No Shoah

I'm currently a little short and won't buy the book, I have to form an opinion by reading online reviews.

This is the final remark of one I found interesting:
"... as a scientist, G. has justly to put up with the claim that his study is based on spot test, the representativeness of which he doesn't document anywhere. With his woodcut-style revival of well-known clichés, the author contributes at most to a backslide to an 68-Generation perception - the "generation of committers".
http://www.cpw-online.de/rezensionen/gellately.htm

I won't say this is true, but at least it matches even the benevolent reviews. They account as Gellately's proof a) that even the gestapo was fed up by the amount of denunciation, b) that nazi crimes were published in newspapers.

For a), 1% of the population is way enough. This does *NOT* document the attitude of the majority. b) confirms publicity, but not agreement.

So, what are his proofs that the majority of the population had this attitude?

[ 27. October 2003, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

According to what I´ve read what you´re saying is quite true. Yet I find it interesting that it is said in the sense that the German people could have changed all this anytime they wanted.I think Nazi Germany was a police nation since Hitler brought the Gauleiters after he took power in the 1930´s and I think it is not that simple. It was no just jews and communists that were taken to the camps. Anyone who did not agree with Hitler´s view would end up in the camps, right? So it was in the end fighting for survival!?? I don´t know, maybe you think this is a good excuse but I think Hitler betrayed the German nation by his lies and when it all was out in the open, they were knee deep in....****. If it is so easy to go against dictators why did they rule so long in Chile, Spain, Uganda...??

Why not say to Russians they could have stopped Stalin from killing the Ukraineans by famine.It´s the same thing. Or the jews in Russia?



PS. I think that if there was no jew-hatred by Hitler there would have been no nazi Germany. I think they are too strongly linked.

[ 27. October 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

Knightmove, please do not take this s an insult, as it is not intended as one at all, but it seems somewhat pointless to discuss a book you have not read, and base your orguments on "online" reviews. If you cannot read the book itself, then I suggest you read some of the reviews in scholarly journals, where, unlike the internet, there is editorial control and peer review.

Besides, in the wider picture, we are quibbling details. If you dont like Goldhagen or Gellatley, then read some of the other authors mentioned, or failing that I can suggest a dozen more. This is not a narrowly written or contested field, there has been a great deal of work on the topic in the last 10 years, with a clear consensus of fact.

In addition, this topic, of the German complicity and opinion of Kristalnacht, came up in great detail at the David Irving trial in London in 2000, which I attended and published about. There some of the more notable Historians in thefield, Van der pelt, Evans, Gilbert, even Keegan, spoke at some length about the current state of the historical debate on the issue. It was quite clear.

In opposition to all this historical research, you can understand when I find the clearly self-serving comment of an unknown official to the British Chargée d'affaires after 1938 to be unconvincing.

 

Forgive me Kai, I know this is not your fault, but I had some difficulty understanding your point...

Yes the German population supported the nazi regime by and large, but that does not necessarily mean that they could have 'removed it' whenever they wanted to. Certainly before 1936 there existed the possibility that a mass uprising (however unlikely) might have dislodged Hitler who still depended on his massive support to stay in power. However once the state security apparatus had been refines and the military brought up to par, I find it difficult to imagine what kind of uprising would have toppled the Fuhrer.

However, dispite his power, there are examples of Hitler bending to popular pressure rather than forcing his will down the throats of an unwilling public. Examples include his refusal to sign his name to documents following the scandal of the Euthenasia law, his backing down on allowing Christian symbols in schools faced with demonstrations in Bohemia, and his decision to postpone the half-jew and Jews in Aryan marriage issue until 'after the war'.

 

I agree with you that to evaluate books, you have to read them, but I have one objection: This way of arguing enables everybody to name whatever books as proof for his opinion and to clap the burden of counter-proof to his opponents. It is clear that this is a grubby way of arguing.

