Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6501
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by wm » 02 Mar 2021 12:47

Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 12:15
wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 12:09
No, it's not arbitrary.
It's a difference between
a driven by irrational impulses Hitler, hell-bent on destroying the Jews from day one, and
a rational Hitler that, at the end of 1941, came to the conclusion that the Holocaust was a military necessity.
You claim it was a military necessity to expulse the majority of the minds behind the Manhattan project?
I wrote that at the end of 1941 Hitler probably came to the conclusion that the Holocaust was a military (and political) necessity.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9548
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Mar 2021 13:00

Hi GLG,

I see I missed one of your earlier posts:

You post, “…..but you didn't answer my question.” I did answer your original question.

You post, “I'll make it more clear for you - as a German citizen who neither supported nor was a member of the Nazi Party, what would you have done?” As you have now reformulated the question, I will answer that as well. In all likelihood, I would have done exactly what most Germans did and look the other way. What is your point?

You ask, “Are you implying that Germans in the early 1930s knew that the Holocaust would eventually happen?" Nope. Nor have you any reason to think I did.

You ask, “Have you read the majority of the main biographies of Hitler? I.e. The biographies by Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest, etc." As it happens, I have all three and several more besides.

You post, “Discrimination and persecution certainly happened before the war, but the Nazis weren't killed Jews en masse prior to WW2.” It rather depends on how many one thinks “en masse” is. Can you put a number on it, with reasons?

I think that the killings on Kristallnacht were arguably mass murder, but whether they were murder “en masse” is another matter as they happened in a large number of different incidents. However one looks at it, the killing of what are now thought to have been hundreds of Jews and the suicides of over 600 others, pale into insignificance compared with later mass murders.

You paste, “No, I was correcting your mistake. He doesn't complain about "Jewish publishers", he complains about the way the Jewish press were describing him:" (Leaving aside the artificial distinction you try to draw between “Jewish press” and “Jewish publishers”), indeed, I was wrong to say that Mein Kampf was anti-Semitic from Chapter 1 and you corrected that mistake. Thank you. I was clearly cutting Hitler a bit too much slack! What I should have said is from the Preface, as you apparently agree, now that you have checked it out.

You post, “I quoted that specific to show that the book doesn't start off as anti-semitic.” How do you conclude that Hitler saying that he didn’t originally espouse anti-Semitism is not anti-Semitic? He is saying he was wrong initially, not that he was right!

You post, “People weren't drawn to the Nazi Party because of its anti-semitism. Hitler's book meant nothing to the average German voter in the late 1920s and early 1930s... they wanted a change and the Nazi Party was the only party which seemed to promise the change and to reverse the ills of the Treaty of Versailles.

In the 1920s Hitler only spoke of the "removal" of Jews. He neither mentioned nor advocated any sort of plan for the genocide of Jews.

The racist policies advocated by the Nazis were not new in Germany and other countries during the early 20th century. Some Jews even wanted to separate themselves from other ethnic groups and argued for Zionism which is why the Haavara Agreement was signed, etc.


And I have never suggested otherwise. My point was that in voting for Hitler and the Nazis one was also voting for anti-Semitism. This is not really an arguable point, so it mystifies me why you are attempting to do so.

What is the evidence that “the Nazi Party did not use anti-semitism in their election campaigns when trying to gain power”? We know for a fact that they didn’t withdraw Mein Kampf from sale and they didn’t alter their 25 Point Programme, so it is not as if they were presenting themselves as anything other than anti-Semitic, whatever other tactical priorities they might have had.

You post, “Not if it (anti-Semitism) is not going to effect you at all. Hence why many Germans who voted for the Nazi Party didn't really care about the anti-semitism aspect of the party. Most Germans didn't even know any Jews since Jews were largely living in Berlin and were a tiny percentage of the German population."

Again, this makes things better how? Is Anti-Semitism somehow acceptable if one doesn’t know any Jews personally? Is ignorance suddenly an excuse? Does one’s moral compass not apply to Jews? The Nazi Party’s anti-Semitism was integral to it from the start and it never changed. Millions of German voters made a terrible and culpable mistake.

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 02 Mar 2021 14:45, edited 5 times in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9548
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Mar 2021 13:20

Hi gebhk,

I am not insulted in the slightest.

It is usually my policy to reply to everything someone writes, if I can. If I consider they are wrong, I will generally say so and explain why. I will also ask questions of their position. This does often lead to "mission creep". However, while it takes two to tango, it only takes one to make the first misstep. If one doesn't want to get called out, one shouldn't post something contentious.

