Memory of the camps

Yes you're right, my bad on the Bismarck part, I always get those leaders mixed up! Germany did was the Nazi's to succed, not with any mass killings but with rebuilding Germany. The Nazi's had used such intimidation techniques in places where they had a lot of power, Berlin for instance. This not only extended to Jews but to regular Germans as well, shop keepers for instance were forced to join the party if they wished to keep their shops open. This wasn't very common in other areas where the Nazi's may not have been as popular.

I have often asked myself why people didn't stand up the party when such things were happening, the closest explanation I can find is that people were more preoccupied with the dreams of a rebuilt Germany. Propaganda does things to a person that they may never have done before. Does this justify anything? Very little if at all, but it is something to consider when looking back at the time period.

Heroes stand up for those of us who can't.

Those places did have some form of government setup, some as in the case of Rwanda IIRC did have policies that favored a certain minority over the other. These people didn't want to use them for slave labor, they simply wanted to kill, rape, pillage, etc. The Boer's are another example, the conditions in some of the camps were not ideal to say the least. I'm not very familiar with the camps used but I know their is a debate among those who claim they were being protected and others who claim they were being kept for more nefarious reasons.

I disagree, other nations also had the power to do something about the Nazi treatment of Germans, Jews, Communist, Gypsies, etc yet they themselves had done little to nothing, antisemitism did not start in the 1930s Germany but a concept that built over centuries of warfare. Japan is a interesting case..that's all I will say.

I know of that as well, some Wehrmacht units were found in Dachau, not as prisoners but as guards. Very few Wehrmacht members were given permission to do things such as find jobs in concentration camp. In the case of Dachau for instance, Wehrmacht soldiers who were injured and not fit for frontline duty were given jobs in these camps. I think a healthy guard would take his place on the front. Notice I did not say such things were completely hidden from the public, (the 15-25% number I gave above) this was one of the ways rumors spread about such things occurring, most of the rumors were passed off as "gossip", this may also explain the propaganda videos made by the Nazi's in 1944, there must have been issues for them to have to go on "rumor control".

I also mentioned the racial policies making a return after the party was "elected". If the German people were so confident in Hitler/the Nazi's ability to rid Germany of those he deemed "vermin", what was the point of creating propaganda for the German people in showing life in the concentration camps were good? As I explained above the closest theory I can find is about the rumors, I am completely open to hearing about other theories.

 

In a way, that is my point. Were dreams of a "rebuilt Germany" worth so much human suffering and misery? Did the Germans have the right to build their visions on the piles of corpses those visions entailed? Is any country or ideal worth the extermination of entire populations? Decent people must weigh their ideals and expectations against a realistic appraisal of what those hopes will cost; the Germans didn't. The methods the Nazis used to attain power have to be considered. No thinking person could reasonably expect them to suddenly give up the violence and intimidation once they were in power. It should have been obvious to the average German that once in power, teh Nazis would continue to be ruthless and brutal.

I don't think so, but I can't address the British camps which held the Boers. Maybe the British government did have some officially adopted policy of exterminating the Boers, though I have never read of it. My impression of the Rwanda slaughter was that far from being any kind of government organized event, it was prompted by tribalism and grass-roots hatred of ethnic differences. In Africa, ethic hatreds are arguably fueled by the scarcity of human necessities like food and water. There was nothing as compelling behind Germany's excesses.

Like what? The evacuation of an entire nation's population? Resettlement of two or three million Jews in other countries, simply because they were perceived as undesirable by Germans? What about the Poles and Ukrainians who were the targets of extermination, as well? Do we obligate say, Australia or Canada, or any country, to accept these populations simply because the Germans covet their land? The failure of other countries to resolve massive ethnic crises certainly does not absolve the Germans of the responsibility for creating those crises in the first place.

As for Japan, I consider their responsibility to be even more compelling since the average Japanese citizen's support for what was obviously a genocidal government approached unanimity. Saying that "Japan is a interesting case..that's all I will say." leads me to the conclusion you do not want to argue that case.

 

That is a question I'm afraid I don't have an answer for, I'm sure it varied from person to person. The Nazi's had some of the best propagandists of the era behind them, perhaps the effects of propaganda aren't as well felt now as it was during the war. Propaganda is what convinced a reserve of Red Army soldiers to commit some of the worst atrocities against civilians the army had seen in a conquered Germany. They were told of how inferior the Germans were and how not killing one was a great insult to not only the Soviet Union but to their mothers as well, if they didn't kill at least one German that day it was considered wasted. This sounds ridiculous but it was enough to convince some people, "first wave" soldiers and many generals, commanders, etc were not convinced by it, some even criticized the publishings openly.

Or it could be that the true extent of how far Hitler was willing to go was unrealized by many? The different levels of antisemitism discussed in the Wilheim thread earlier may be reference to this. To those more removed from the camps, perhaps the propaganda footage they were shown of happy inmates in resort conditions was enough to convince them otherwise?

A tribe can be considered a sort of primitive government, it was a policy used by colonialist rulers in conquered nations. Prefer the minority group over the majority, treat them well, have them do your work, give them power, when the colonial powers leave the tides turn and those who suffered under the minority group want revenge.