I rather ask you to tell us more IN HERE about the topic. WHAT exactly has been published in the media? I know that the concentration camps were shown in cinema, but did people see the Jews in there being tortured and malnourished?

And whatever these studies say, there are a lot of
German contemporary witnesses, like Sebastian Haffner and Hoimar von Ditfurth, who blame themselves for not having resisted in any way, but do not deliver any support for this "general approval" thesis.

To be continued later

 

Vermillion,

What I mean is that

1. I don´t think you can make generalized assumptions on the people´s way of thinking in a country ruled by a dictator especially if they are shared by the dictator.Whether it was nazi Germany or Spain under Franco or Iraq under Hussein.

2. REICHSTAG ELECTION
JULY 31 1932

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/elect.htm

National Socialist 13,745,800 37.4%
Social Democratic 7,959,700 21.6%
Communist 5,282,600 14.6%
Center 4,589,300 12.5%
Nationalist 2,177,400 5.9%
etc

3.
REICHSTAG ELECTION
NOVEMBER 6 1932

National Socialist 11,737,000 33.1%
Social Democratic 7,248,000 20.4%
Communist 5,980,000 16.9%
Center 4,231,000 11.9 %
Nationalist 2,959,000 8.8%
etc.

In the fall of 1932, the Nazis lost more than 30 seats, but Papen and Hitler agreed on forming a government.

http://lego70.tripod.com/german/hindenburg.htm

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor...

4.REICHSTAG ELECTION
MARCH 1933

National Socialist 17,277,000 43.9
Social Democratic 7,182,000 18.3
Communist 4,848,000 12.3
Center 4,425,000 11.7
Nationalist 3,137,000 8.0

Still under 50%...

4. Presidential election

President Hindenburg essentially did nothing. He was content to ride on his reputation and counted on the votes of Germans who wanted to keep the radicals out of power.

http://www.bofhlet.net/tasteless/13/runs.htm

In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, Hitler got over eleven million votes (11,339,446) or 30% of the total. Hindenburg got 18,651,497 votes or 49%.

Hitler trying his best(!)...and result:

On a dark, rainy Sunday, April 10, 1932, the people voted. They gave Hitler 13,418,547 or 36% an increase of two million, and Hindenburg 19,359,983 or 53% an increase of under a million.

The eighty five year old gentleman was elected by an absolute majority to another seven year term.

5.The emergency decree was signed in February 28th after the Reichstag fire of 1933. This gave Hitler and his party total power. He and his party could control what was written in the papers and said on the radio. They could open mail, read telegrams and listen to phone conversations. The German people could not express their opinions freely for any reason. Homes could be searched and property taken without reason.


On March 21 Hindenburg signed two decrees put before him by Hitler. The first offered full pardons to all Nazis currently in prison.
The second decree signed by the befuddled old man allowed for the arrest of anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government and the Nazi party.

A third decree signed only by Hitler and Papen allowed for the establishment of special courts to try political offenders. These courts were conducted in the military style of a court martial without a jury and usually with no counsel for the defense

http://www.bofhlet.net/tasteless/13/dictator.htm

On March 23, the newly elected Reichstag met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act. It was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.'
Brown-shirted Nazi storm troopers stood outside, in the hallways and even lined the aisles inside, glaring ominously at anyone who might oppose Hitler's will.

Before the vote, Hitler made a speech :

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one." - Hitler told the Reichstag.

He also promised an end to unemployment and pledged to promote peace with France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. But in order to do all this, Hitler said, he first needed the Enabling Act. A two thirds majority was needed, since the law would actually alter the constitution. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi votes to pass it. He got those votes from the Center Party after making a false promise to restore some basic rights already taken away by decree.

Meanwhile, Nazi storm troopers chanted outside. "Full powers - or else! We want the bill - or fire and murder!!"

But one man arose amid the overwhelming might. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood up and spoke quietly to Hitler.

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.

