933 anti-semitic disorders? Is the question too embarassing to discuss?

User avatar
Andrew E. Mathis
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 05 Oct 2002, 15:49
Location: Bryn Mawr, Pa., U.S.A.
Contact:

#12

Post by Andrew E. Mathis » 03 Apr 2003, 03:50

David Thompson wrote:So what's with the sadistic element in the 1933 anti-semitic disorders? Is the question too embarassing to discuss?
Not for me.

Actions this early were taken by street punks led by the SA. In fact, with the exception of Reichskristallnacht, I don't think it can be fairly said that average Germans participated in this sort of cruelty at all. And Nov. 9, 1938, was a big embarrassment to many Nazis. This may, in fact, contextualize why all Jews still free at that point were sent to concentration camps. No extermination policy had been decided yet. Forced emigration was still policy, and the war was almost a full year off. The Jews may have been put in KZs after Nov. 9, in all seriousness, for their own safety.

Obviously this policy changed by June 22, 1941.

a.m.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#13

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Apr 2003, 04:36

David Thompson wrote:So what's with the sadistic element in the 1933 anti-semitic disorders? Is the question too embarassing to discuss?
Well, since the account is written for the Nuremberg trials, I'd say that is a bit of an overstated general perception.
:wink:

I agree with Andrew that the Goldhagen thesis is bullshit--but Goldhagen does make some good points because playing the anti-Semitic card played well in Germany (on account of circumstances) and crossed class lines. I do strongly agree with Andrew that the Germans were no more anti-Semitic than any others.

The reason that anti-Semitism played so well is because of the defeat in the First World War, Versailles, and the number of Jews involved in liberal or socialistic endeavors, which were internationally oriented and considered unpatriotic and downright foreign. All revolutionary movements, including Germany's republicans, let alone the Bolsheviks, were heavily supported by Jews. The NSDAP was the only group that consistently allowed no compromise with Versailles and War-Guilt, upon which Weimar legitimacy was founded. Hitler would not compromise with that issue, which is why he became Chacellor when more viable bourgeois parties failed.

I don't agree that Germany was heavily conditioned by anti-Semitic propaganda until Hitler became Chancellor and Goebbels actually gained access to the machinery of the State; it simply played well independently of the Nazis, and that's why the Nazis were keen to use it. The Jews provided a universal enemy. There was of course some latent anti-Semitism from the immigration of eastern Jews, as would be seen particularly in cosmopolitan places like Berlin and especially Vienna, which had at one time been an imperial seat with eastern provinces.

Generally when any immigrant group comes into contact with indigenous populations, there is hostility among the classes that feel the most pressure for employment and housing and resent a cheapening of the value of their labor and neighborhoods. The more affluent natives can isolate themselves in more expensive enclaves and do not accept the foreigners casually until they have assimilated enough that they no longer seem alien. Factors influencing such ethnicity would be language, race, religion, national origin, class, culture and past history.

In the case of pre-WWII Jewish immigrants, Germany and Poland couldn't ship each other's Jewish nationals back fast enough, a situation that prompted Herschel Grynspan to assassinate a German diplomat in Paris, vom Rath, and sparked the anti-Jewish Kristallnacht pogrom in Berlin. This prompted international protest, a diplomatic disaster for Hitler that helped lead to an abandonment of diplomacy altogether. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler didn't get what he wanted at Munich; he did, however, get what he asked for. He had been coolly outsmarted by Chamberlain. Ultimately this led to war and therefore the Holocaust (whatever that necessarily was). I disagree that it was pre-planned Genocide.

We can learn lessons from such "advances to barbarism." If the war in Iraq was in any way on the same scale as WWII in Europe, American's Muslims would probably not be safe. On the other hand, my impression is that the "anti-Muslim sentiment" is now is not nearly as bad as after 9/11, so that is encouraging.
:)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#14

Post by David Thompson » 03 Apr 2003, 04:41

Scott -- You wrote: "Well, since the account is written for the Nuremberg trials, I'd say that is a bit of an overstated general perception."

Are you suggesting that the sadistic element of the 1933 anti-semitic disorders in Germany was made up later, c. 1945-1946, for purposes of discrediting the Nazi leaders?

If so, you might note that the first of the sources I cited --

"Nazi Attacks on US Citizens Mar 1933" at:

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15133

-- was a report dated 14 Mar 1933 from the US Consul General to the US Secretary of State. It wasn't written for the Nuernberg trials. It was written twelve or thirteen years earlier.

Why have the posters, other than aemathisphd, all tried to turn the subject to the origins of anti-semitism, instead of addressing the sadism question in a straightforward manner?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

A Sadistic Body Politic...

#15

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Apr 2003, 05:17

Well, sure, I can particularize from the newspapers and prove that Scottsdale is sadistic. Some guy's torso was found in a garbage dumpster. (It appears that his wife wanted his life insurance or something like that.) Yes, there are sadistic people in the world, and Nazi Germany was no exception. Some might say that The U.S. government treats its Taliban "non-POWS" sadistically, as the military says the Iraqis are doing with ours. And we can probably find examples of just that! Is this general? Well, historians and not political trials or press conferences might be better able to answer that.
Why have the posters, other than aemathisphd, all tried to turn the subject to the origins of anti-semitism, instead of addressing the sadism question in a straightforward manner?
I never said anything about blaming the victim, if that's what you're implying. But if you want to study disease you must study its origins. I don't think you can simply say it is the "pathology" of sadism, as Nuremberg would imply. My post addressed resentments and where they come from.
:)

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”