Well as stated above, embargoes against Germany, treats of invasion, etc. They are being down now with potential nuclear powers like North Korea, Iran, etc. I realize Europe didn't want war and the US was pretty pissed as is at Europe for not hearing them out during post WW1 hearings.

I wouldn't call it genocidal, the techniques used by the Japanese Imperial Army were not new, they were developed over centuries, thanks to isolationism, they were largely used internally within Japan. It was only when the outside world got involved did the true extent of Bushido become apparent. To this day certain elements of Bushido still remain in Japanese culture, most I can admire although their are a few which might need to be "rethought". I don't mind discussing Japan, infact I probably did in old threads, I just feel this specific thread is not the right place to do so.

 

I don't put much credence in that propaganda stuff about a "model" concentration camp fooling Germans. I think that propaganda was for the foreign press, not domesticate consumption. No one who ever saw the condition of the slave laborers would believe the Jews and Poles were languishing in "resort camps" anyway; it's just not credible.

But tribalism wasn't created by the colonial authorities, it went far back, maybe even into prehistory. Tribes competed for the best land, water, food, even women. The roots of ethnic hatred had nothing to do with government, it was a fundamental human condition. In fact it could be argued that one of the purposes of government is to ameliorate the effects of tribalism. Certainly the tensions in Rwanda couldn't legitimately be blamed on colonialism or modern government.

Not sure what you are getting at here, but it doesn't make any difference. Nothing that Germany experienced justified the extermination of entire populations or even the uprooting of people who] had been settled in lands for decades. Yes, the US was upset with Europe not only for shrugging off the suggestions of a magnanimous treatment of Germany, but also for failing to take the hard measures which would have nipped the Nazi movement in the bud. The US justifiably saw Germany as a European responsibility that was so poorly managed that it eventually required a world war to resolve.

What would you call the deliberate mass murder of millions of people of one ethnic group? If anything, the Japanese surpassed the Germans in brutality and inhumanity. What makes it even worse is that few, if any special organizations were organized to carry this policy out; the average ordinary Japanese soldier was expected to, and did, indulge in torture, rape and murder, sometimes apparently for no other reason than personal pleasure. What's more, it was common knowledge (after being reported in the news media) among Japanese civilians that such things were being perpetrated by their soldiers in China and elsewhere. There was no feeling of revulsion or even that anything wrong was being done.

The fact that the same "techniques" had once been used in Japan (a fact which I do not concede) does not in any way excuse their use in China. Whether or not Bushido was the origination of the Japanese attitude toward subject populations is immaterial. The fact is that Japanese behavior during WW II was, or should have bee, repugnant to any decent human being.

 

And why would that be? Germans were not the only ones in Europe who were antisemetic, infact, antisemtisim still exists to this day. If such were the case, propaganda wasn't needed at all. In reality it was, to help cloak entire nations to the true realities of what was going on. Propaganda was used heavily by the Nazi's, it was what convinced millions of people in occupied nations that fighting the Russians was a good idea (religiously motivated for some).

Ever wonder why before the Vietnam War, many had seen war as a glorious thing and a requirement of sorts to any able bodied man during the time of conflict? (When WW2 started there were cases of civilians emotionally tormenting those able to go to war who didn't, some men who failed to meet army requirements also committed suicide.) During Vietnam, the media got a bit more freedom and began publishing unedited footage of Vietnam, footage which showed war for what it really was. The treatment returning Vietnam veterans received and to a certain extent still receive is unfortunate. War is war, the difference being that before this the governments of the world had screened footage to show audiences to drum up support and boost morale, essentially, propaganda.

I didn't say that, I said tribalism was a primitive form of government around when those killings took place. Tribalism itself isn't something created by outsiders but those running the tribes could be "tainted" with indoctrination. The colonial powers definitely didn't do anything to help alleviate these issues, infact, they intentionally exploited them. Rwanda for instance was a program carried out by the military and local government.

I'm not saying the Holocaust was justified nothing remotely close to that, I am saying foreign nations were in a place of power and could have done something if they really wanted to. After Night of Broken Glass Goering and various other Nazi officials were furious because they realized this gave foreign nations the potential to attack or sanction Germany if they really wanted to, it was an event which they claimed could hurt foreign ties and decrease popularity. How much of this actually happened, I don't know. Broken Glass itself was committed under the "justification" that a German leader was assassinated by Jewish rebels and that something needed to be done.

The Japanese didn't target a ethnic group, they went after anyone they defeated in battle, even themselves. The root of Bushido does not mention raping or torturing those you have defeated. Their has been a controversy recently that that the IJA used propaganda to "twist" what Bushido was, not all Japanese soldiers had done such things, some simply used it as a no surrender, die with honor, etc cause. Others dabbled with everything, some none at all. Special units were used, look into a camp called Unit 731 used specifically to carry out the really heinous stuff. Haven't heard about the atrocities being known at home so early on, can you link me to them?

To a certain extent, I've answered this above in your previous quote.

 

You need to do a lot more general reading in history. You give way too much credit to "propaganda" as a tool used by unscrupulous governments to get people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. And you generalize way too much as to motivations and people's reactions between different periods. Viet Nam has nothing to do with WW II. Pacificism became almost universal among the general populations of the countries which had experienced heavy fighting in WW I. It had nothing to do with propaganda, but was spread by stories the returning veterans told. War suddenly became very inglorious in the 1920's. There were cases of people "tormenting" able-bodied men who refused to go to war,even before WW I, ever read the story of "The White Feathers"?