"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

The vote was taken - 441 for, only 84, the Social Democrats, against. The Nazis leapt to their feet clapping, stamping and shouting, then broke into the Nazi anthem, the Hörst Wessel song.


6. Yes, I think the things Hitler did not do under political pressure ( the euthanasia etc ) are true,at least I had read that women made a revolt after which the killing of disabled was stopped ( I´m not sure if altogethe but for awhile at least ).The people of the White Rose were not treated that nicely for example though.

http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/

Here´s another nice Nazi site

From 1890 to 1932, a total of 36 persons convicted of murder are put to death with an executioner’s ax outdoors in the prison courtyard. In contrast, 2,891 persons fall victim to killings at the hands of the judiciary in Plötzensee during the 12 years of National Socialist terror from 1933 to 1945.

http://www.gedenkstaette-ploetzensee.de/02_e.html

If you know Vermillion why Hitler decided as he did I´d be interested to know.

7. As well the generalized thinking led to the escape of several "big fishes" from the Reich as they were not hunted, I think. Instead of spending time on putting the small branch leaders
into prisons they should have searched for the bosses, the true jew killers. That´s why Wiesenthal had to take the job.

 

I have read Vermillions postings again, and maybe there is not even so much dissent. Yes, there was a lot of approval for anti-Jewish actions, I agree.

But what exactly did the German population know, what did it approve, and where is proof that the majority thought so? You have mentioned these books and other sources, but can you give us a brief summary?

Btw, the quote was not TO, but BY the British Charge d'Affaires (is this Henderson in this case?!), transmitted to London. Nevertheless it's a mistake to omit his name.

[ 27. October 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: KnightMove ]

 

I've read Gellately's book and let me tell you that it is incredibly well-researched. You find foot notes every three words and there are no translation problems, since he quotes directly from German texts. And most of his claims completely conccur with Sir Ian Kershaw's books. And Kershaw is the world's MOST respected historian expert on the III Reich.

The Germans KNEW, and not only AGREED about the nazi terror measures, but SUPPORTED them enthusiatically.

 

Thats two threads in a row you have agreed with me Fred. Are you feeling ok today?

 

Maybe it's that green tobacco I smoked yesternight...

 

Well then, then please do what I also had asked Vermillion for... WHAT exactly did the Germans know, WHAT exactly did they support? HOW is it established what the majority was thinking?

 

Well then, then please do what I also had asked Vermillion for... WHAT exactly did the Germans know, WHAT exactly did they support? HOW is it established what the majority was thinking? [/QB][/QUOTE]

The reason I directed you at books is because this is a massive question, the subject of many texts, upon which I could lecture for three hours. In brief, the Germans knew about everything up to the Holocust itself, even if most did not know of the exterminations, they knew of the mass deportations, the shootings, the dissapearances, the removal of basic human rights, the public beatings and humiliations, the executions without trial for trivial crimes...

Letters from the Eastern Front were edited of most things by military censors, but generally they did not even bother to edit out the mass shootings and killing in the East by SS and Wehrmacht alike.

These events were publicised in the media, and they were publicised because the writers knew it was what the public wanted to hear. The Gestapo was inundated by informants and tips against Jews, friends of jews, people who frequented jewish shops, and this was not from a few tipsters but a significant portion of the public.

We have diaries, firsthand accounts, and most imporantly we have the invaluable Gestapo espionage information taken from the Berlin Subway, a resource which was used as a very efective public opinion poll, and demonstrated very clearly the will of the people on a great many issues.

You can dispute these things if you like, but they are amply demonstrated dozens of times over in a great many many texts. Texts you are going to have to read if you wish to further your knoledge of the topic.

 

Ok, now I see that I have to do so.

 

Hmmm...if that is the case then I must admit I start to think that Bomber Harris had a point..