I agree that definitions of "Holocaust" are arbitrary. You make that point better than I did. I have a personal preference that I feel free to express. Others may not feel the same and are free to quiz me on it. However, I also reserve the right to question them on their position and to point out any inconsistencies in it.

You post, "We also should probably have to agree that political movements do not stay the same....." That is true, but they usually contain persistent themes, such as anti-Semitism in the case of Nazism.

You ask, "We also probably have to agree that there are degrees of involvement - is someone who votes for the Nazis necessarily a Nazi? I would suggest not". I would also suggest not. On the other hand, they are certainly furthering Nazi goals and so are part of a joint enterprise in that moment and must accept some responsibility for the consequences.

You post, "So is someone who is an active party member for personal benefit but does not agree with or believe any of its principles, nevertheless still a Nazi?" Functionally, yes. Whether they are true believers or not, they are part of a joint enterprise furthering those principles in a more consistent way than the passing voter at one ballot box on one day every few years.

Cheers,

Sid.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 02 Mar 2021 16:36

Hi Sid,

You clearly haven't been any of my replies to you in this thread; I've already answered your relentless questions.

Now apart from your definition of a Nazi as someone who behaves like a thug and holds racist views, what else defines a Nazi?

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6501
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by wm » 02 Mar 2021 16:44

There were lots of idealistic people in the NDSP and the party itself till the beginning of the thirties was internally partially democratic.
Its members were people like everybody else. They didn't want Holocausts, wars, or eugenics. They merely wanted a better Germany.
A Germany, the murderous communists, rigid and ideologically sterile social-democrats, bickering and inept right-wing parties, weren't able to deliver.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Peter89 » 02 Mar 2021 20:17

wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 16:44
There were lots of idealistic people in the NDSP and the party itself till the beginning of the thirties was internally partially democratic.
Its members were people like everybody else. They didn't want Holocausts, wars, or eugenics. They merely wanted a better Germany.
A Germany, the murderous communists, rigid and ideologically sterile social-democrats, bickering and inept right-wing parties, weren't able to deliver.
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?

How can anyone follow that party-Bible without a second thought where it might lead?

Of course, individual actions define a person's character, and of course it wasn't easy to get promotion or a proper job without joining the party, but in my opinion, sometimes it is the noble and high way to step aside and go and tend your garden, if you have no bravery for more.

Also, the whole civilized world has to be ever-thankful for the achievements of the late German social democrats.
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9548
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 02 Mar 2021 22:22

Hi GLG,

You post, "You clearly haven't been any of my replies to you in this thread; I've already answered your relentless questions." Really? I must have missed that. I count five unanswered questions to you in my last post alone, not one of which have you addressed in your latest post. If you are going to make things up, at least make them plausible and not so easily checkable!

I can prepare a fuller list of unanswered questions from earlier posts, if you wish. I have provided that service to others in the past. You have only to ask.

You post, "Now apart from your definition of a Nazi as someone who behaves like a thug and holds racist views.....". I am sorry, but I don't recall giving that as a "definition" of Nazism. Please check. I have.

If you are going to put up an entire post of erroneous things made up by yourself, then you are essentially picking a fight with yourself, not with me!

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 02 Mar 2021 22:39, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6501
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by wm » 02 Mar 2021 22:37

Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 20:17
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?
Yes, I've read it many times.
I don't think the Germans cared much about Mein Kampf and its geopolitics although they probably liked the chapters describing his childhood and later years (after all it was an autobiography).

Mein Kampf wasn't especially aggressive by the standards of the era.
The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Peter89 » 03 Mar 2021 10:51

wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37
Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 20:17
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?
Yes, I've read it many times.
I don't think the Germans cared much about Mein Kampf and its geopolitics although they probably liked the chapters describing his childhood and later years (after all it was an autobiography).

Mein Kampf wasn't especially aggressive by the standards of the era.
The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
You can't be serious.

What do you mean by "the standards of the era"? Erich Maria Remarque?
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

User avatar
Max
Member
Posts: 2531
Joined: 16 Mar 2002 14:08
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Max » 03 Mar 2021 11:44

wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37

The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
What is The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course)?
Cheers
Max
Greetings from the Wide Brown.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 03 Mar 2021 14:08

Peter89 wrote:
03 Mar 2021 10:51
wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 22:37
Peter89 wrote:
02 Mar 2021 20:17
Have you ever read the Mein Kampf?
Yes, I've read it many times.
I don't think the Germans cared much about Mein Kampf and its geopolitics although they probably liked the chapters describing his childhood and later years (after all it was an autobiography).