I don't care if the Germans were not the only ones to be antisemitic in Europe; they were the only ones to embrace a government policy of exterminating the Jews, and any other population who got in the way of their "dreams". They were the only ones to espouse a brutally inhumane regime of torture, starvation, and death. They were the only ones to create an entire dogma aimed at justifying such heinous acts.

You implied it was the colonial government that used tribalism to control the native population of colonial territories. What bearing that has on the Rwanda slaughter, I have no idea. My point was that tribalism, which caused the Rwanda genocide, has been around a lot longer than anything which could legitimately be called a "government" and still persists today despite efforts to stamp it out. Tribalism is the natural result of human competition for life's necessities and has nothing to do with your rather quaint theories.

The fact that governments other than the German government, failed to take actions ameliorating the effects of the German policies of racial extermination, starvation, torture and mass murder certainly does not change the fact that primary responsibility lies with the German for creating those problems in the first place. Attempting to somehow excuse the Germans, or diminish their responsibility, for what they did by pointing out that other governments did nothing to save those who became victims is illogical,

Beyond that, you haven't answered the question, just what could other governments have reasonably done to stop the Germans, short of war, Given the German determination to exterminate the Jews and other "undesirables", it's unlikely that anyone could have done anything to save more than a small fraction of the potential victims.

You would have a very difficult time convincing the Chinese of that statement. At least 20 million Chinese died as a direct result of deliberate Japanese policies. Are you claiming that the Japanese didn't rape of torture their victims before murdering them? I'm not particularly interested in what motivated the Japanese government to formulate the policies it did, nor what led them to encourage individual Japanese soldiers to carry out those policies, It's an undeniable fact that the Japanese were responsible for at least as many deaths in Asia as were the Germans in Europe.

I'm fully aware of Unit 731 and it's role in the deaths of thousands of victims. The fact is that is only one of the agencies of death and torture the Japanese employed to carry out their policies; an interesting example, but by no means unique or particularly efficient in killing the victims of the Japanese. IN fact the huge majority of Chinese murdered by the Japanese died at the hands of regular Japanese Army units.

I don't understand why you think the Japanese actions were justifiable or at least excusable, because they were motivated by some ancient code of conduct. What the Japanese perpetrated in Asia is completely unacceptable by any decent human being.

As for the Japanese public being aware of these issues, I'll check for sources. I do recall reading several articles and books claiming that Japanese newspapers were allowed to report on atrocities in China, including the "Rape of Nanking". I also am aware that some Japanese soldiers wrote letters to friends and family describing the atrocities they had participated in; it seemed to be a matter of pride for some of them.
In any case, the average Japanese civilian was not only aware of these events, they seemingly supported them.

I don't consider, "They did it because of Bushido and therefore it' was Ok." much of an answer.

 

Yes "DA", the poster "Mehar" would have a tough time convincing the Chinese of that. As well as the Okinawan people, the Ainu, the Filipinos, the Thai, the Burmese, the Koreans, the Manchurians, or other "non-Japanese" asians as well.

 

I have used various explanations, propaganda, levels of antisemitism, excuses used to justify actions by the party (I'm not saying they were justified, just saying it may have been enough for some people to believe), etc, you have simply inferred that everyone was the same based off a sample population referred to in the book you referenced above. I have also never said the entire population was oblivious to the atrocities committed be they on the front lines or in camps, I even detailed how some of these found their way into society, more specifically, those who lived away from the death camps. I have also linked to first hand accounts of clashes that started between military and civillian populations over atrocities.

I know about the tormenting as well, I simply used World War 2 as an example.

I think you better read a bit more about the persecution of Jews in Europe, the Wikipedia articles are pretty well referenced and could serve as a good starting point.

Persecution of Jews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jews and Judaism in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many European nations during the black death for instance, it was blamed on the Jews since most of them were not getting sick. The reason for this was due to Judaism rules towards keeping clean (cleaning your house before a festival, eating Kosher and drinking from pure water sources, etc), to your average European of the time (even the educated ones) this was linked to witchcraft and various raids, killings, etc resulted from this because people thought the Jews were poising the water supplies, in reality, they did no such thing.

The following link (courtesy of LRusso216 in another thread) also talks about the expulsion of Jews from some areas, this particular piece mostly talks about Berlin which gives some support to the theory that levels of antisemitism varied from region to region.

John C. G. Rohl. Kaiser Wilhelm II and German anti-semitism | WWI Resource Centre

I didn't say tribes, I said minority groups were used to do the "dirty work" in a sense, this only increased tensions among the two groups. When Rwanda happened it was a government backed inactive complete with the government run military. Others banded together in the form of groups, partisans, etc to either help the military or attack them. I don't think tribes played a huge role in Rwanda, I think they were more prevalent in Somalia, Darfur, etc.

This is theory? No. Reality? Yes, this is how those African conflicts were carried out.

It is you who claims collective responsibility is a fact simply because those people had the chance to do something but did nothing, instead they accepted it as the status quo. I'm not saying this is completely wrong has many eventually just continued on with normal life, those who lived near the camps also did little in the form of investigation when unusual things would take place.