Vermillion:

So what is new actually ? Sure they did know people were missing and people were giving hints for Gestapo not only on Jews, communists but anyone they didn´t like as " He spoke badly of Hitler " and *whoosh* he was gone to the camps by Gestapo. That was the name of the game.
The main question though stays as to how many knew of the gassing and burning of people, and if there is no new info on this then there´s nothing new on this front...to my knowledge as this has been discussed ever since the WW2 ended. So I think there´still no answer to that?



[ 28. October 2003, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

I have read G.'s „Willing Executioners“, many other almost thoroughly negative reviews, Christopher Brownings critique on G. and G.’s answer to him.

I especially liked G.‘s chapters dealing with the Death Marches and Police Battalion 101. However, I share the critic made by most historians, that he failed to convincingly support his basic conclusion that the reasons for the Holocaust were the German people, equipped with an eliminatory anti-Semitism, agreeing into a consensus to „elect“ a leader who leads them in a „national project“ to kill all European Jews. To make things worse, his statements and conclusions are contradicting in many places in the book.

Basic line, the book is “unhistorical”, neglecting most of the resultzs of serious Holocaust studies. But History science in general and Holocaust studies in particular is no playground for “big bang”-theories: You need to put all the pieces together and the result is always “grey” and not black and white.

G.’s „trick“ to support his point is always the same. He uses the „normal“ widespread anti-Semitism of Germans and the much existing cases for eliminatory German anti-Semitism as evidence to generalize it to the entire German society, while „forgetting“ or washing away a large number of serious questions, like:

What was so special about Germans that they – and only they – decided as a whole to go beyond „normal“ anti-Semitism to an extermination program? According to G. this was a sought for „revenge“ – revenge for what?

How comes that not only Germans (Ukrainians, Lithuanians, etc.) participated as willing executioners in the holocaust?

How comes that G. declares the Germans suddenly „healed“ from their eliminatory anti-Semite agenda in 1945? The people didn’t change!

If the Germans really agreed in an „extermination conspiracy“, why did the Nazis made so much efforts in trying to hide the extermination process for their own people? Why did the Germans start to exterminate the Jewry in 1941 and not already in the 1930s or at first given time? Why where the extermination camps built secretly in Poland an not in the very midst of the people who, according to G. wanted and planned this extermination?

What impact had the condition under Nazi dictatorship on the average German’s freedom to actively learn about and do something to help / stop the prosecution of the Jews?

How does the extermination of non-jewish, mentally sick, Gypsies and Communists fit into G. thesis? How Hitler’s fantasies about the “next” group of unworthy (clerics, slavs)
.
What was the impact of the brutalization caused by the war (which of course wasn’t only started to kill the Jews) in the indifference of many Germans towards the fate of the (in majority foreign) Jews?

The list of questions and consequences drawn out of G.’s thesis can go on and on, but I think the basic fallacy in G.‘s study is to provide answers to these 4 questions which are critical to make G.’s thesis somewhat credible:

1. What exactly made German anti-Semitism more eliminatory than, f.ex. Eastern European and French anti-Semitism? To G., it was THEY, the „ordinary Germans“ who somehow had a „cognitive model“ in their head to exterminate the European Jewry, it was „normal“ for them to do so, at least until May 1945. This is his key assumption in G.’s explanation of the Holocaust, but he fails to present any proof convincingly explaining why for God‘s sake it should have been so „normal“ for Germans to eliminate the Jews.

2. If G. is really right and all or at least the vast majority of Germans agreed and welcomed the extermination: Why did the Nazis tried everything to hide the Shoa to their own people, if those people brought the Nazis into power just for executing that extermination master planthat? Why did the Nazis limit the circle of perpetuators, why did they even invented a misleading euphemistic vocabulary for the extermination?

3. If all the existing evidence of the functionalist school of holocaust study (which, let me use the term „won“ about the intentionalist school), showing that there was no Holocaust master plan, is according to G., not valid why can’t he dismiss the studies by the Functionalists? Goldhagen claimes to have found “the answer” – and can’t disprove or convince the other holocaust experts.