Mein Kampf wasn't especially aggressive by the standards of the era.
The Soviet Mein Kampf (Short Course) was something to behold - you could smell blood on every page.
You can't be serious.

What do you mean by "the standards of the era"? Erich Maria Remarque?
He has a point. The Nazis didn't invent anti-semitism and it wasn't exactly uncommon in Austria, Germany, Russia and other countries during the late 19th century and early 20th century.

HThe anti-semitism in Mein Kampf is disgusting, but it was only written words when in fact there had been hundreds of thousands of Jews being killed in the name of anti-semitism all over Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s before the Holocaust. The type of anti-semitism that was spread wasn't just based on religious discrimination but actual racial anti-semitism. By the late 1800s there were several proponents of the "white race" being racially superior to other races, including defining Jews as a race and not white, which was based on pseudo-science theories.

Even in Germany, in the early 1800s Jews were discriminated against by others in Bavaria when they tried to get equal rights.

The Dreyfus affair in France resulted in a wave of anti-semitism and it actually greatly influenced the Austro-Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl who was the father of Zionism.

In Eastern Europe there were pogroms all over in the late 19th century based on false claims like blood libel which resulted in tens of thousands of Jews being killed. The Tsars persecuted Jews. The first Russian Revolution in 1905 made over one million Jews move to the USA. The aftermath of the second Russian Revolution resulted in pogroms against Jews and resulted in tens of thousands of Jews being killed. The anti-semitic text contained in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which advocates the Jewish world domination conspiracy theory was regarded as genuine where it was first published and that was Russia. After the Russian Revolution in 1917 the text was published elsewhere and translated into many different languages.

Germans didn't care much about Hitler's book and it was hardly read by many Germans considering the amount of copies that were published before he came to power and the overall German population. Hitler himself later on dismissed the book as "fantasies" whilst he was in prison and told Hans Frank, "If I had had any idea in 1924 that I would have become Reich chancellor, I never would have written the book."

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 03 Mar 2021 14:12

wm wrote:
02 Mar 2021 16:44
There were lots of idealistic people in the NDSP and the party itself till the beginning of the thirties was internally partially democratic.
Its members were people like everybody else. They didn't want Holocausts, wars, or eugenics. They merely wanted a better Germany.
A Germany, the murderous communists, rigid and ideologically sterile social-democrats, bickering and inept right-wing parties, weren't able to deliver.
Don't let Sid read this post, he thinks that to qualify as a Nazi one has to behave like a thug. So unless a "Nazi" between the 1920s and the end of the Third Reich was trying to kick to death a Jew then he wasn't really a Nazi. :|

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9548
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 03 Mar 2021 14:21

Hi GLG,

You post, "Don't let Sid read this post, he thinks that to qualify as a Nazi one has to behave like a thug. So unless a "Nazi" between the 1920s and the end of the Third Reich was trying to kick to death a Jew then he wasn't really a Nazi."

Still inventing my positions for me, I see!

I don't have defend what I haven't written.

However, if you have to invent fake opinions for me, it does rather imply that you are incapable of addressing my real opinions.

I formally accept your surrender!

Cheers,

Sid.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 03 Mar 2021 14:53

I skimmed through a book I have on one of my book shelves which is Nazi Ideology Before 1933 A Documentation and I came across the following:
Jew-baiting and conspiracy hysteria disappear from the writings of most Nazi leaders between 1923 and 1933 (with the notable exception of Julius Streicher).
That is exactly the same as what Ian Kershaw wrote in his book about the Hitler myth.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=255906&start=45#p2327039

People either became members or supported the Nazi Party (NSDAP) for various reasons. The idea that millions of Germans were "thugs" and "racists" which is why they joined the NSDAP is utterly absurd and isn't supported by any evidence whatsoever. When examining why people became Nazis then one needs to put things into context. Peter Fritzsche in his book Germans into Nazis (1998) examined why ordinary Germans voted for the Nazis. He basically wrote that it wasn't just the Great Depression that caused so many Germans to flock to the Nazis, but rather than having many things in common they actually only had one thing in common which was resentment against the "system". Although anti-semitism wasn't really the key factor in why Germans voted for the Nazis, most Germans were anti-semitic to one degree or another.
However, voters did not back Hitler mainly because they shared his hatred of the Jews. To be sure, many if not most Germans were anti-Semites to one degree or another and most recognized in the Nazis a political force of unprecedented toughness. In 1933 it was not difficult for anyone to imagine an increasingly brutal future for Germany's Jews.
During the Third Reich, there were some Nazis who took the piss out of the racial theories advocated and pursued by the regime.