After the Night of Broken glass the world was in a position to do something, various Pro Nazi movements in Europe and North America lost popularity, even people within Germany were shocked at what happened despite harboring some antisemetic feeling (take the case of Wilhelm II for instance). I'm not saying they completely did nothing, they did do something but everyone was in a position to do more (as outlined above). I should also point out that I don't blame foreign nations, all Germans, etc entirely I was simply using it as a response to your collective responsibility argument.

I did on various occasions, embargos, threats of war, etc were all plausible at one point, some were even close to being enacted. Bombing the railyards leading to various concentration camps has been touched on before (not in this thread I think), dropping fliers over Germany in 1944, etc. Although I doubt the latter will appeal to you since you believe a majority of Germany had already known about the death camps and I have not been able to convince you otherwise.

I have clarrified my statement below.

I'm fully aware of Unit 731 and it's role in the deaths of thousands of victims. The fact is that is only one of the agencies of death and torture the Japanese employed to carry out their policies; an interesting example, but by no means unique or particularly efficient in killing the victims of the Japanese. IN fact the huge majority of Chinese murdered by the Japanese died at the hands of regular Japanese Army units.

I didn't say that, at least, I don't think I did. The original prinicples of Bushido do not touch much on what the IJA did. There has been a controversy ever since the war ended that the miltary advisers without the knowledge of the Emperor started to "change" some of these rules. I think this may have started in the 19th century but I am not 100% sure.

As for the Japanese public being aware of these issues, I'll check for sources. I do recall reading several articles and books claiming that Japanese newspapers were allowed to report on atrocities in China, including the "Rape of Nanking". I also am aware that some Japanese soldiers wrote letters to friends and family describing the atrocities they had participated in; it seemed to be a matter of pride for some of them.
In any case, the average Japanese civilian was not only aware of these events, they seemingly supported them.

I don't consider, "They did it because of Bushido and therefore it' was Ok." much of an answer.[/QUOTE]

Please do, I haven't followed the civillian population of Japan much when it came to this stuff (other than the defenses enacted during a imminent Allied invasion) so I'd be interested in hearing more of it.

That's not what I meant, DA claimed it was based on ethnic races when some of the "techniques" used on the local populations were also used against American, British, Australian, etc prisoners of war and in some cases against Japanese soldiers who either disobeyed soldiers or simply got on the bad side of a officer. It should also be noted that during this time period many officers in civillian life were poor, treated badly by the upperclass, etc. These officers were now in charge of the sons (most of which had nothing to do with the actions of their fathers) of many of those who treated them badly, they used this as an opportunity to exact revenge.

 

I simply do not think you can explain away the participation by many Germans, or the acceptance of the Nazi's policies by many more, by resorting to "propaganda", or "level's of antisemitism" (whatever that means), or by circumstances of distance from the sites where the brutal policies were carried out. I believe most of the German population who lived in cities or even large towns knew of the camps, at least to the extent that they existed and their purpose. Moreover almost every German had to know of the murderous intentions their leaders espoused towards not only Jews, but Poles, Slavs, and other ethnic groups.

My statement was that Germany was the only country to respond to the antisemitism by establishing a policy of racial extermination. Moreover it was the only country to resort to racial extermination of whole populations, many of them not Jewish at all. Those two statements still stand as fact.

I actually regard antisemitism as rather irrelevant to the question of German atrocities during the war, since so many of Germany's victims had nothing to do with Jews or Jewishness.

Whatever. I believe we've discussed this issue enough to conclude it is not relevant to what happened in Germany in WW II. Tribalism or whatever, the Rwanda slaughter had a much different genesis that the Holocaust.

No, that's wrong. The Germans shared responsibility because they had a obligation to ensure that a decent and humane government governed them. It was their responsibility to prevent the kind of policies that the Nazis all too easily established in Germany. Other countries, once the Nazis seized control of Germany, could hardly be expected to evacuate and care for five or six million European Jews, fifteen million Poles, and God knows how many Ukrainians. Moreover, by the time Hitler started his campaign against humanity, nothing short of all out war could have halted the Germans in their determination to depopulate Easter Europe. The Germans simply cannot escape responsibility by claiming nobody really tried to stop them in their murderous intentions.

None of these things should have been necessary, and at any rate they would have been ineffectual in stopping the Germans or deflecting them from their purpose. The primary responsibility still lies with the German population.

Excuse me, but that's My statement.

Then why bring it up at all? The Japanese government and military clearly encouraged beastly acts by the average Japanese soldier and by conscripts. And the Emperor, contrary to your statement was well aware of what was happening from at least 1926 and encouraged the military in executing the brutality and murder. The Japanese Royal court, according to Herbert Bix, "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" was fully implicated in, and fully aware of, the atrocities committed by their forces in Asia.

So, I'm still waiting to hear a reason why the Japanese government and Japanese population shouldn't be held fully accountable for their acts of mass murder in WW II.

 

How much of this is hard cold and fact and how much is simply opinions derived from readings? Of course they knew about the camps because the death camps were essentially retrofitted concentration camps. The question at hand is did they know of the mass killings being perpetrated within them? I'm arguing very few did and you're arguing a majority did.

