From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Let's hit Nazis?
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:12:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.055008.19602@husc3.harvard.edu> abkevich@husc3.harvard.edu writes:
>Sasha Pabst>> 'Mein Kampf' was the book in which Hitler described exactly his
>plans (termination of Jews ("Endloesung", "Final Solution"), war against GB, F
>and SU etc.) WAS known, at least after the NSDAP was elected. It was given to
>people who married, got children,... So who had eyes to read and mind to
>understand MUST have known what Hitler was up to.

>Christian Lampl>> Yes, if they had read it. If you get a bible as a present for
>your marriage, will you read it? (For idiots: No, I don't want to compare the
>bible with 'Mein Kampf'. If you didn't get the sentence just try to read it
>again).

>Chris, I really hope that you just don't understand what did you write. You
>lived in democratic state. In totalitarian state the book like 'Mein Kampf'
>much, much more important then a bible. It will determine the whole your life.

Well, did it? Were people's day-to-day existences affected much by 
Mein Kampf?  No, not in general, until the war got underway.

>And belive me (and my experience in USSR), it will not take you long t
>understand it. If you will recieve contract for a new job as a present for your
>marriage, will you read it? 

Terrible, terrible analogy.  The election of 1/30/33 was not  a marriage,
nor did it give Germans a "new job."  Even most of those who voted for 
Hitler in 33 did not do so out of strong ideological grounds, but out
of economic and social despair.

>And if you will not then you can blame only
>yourself in future. What Sasha Pabst is trying to tell you is that it was your
>moral obligation to read such a book when you saw what happened in 1933. And

Which is very easy to say in retrospect.  What books is it our moral 
obligation to read *now*?  How can you tell?  If I come up with a 
Morally Obliging Reading List (tm), will you read the books that are on
it?

Note also that Mein Kampf contains all kinds of things that did *not*
happen, such as economic plans.  That the book is almost impossible
to read, that many people who *did* read it  didn't take it seriously,
figuring that it was one more piece of ideological prose.

>even if they didn't it was not as simle as with bible. You had to listen Nazi
>propaganda and if you are a human being you had to stand against it. It is as 

Again, easy to say.  Can you be so sure that you would have?  Would you
have paid the price that many who stood against it paid?

>simple as this. 

In retrospect, and at a safe distance, it *is* simple.  Up close things
are much more detailed, more confusing.

>I could understand that you might be afraid but if you will not
>you will gradually destroy your soul. 

My, my, my.  "destroy your soul" -- pretty big words (aside from
the fact that the rest of the sentence doesn't seem to point anywhere).
Can you walk down a German street and point to those people who lived
in Nazi Germany and whose souls were destroyed?

Look, *everywhere* people don't stand up against evil.  This has always
been the case, in every country, at all times.  Sometimes things turn out
worse than others.  

But courage is a rare commodity!  WHoever acts courageously is to be 
praised, their acts used as examples for others; but we cannot make courage the
norm, for it has never been the norm, and we do not know that we ourselves
will act courageously at the crucial time.  

In short, it's easier said than done.

(And it's easier to speak courageously given the semi-anonymity and 
great physical distances we have on the net.)

>Christian Lample>> ...neither KPD nor the NSDAP were democratic parties...
>Well, there was no party which was not violent these days.
>were no party which was not violent these days? The fact that NSDAP was able to
>Don't you think it was a fault of all these "odinary Germans" (of that time)
>that there was no party which was not violent these days? Fact that Nazis
>managed to recieve 13,000,000 votes in 1932 should not be excused.

a) I can hardly wade through this word salad.

b) There were plenty of non-violent parties.  Many Germans explicitly
avoided voting for parties that preached violence.

>the crimes that hit civilians.

>Christian Lampl>> Like in any war after WW1 (WW1 included).

>NO! NO! Just compare number of civilians, which were murdered in WW1 and in
>WW2. WW2 was not "just another war of 20-th century". You found similarities
>with purges in communist countries. I am not interested in these similarities. 

That's *your* problem.  Do you deny that thousands upon thousands of 
Party members acted against what we'd call correct moral judgment, 
against decency, against regard for human life?  That millions died for
political purposes?  That there was plenty that was written and
published about Communism that gave clues as to its evils?  That
hardly anyone has ever read all of Stalin or Brezhnev?