4. How exactly did the “cognitive model” in the Germans suddenly vanished away after 1945? G. doesn’t say too much about that miracle except that democracy was a key element. But the Germans had a kind of democracy during the 1920s, but somehow the German people agreed to abandon that and replace it with a man who was willing to start a war to carry out the German’s Holocaust master plan with them. So why exactely can’t this happen to Germans anytime again? Or: can this happen ONLY to Germans?

Cheers,

[ 28. October 2003, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Checking the net on Gellately I read a few reviews that is about 10-12 on the mentioned book )

It seems his book has some ideas on nazi Germany

1.Family members and friends acting as denouncers
was typical behavior in nazi Germany: "flood of denunciations" , denunciatory atmosphere covered the country" and "the Nazi police were by and large reactive rather than active".

2. And almost everyone supported Hitler.

3. Gestapo in its everyday activity only needed to react to the information that the citizenry willingly provided it with .Gellately describes this as "mythical."


4.that the population became more anti-Semitic over time and that "at least non-violent forms of anti-Semitism gained Hitler's dictatorship more support than it lost"

5.the Nazi regime never intended to keep the German population fully in the dark on the death camps and gassing.

6."There was no organized resistance to mention"

7.the regime effectively scored propagandistic points with the civilian population by selectively informing them about its efforts to cleanse the society of criminals, political radicals, Gypsies, beggars, tramps, and other "social outsiders" and to put conquered enemy populations to work in the service of the Fatherland.

 

And what's your own opinion, Andy? If I may ask, about all these delicate matters. Maybe you've researched more about attrocities than most of us here. Do you buy Gellateley's or Browning's points?

I'll add my two cents later.

 

I didn't read Gellateley so I'm in no position to comment on it.

I consider Browning's findings extremely important. In my opinion, he is right on the money by identifying the psychology of human behavior, social group pressure and obidience as a key element in making men to beasts.

However, the psychological aspect is a key element, but only one element among several others which led to the Holocaust. Hitlerism was one of this other key elements: The Germans might have been as anti-semite as they could, they wouldn't have come to the idea to built Auschwitz. On the other hand, yes, fascism needs a "common interior enemy" to project hate on, but fascism per se isn't mass eliminatory, too (see Italy and other fascist regimes).

So bottom line, the road to Auschwitz was set on many things: First of all Hitler, the War, the Fascist Dictatory, the "wolf inside us" meeting at one point in time in one place. Additional preconditions were the strong German anti-semitism, the revolutionary enviroment (*), the "trimming" of the people into an obedient mass serving for the "bigger cause", the bolshevist threat, a mortified Germany who suddenly raise to power (=ego boost), the possibilities and needs of industrialization.

I know that might sound to much like an apologetic "accident - shit happens"-excuse, especially if written by a German. To my excuse i can say that my assesment is based on many works by respected non-German holocaust scholars like Hannah Arendt, Raul Hilberg, Yehuda Bauer, Alvin Rosenfeld, Saul Friedlander etc.

Cheers,


(*) I like Louis Aragon's fitting poem describing it, even if this was made in reference to the Bolshevist revolution: "The blue eyes of the Revolution burn with cruel necessity." I.e. any social-utopian movement who suddenly gains power by a revolution and has suddenly the administrative tools and the governmental power to make thier utopy reality, will result in mass murder.

[ 30. October 2003, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

They became more anti-semitic because of the devilish (and very clever) nazi propaganda. But this point doesn't mean that "violent forms of anti-Semitism gained Hitler's dictatorship more support than it lost".

 

Thank you for your response, Andy. I think I still need to read a bit more about social studies of nazi Germany. But in the last years I've radically changed my mind about the régime - the more you research, more sh#t comes out - and I've read some deep studies about fascism and totalitarism - which are not the same - and Hannah Arendt's amongst them. Gellately's book showed me a new perspective which has the same position than Kershaw. Those views make me think that some of Browning's statements are in some ways different than my position - I don't know if he's right or not...