When Hitler would address people in regards to the Jewish question, what kind of terminology would be used? This is a honest question, I know the party was more "open" about their plans internally.

You are correct,

Rwanda was relevant since it had to do with a government back genocide, I wanted your opinion on it, does collective guilt still apply?

Because the Nazi's ran a fair political campaign that didn't have anything to do with intimidation, assassinations, and the likes right? They didn't cheat their way in either right? They didn't use threats to force up party membership either right? I guess the Germans could have just voted in someone else during the next election, which was when? When the Germans disagreed with the policies of the government I suppose they could have gone to the politicians and complained...only to leave with a bullet in their heads. At least the media still had their full freedoms...to report only on what the party told them to report on. Students and other civilians who protested were rounded up and sent "away".

Hmm.

The Nazi's had complete control and they used some horrible techniques to get it, they manipulated those that stood in their way until they too were no longer a problem. In Berlin, shopkeepers were forced to sign up for the party if they wanted to continue running their businesses in a safe manner. They have a memorial in Berlin dedicated to the politicians who the Nazi's had murdered to gain total control.

A majority of the events perpetrated by the party were "covered up" by some other event. After Night of the Long Knives, people were told a coup was being formed by Rohm and others with the intent of throwing the country into turmoil. During Broken Glass, it was a Jewish group assassinating political leaders with the intent of hurting Germany, the government told the world that they had to pay fines and be taught a lesson for that. There was no free press to investigate these issues, you simply had to believe what the government told you. How many of us can say we question the government? If it weren't for the press, would we be aware of internal scandals?

It obviously would have done something since Goering and other Nazi officials were furious and scared that such things could happen. A Germany that was cut off from importing and exporting resources to large markets would have to cave sometime. No country is able to produce everything it needs with efficiency.

I don't understand.

Who is trying to justify? I simply told you of the "unique situation" that turned out in Japan and how people used it to further their own means.

I did a quick search on the book you referenced, it seems to be getting mixed reviews with the critics arguing the historical accuracy and potential distortions.

Being "fully aware" of atrocities committed by ones army means very little, does the book give a number statistic? I don't think their is a single army in history who came out of a conflict with their "hands clean", more specifically, where not even a single person committed a atrocity even something like rape for instance.

 

Yes, that's the crux of the issue. I'm saying it's impossible to have the things going on in Germany as they did for several years and not have word of those events leak to the general population. Maybe the majority didn't know all the details, but it was certainly aware that people were dying by the hundreds of thousands as a result of their government's policies. You're arguing that unless one lived within sight (or scent) of a death camp, one wouldn't have any hint of what was happening; I think that is a naive and incorrect position.

When Hitler gave a public speech which would, in all probability, be reported in the foreign press, his words were veiled, but still distinctly identifiable as threats against certain classes of people. When he gave private speech's, say to industrial leaders or semi-official Party organizations, he was less careful in his terminology; the words he uttered on these occasions often got wide circulation by word of mouth. However, Hitler often left it to his underlings like Goering and Speer to make blunt and completely candid public statements announcing the more questionable government policies. I have no doubt that any mature person, living in Germany between 1933-1945, would have heard and seen enough evidence to conclude that the German government was intent on mass murder.

I disagree. The Government may have been ineffectual, but it didn't instigate the Rwanda killing. That was the result of ethnic hatreds with roots going back generations among tribal groups. It didn't help that the tribal group which did most of the killing held a dominant position in the government, but that wasn't the cause of the crisis. The whole situation in Rwanda was significantly different than the one in Germany. But, yes since everyone knew what was happening, and the perpetrators were not stopped or even reported, everyone in that tribal group bears some responsibility.

No one could believe one's eyes and ears. One could believe what one saw on the streets when the Nazis shot down their political opponents. One could believe Hitler when he promised to drive the Jews from Europe by any means. Of course, in the case of the Germans, believing those things actually favored the Nazis because the Germans liked hearing those things. It was a question of putting what was perceived as one's own welfare above the lives of mere Jews and other sub-humans.

The Nazi Party didn't consolidate it's power until 1934; prior to that time, had the German public stood up and said the Nazi's policies and practices are wrong, the Nazis could have become simply a small footnote in German history. But that isn't what happened. The Germans tolerated the negative things about the Nazis because they liked the things the Nazis said and didn't care if he Jews and Poles had to die to secure those things.

Which proves what? Goering was hardly a sagacious judge of foreign policy. The man was wrong more often than he was correct in evaluating the reactions of foreign countries. As for exporting, I urge you to read "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze. Germany's exports were a shambles after it defaulted on huge loans by the US and Britain. Germany was essentially cut off from Exporting and importing but managed to stumble along economically for years by monetary sleight of hand, and by looting Austria's and Czechoslovakia's foreign exchange.

You apparently. Or maybe I'm wrong on that score?

If I'm wrong, then I gather you agree that the Japanese were bent on genocide in China and other places in Asia? There's no question that they deliberately tortured, starved and murdered millions of Chinese and others, the only point of contention between us seems to be why they did it, which really is irrelevant. To my way of thinking, there is no justification for killing something like 20 million people.