The Nazis were sly enough to adopt their policies for the time.

Example:

Hitler in the 1920s - I want to conquer Eastern Europe and populate the areas with ethnic Germans.

Hitler in the early 1930s - I only want to annex territories that the Treaty of Versailles stripped away from Germany after WW1. I am a peaceful man who only wants the best for Germany.

Hitler in the late 1930s - I'll threaten war if the governments of countries that I want to annex will not agree with my demands. I'll agree to sign a pact with my enemy whom I plan to later attack.

Hitler in the 1940s - I want to invade, invade and invade even more countries and land.

They often masked the true intent of their policies e.g. they claimed that the Nuremberg Laws would benefit both "Germans" and "Jews" and lead to better relations between the two peoples.

Only an absolute moron would think that the Nazis came to power because they told people that they wanted to kill millions of Jews by shooting them, gassing them, starving them, etc.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 1248
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Spain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Peter89 » 03 Mar 2021 17:26

George L Gregory wrote:
03 Mar 2021 14:08
HThe anti-semitism in Mein Kampf is disgusting, but it was only written words when in fact there had been hundreds of thousands of Jews being killed in the name of anti-semitism all over Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s before the Holocaust.
Something I've missed along the pages? Where were these hundreds of thousands killed - on purpose?

The type of anti-semitism that was spread wasn't just based on religious discrimination but actual racial anti-semitism. By the late 1800s there were several proponents of the "white race" being racially superior to other races, including defining Jews as a race and not white, which was based on pseudo-science theories.

Even in Germany, in the early 1800s Jews were discriminated against by others in Bavaria when they tried to get equal rights.
George L Gregory wrote:
03 Mar 2021 14:08
The Dreyfus affair in France resulted in a wave of anti-semitism and it actually greatly influenced the Austro-Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl who was the father of Zionism.
His name was actually Tivadar, but anyway. He was an influential businessman, not the "father of zionism". One who proposed to establish an independent Jewish State, ie. Israel. He wasn't the first with that proposal either, József Natonek started to formalize the whole thing and applied to the Ottoman Sultan in Istanbul to allow the Jews to settle in the Holy Land, about 50 years before Tivadar Herzl.
George L Gregory wrote: Peter Fritzsche in his book Germans into Nazis (1998) examined why ordinary Germans voted for the Nazis. He basically wrote that it wasn't just the Great Depression that caused so many Germans to flock to the Nazis, but rather than having many things in common they actually only had one thing in common which was resentment against the "system". Although anti-semitism wasn't really the key factor in why Germans voted for the Nazis, most Germans were anti-semitic to one degree or another.
This is so wrong in many ways.

First, the Great Depression hit the whole world, not just Germany. Somehow it did not lead everywhere to vote a party like the NSDAP into power.

Heck, we are in a great depression now as we speak. Even I myself lost a tremendous amount of income and perspective - not to mention rights - because of this current depression.

But, we are not going to build concentration camps for Jews or other minorities, just because our living standards have dropped. It's like: we are not going to reinstitute slavery, just because people - even if at some point of moral or economic depression would push the majority to want it - would vote for it. We're not doing it, even if it's momentarily against the majority's will.

I know that people nowadays equal the blunt, direct and raw political representation of the people's immediate will as democracy. But no, it's not democracy, it's the dark side of the democracy. It's a mindless rage that fills the most of the people at any given time, and only waits in us to come forth and kill, loot, rape and destroy. This is the beast in us, not the human. That's exactly what nazism brought to the surface, and it was clear from the beginnings.

There's always a discrepancy between the "opinion of the people" and the good management of a state. The successful political communities bring the two in line. What I always hear is that the Germans themselves were no more Nazi than the rest of the world, which is not true. The Germans allowed a terrible regime to gain power. It is also not true that all the Germans were supporting the NSDAP ideology, because we have heroes with golden names amongst the children of the Vaterland. I also hear soci-economic arguments, but I don't believe them for a second because of the aforementioned reasons. What I believe is simply the fact that Holocaust did not happen for one single reason. It needed about a hundred of premises to happen, and we can deliberately pick one and say that "that was the cause of all that".
“And while I am talking to you, mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again, and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." - FDR, October 1940

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”