>It is NOT important at all. 

Keep saying it.  Perhaps someone will believe you.

>Or do you fill better because of massmurders in other countries too?

Shame on you!  Lampl is not trying to "feel better" -- he is trying
to understand history.  Dismissing all other mass murders with a 
wave of the hand will not do.

>Sasha Pabst>> And there was more then just rumors. Especially the people around 
>the "Konzentrationslager" (concentration camps?) did know since they could see
>smoke from the crematories. 

>Christian Lampl>> Yes, if I think at a secret place nobody was allowed to enter
>and see smoke coming out of a smoke-stack I know in the same moment that people 
>are burned there.

>YES YOU WILL KNOW. Just think about how this smoke will SMELL!!! Witnesses told
>that when the wind was from KZ it was hard to breath even in few miles from
>camps. 

Which is why none of the death camps were situated in Germany.

Moreover, the mechanized killings didn't get underway until 1942; nor were
most of the transports from Germany taking place before then.  By that time
things were pretty hard for most Germans -- exactly what were they going
to do?  Leave?  

>Just read books - the most stupid peasant who leaved near KZ knew what 
>is going on. 

And just coincidentally, most of the death camps were situated near --
only a few stupid peasants.

>And again - what about rumors, drunk SS-officers, all-Europe hunt
>for Jews, soldiers returned home from the East front: 

There weren't a whole lot of those, in case you didn't know.

As for the "all-Europe hunt for Jews" -- it wasn't exactly publicized
in the newspapers.

>everybody in Ukraine, White Russia, Baltic states knew what was going on. 

Not so.  What makes you say this?

>I don't think German soldiers were less informed. 

You're wrong, in the main.  Very few soldiers knew of the death camps.
Secrecy was enforced.

>Again witnesses told that German soldiers entered
>Russian towns, from their remarks population understood what should they 
>expect. Of course if you didn't want to know or was afraid to know totalitarian
>state gave you all necessary excuses.

But most Germans didn't *live* in Russian towns.  Nor were German towns
treated that way.  I suggest you read about the transports of Jews from
German cities.  Not even the Jews knew they were to be murdered.

>Christian Lampl>> What about the people who hid Jews in their flats or helped
>them leave the country?

>Of course such people existed! You are humans, aren't you? 

Who's "you"?  

>And I don't agree
>with Larry in everything. I do want Germany to be united because it is your 
>right and because I belive that WW2 happened probably because Allies tried to
>punish the whole nation. They didn't have such right. But I don't want lessons
>of WW2 to be forgoten just because some people now think that it was just an
>average war and nobody knew a thing about what was going on. 

That's still no excuse for making up your facts.

>And I understand
>that if such thing happened in Germany once it might happen there again and I
>had a moral obligation to do everything I could to stop it. And don't forget
>that still every Jew tried to run from Germany - it was not a place during WW2
>where you had max chance that people would help you. 

That's just not true.  Only about 52% of German Jews emigrated between
1933 and 1939; my parents were among them.  Others tried to leave; but 
many refused to.  By the time the war started, it was too late.  

>But you are right it 
>would be unforgivable if we will forget Germans who risked their lifes for
>Jews.

And it is equally unforgivable to lump all the rest together.  After all,
very few people *ever* risk their lives for anyone, let alone people they
don't know personally.

>Christian Lampl>>...after the Soarland was taken away from Germany many people
>from there wanted to rejoin.

>Sure. But 90% vote in such situation.... And don't forget that before 1935
>France didn't occupy Soarland - it was ruled by LN and people there had the
>third possibility: to extend LN administration. 

But the L of N was falling apart!  Its authority was near zero, and
people were tired of living in limbo.

>And if they didn't beleive
>French newspapers wy didn't they by German (I am sure they were available)? Why
>they didn't listen to Hitler speaches - he didn't hide anything, why they
>didn't read 'Mein Kampf'? They also didn't care? 

Again, so easy to say.  Most of the contents of German newspapers involved
propaganda about how well the economy was doing, about how much better 
things were than in the political chaos of 1919-33.  The residents of
the Saarland could see that; they had front-row seats.  Fifteen years of 
economic misery is a powerful incentive to change.

Roger

Xref: sparky soc.culture.german:10218 de.soc.politik:2950