Good for you. If you can't directly counter an argument, it's always good strategy to attack the authority cited as support. So I guess you found some critics who don't agree with his conclusions? Anyone can criticize a book, whether that criticism is well founded depends on who is doing the criticizing and who is the criticized. So let me establish Bix's credentials;

Herbert P. Bix, Ph.D.
Professor (Joint with Sociology) & Vice Chair,
Director of Graduate Studies,
Department of History,
Binghamton University
Binghamton, New York 13902-6000

Professor Herbert Bix is a Japan historian and student of the political, military, and social history of 19th and 20th century Japan. He has taught undergraduate courses on all periods of Japanese history and on Western historiography of Japan. At the graduate level he shall be offering seminars on war crimes law and American wars in Asia, comparative monarchy, and comparative constitutions.

Bix works with students on topics related to Japan and East Asia, and and particularly welcomes applications from students interested in studying modern Japanese political, diplomatic, and military history. His current research centers on the Asia-Pacific War and its aftermath, Western images of the Showa emperor Hirohito, and Japanese constitutional thought.



From the Binghampton University Faculty biography page; Faculty Spotlight - Dr. Bix


"Herbert P. Bix earned his Ph.D in history and Far Eastern languages from Harvard University. For the past thirty years, he has written extensively on modern and contemporary Japanese history in leading journals in the United States and Japan. He has taught Japanese history at a number of American and Japanese universities, most recently at Harvard as well as Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo, and is a professor of history and sociology at the State University of New York at Binghampton."

From "About the Author", "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan"

In addition, Bix's work is extensively quoted by such authors as John Dower in "War Without Mercy" and Richard Frank in "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire". Bix is also a Pulitzer Prize winning author and the book in question won the National Book Critics Circle Award. Bix also speaks and writes fluently in Japanese

Bix's book "Hirohito And the Making of Modern Japan", is heavily footnoted and includes 95 pages of notes. While it may be possible to quibble with some of Bix's minor conclusions, his arguments and their supporting data are overwhelmingly convincing. Bix himself is considered the Dean of Japanese studies in this country.

Are you serious? Being aware of atrocities committed by forces under one's control and doing nothing about it makes one complicit in those atrocities and will get one hung as a war criminal if justice is done. How many statistics do you need to see to believe that mass murders occurred in China under the Japanese occupation? I assume, you, as an educated person, have read something about the Rape of Nanking? I believe some of the members of this board had families who experienced Japanese occupation during WW II, maybe we should ask them?

And are we back to excusing Japanese atrocities with that tired old saw that "other armies did it too"? Just to humor you, why don't you take a look at these links.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

Japanese Army's Atrocities -- Nanjing Massacre

Japanese Atrocities Committed Against Filipinos in WWII

Japanese Atrocities during World War II in Philippines

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/introductory-essays.pdf

 

I live in Montana, with a population of under a million souls and I personally know two persons who are from Germany during the Nazi era. I also know three other people whose parents were from that era in Germany, even though they were born post-war. One in Germany and two in the states. And those people all knew of the "regular" camps, but since the Aktion Reinhard (extermination) camps weren't in their areas, they were largely unaware of those; but they knew of those camps which were in their neighborhoods. All the thousands of KZs and sub-camps ended up being places the prisoners died, but that wasn't their sole reason to exist as it was with the (five?) "Reinhard" camps.


Back in high-school my best friend’s Mom had worked at Buchenwald, near Weimar where her family lived. She was in her early twenties when the war broke out, and as her father was a disabled WW1 veteran and her mother was deceased, her fiancee had been killed in the charge to Dunkirk she needed a job. It was after his death that she took a job as a clerk typist for the SS in early 1941. After the war she married an American soldier, and that is how she ended up in Montana. A nicer and sweeter woman you would never meet.

Gertrude was aghast at some of the things she was witness to, but she had been "warned" to not discuss camp business at home. She consequently never spoke a word of it to her father, even though he hated Jews and Russians and cursed them openly, she didn’t want to take the chance of jeopardizing her job by even telling him.

She was released from duty after the US bombing of the camp in late 1944, as the need for her skills was no longer needed. She never returned, but the camp conditions had deteriorated in the nearly three years she spent there, and the crematorium had started running nearly 24 hours a day to take care of the corpses which were accumulating.

When the war was over, she was "de-natzified" and her typing and filing skills got her a job with the occupation forces. Her father had passed away during the war, so she was a single female with no family, and it wasn’t long before she fell in love with an American sergeant in the motor-pool, and ended up in Montana when he was discharged.


Then after my own Mom passed on in 1973, my father married a lady who had been a friend of them both for years. She and her husband had played Bridge with my parents for years. She too was a "war bride", her husband died in 1969, and after my Mom died, they got married. My step-Mom is a great woman, and she was just a teenager when the war ended. Thirteen I think, but as a "dairy farmer’s daughter" she had really seen nothing of most of the camps. She knew of one of them however since she lived in a farming district near Celle which Bergen-Belsen was north of.

Her father delivered milk and eggs to the Germans running the camp, and she went to the camp with him on occasion. As a result she asked her father what the "awful smell" was in the camp, he explained that it was full of Russian POWs, and Russians were worse than pigs and even pigs stunk. Her father had fought the Russians in WW1, and had no love of Slavic peoples.

She accepted that and never questioned any further. It wasn’t until post-war that she knew anything about the place really, and I believe her. She was so ashamed about the camps she learned of after the war, I can imagine as a young girl she knew little if anything about them.

But both of them knew the camps existed, one worked in one, and one lived near one. My friends parents also didn't claim they "never knew', they claimed they were powerless to do anything about them. That is neither here nor there, what a private person feels he/she can do is dependent upon the government under which they live I guess.

 

I think to fully realize the scope of the Holocaust, and to actually learn something from it, a lesson from history so to speak, you must learn why it was different from Nanking, Cambodia, Darfur, etc.
The Holocaust was the culmination of a two thousand years of hatred and prejudice towards the Jewish people by the people of Europe. Hitler hated the Jews, there is no doubt, but I think it is very important to understand that he didn't just "bamboozle" the German people into hating them as well. People didn't just read Mein Kampf and decide that the Jews were at the root of all the problems in the world, this had been going on for centuries-read Chaucer.
In the nineteenth c. a sort of renaissance began taking shape in Europe-bigotry of all types was falling out of favor among the academia and ruling classes. In Germany Wilhelm II's parents Frederick III and Princess Victoria were outspoken in their opposition to anti-semitism, probably under the liberal influence of Pricess Victoria's mother and namesake, the Queen of England. Wilhelm was insulated somewhat from his parent's liberalism by Bismark and after 1888 (when he came to power after the death of Frederick), he came under the spell of one of the most famous of European antisemites Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an English born German, married to the composer Richard Wagner's daughter. Chamberlain wrote Foundations of the Nineteenth Century which outlined a future struggle between the Jews and the Aryan peoples of the world. This took European Academia by storm and a massive resurgence of anti-semitism was born. Willhelm made the book mandatory reading for his officer corps. After WWI Chamberlains widow helped finance the Nazis and was an avid supporter of Adolf Hitler.
The lesson here, is of course that racial or cultural bigotry have no place in academia-once that takes place all reason is lost and it becomes easier and easier to rationalize atrocities. It becomes like a national drug-the more you kill, the stronger your rational has to become-and the stronger the rational you have the more imperative it becomes that you kill.

Hitler didn't just have a few accomplices here, he had hundreds of thousands-maybe even millions of accomplices.

Anyway-sure there have been other cases of terrible atrocities being metted out on defensless people, but it is difficult to find a parallel to the Holocaust because it was carried out by a supposed civilized, 1st line nation. It was a deliberate, industrialized attempt to eradicate an entire people from the earth. Nearly half of the Jews on Earth were killed in the Holcaust.

Eisenhower ordered the film documentation of the camps because he knew that in the future their would be those who denied that this happened.

 

You are wrong in your assumption, along with that I have from the beginning argued that word of this would leak out from camp guards, those who lived near the camps, etc. Letters sent to families by prison guards about the horrors within the camp, soldiers and other civilians who may have seen things in passing, there were many ways it could have happened and the figures are roughly at 15-25% in terms of varying degrees of knowledge. This may also explain why the "model camps" from above were "opened" to the public in a sense, perhaps they didn't want rumors to spread?

At times he would use words like "removed" which can mean a whole lot of things other than mass killings but I do agree that perhaps some of the terminology was more clear cut. Also keep in mind, Jews were constantly being "removed" (aka pushed out of) a few German towns and cities such as Berlin for instance, at times these happen at least once every decade. It was largely instigated by religious leaders, the site I linked to above about Wilhelm II talks about this in greater detail. These leaders themselves didn't use "nice language" when referring to "The Jewish Question" either. Despite this the Jewish population in cities would never decline, either they weren't all moved out or they came back.

Following Broken Glass I have heard of some reports that Jews were allowed to return in some areas solely to make it look like things were "normal" if that makes sense. If such were the case I could see how someone may have thought it was "just another event". Can anyone follow up on this?

The policies were government backed if I recall correctly, North American nations had sent troops to these nations either directly or courtesy of the UN. Given the posting times I assume you are also from North America, because this I asked if we too could share collective responsibility has this killings were made clear from the word go and attempts to "fix" things were made as well.

Err yes, they were told those people targeted were planning on hurting Germany, I thought I explained this above? If you see someone running from the police you automatically think they did something wrong. If one of the officers tells you that the man running is a murderer odds are you would believe them, and why not? The officer is obviously in a position of authority, why would you need to question them? You go home, turn on the TV and you might see a news report about the arrest along with additional information regarding the suspects, where it happened, how it happened, and sometimes even those involved. If you were to question what you saw at all the odds are it would be because of the media. In Nazi Germany, the media only told you what the party wanted them to.

There's a reason why all those sci fi settings involving some sort of a all knowing government take some "cues" from the Nazi era. Stormtroopers in the Star Wars universe are based off the German stormtroopers of World War 1, post war, Nazism, World War 2, etc. Some reports even claim a certain batch of the clones have blue eyes and blond hair. Some of the other ranks/uniforms in the universe are also based of those in the Wehrmacht and S.S.

Yes, they did and they were killed for it. The purpose of Night of the Long Knives was to do just that, take out the fiercest opponents to the Nazi party. Convince the people that these people were out to hurt Germany and Germans and you came in just in time to stop them. (which they did thanks to the propaganda wing of the party) "The fearless Adolf Hitler battered, bloody, and in torn clothes in the midst of enemy gunfire burst the door down and killed the evil Rohm seconds before he pressed the trigger to detonate the Reichstag!" As an example of how something might have been spun, I doubt it was like this but you get the idea.

Goring was in charge of the rearmament of Germany and head honcho behind the four year plan. What would happen if a embargo was placed on Germany? Ask Cuba, a nation who until recent years was very limited in how much they could buy since costs for nations selling to Cuba increases and so does the cost of buying. The book you are referencing also touches on Goring's response to the events.

Nope you are wrong, I said no such thing. I do agree that a genocide had taken place in Asia, I don't recall saying otherwise. Keep in mind however that "Asians" were not the only ones "treated" to such conditions, various prisoners of war were also given the same treatment by their captors. I do remember hearing stories about a few Americans at Unit 731. Hitting a bit "closer to home" in a sense since my grandfather was in the Indian Army at that time, those Indians captured by the Japanese who refused to fight for Bose's army were also given "special treatment".

Attack the source? I made it clear that I did a quick search for the book and that controversy was brewing, I didn't choose a side did I? I simply made clear that the "community" had such polarizing thoughts on the book.

As an aside, name me a single historian who in his or her book have written something bad about themselves or made claims that their books have been criticized for accuracy.

Why do you always make it seem like I am denying these events? Either I am not explaining myself well or you are simply trigger happy. You claimed their was knowledge about this events back home going as far up as the Emperor himself. So what? With the current conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc their have also been reports of soldiers doing things they shouldn't for various nations. What I'm basically getting at is it isn't that hard to know such things occur especially in this day and age. You claim everyone had done these things and that back home in Japan everyone knew about this and celebrated it like it was great achievement.

I don't recall excusing or justifying anything, I realize war is never clear cut, black and white, etc which is why I urge that all sides of an issue be explored for the full picture, not just one like many people like to do, I try to do this in my postings as much as possible.

Thanks for sharing, I have heard similar stories from those who lived through the era as well. It's also the point I am trying to make in this debate.

 

Am I? Is that your opinion or can you cite some authorities?

Only 15%-25% of Germans knew about the camps and the mass murder, torture and starvation that was imposed on the victims? Just how was that determined? By asking the Germans if they knew about the camps before or during the war? I'm sure they are going to say, "Sure, we knew about them, So what?"

At times he also used phrases like "Jews will cease to exit in Europe". How anyone would interpret that is open to question, but it didn't seem to bother the Germans who probably didn't care what it meant, as long as the Jews were gone.

After an event like Krystalnacht, no one is going to think things, especially where Jews are concerned, are "normal" in Germany.

I read in "The Wages of Destruction" where Goering was extremely upset about Krystalnacht, not because of the destruction of Jewish property and loss of life, but because Goering was going to have to pay for the thousands of tons of expensive destroyed plate glass out of the Four Year Plan. As it was the Jews were forced to pay the costs of the cleanup.

Yeah, I'm from North America. As for intervening in an African country, it's not an option for any countries in North America. We have too much experience of intervening in local wars only to be criticized by Europeans and Asians for being "imperialists". Of course, when we don't intervene, we are criticized for "doing nothing". And sure, we share "collective guilt" no matter what we do, or don't do, that's a given.

No I wouldn't. I don't automatically believe anything a government employee tells me, and that includes especially cops. In fact, if someone in government tells me something is a fact, I automatically suspect the opposite is true.

So the Germans were just doing what they were told, is that it? That sounds a lot like the at excuse, "I was just following orders. Why is it Europeans have so much reverence for authority?

That was only true after the Nazis consolidated their control of the state in late 1934. Until then there were opposition news papers which told a different story. And it was certainly not true in the years before Hitler came to power.

Very fanciful, but neither here nor there.

LOL! You are very imaginative. First, Roehm was part of the Nazi Party, so how does the rest of the Party spin the story that Roehm was going to hurt Germany; they can't. Second, Roehm was killed because Hitler feared he was gaining too much power and saw him as a potential rival for leader of the Party. What the Germans were told was that Roehm and the SA were corrupt and that Roehm was homosexual. Every one knew that the SA had been purged because Hitler wanted to keep power divided among his henchmen to protect his own position.

Which doesn't make a bit of difference relative to what I posted about the German economy being a shambles and not susceptible to being afftected by economic sanctions.

Actually, what you said was that the Japanese treatment of the Chinese was "genocide" because it wasn't racially motivated, or words to that effect. The fact that Japan treated others of different races similarly makes absolutely no difference. I stated that the Japanese treatment of the Chinese was genocide because it was racially motivated; the Japanese believed all other races were inferior to the Japanese, just as the Germans believed they were the "Super race".

Speaking of hitting closer to home; my father served in the Pacific War from the first day to the last and risked capture by the Japanese numerous timees. I have no doubt he would have been treated just as badly as the Chines were, if not worse. My wife is Chinese; her parents and older siblings (but not here as she was not born until 1950) experienced the Japanese occupation of Borneo. I have heard their stories and cannot begin to imagine what they went through.

So I ask, if it is not your intention to excuse the behavior in WW II, just what is your point" What does it matter that the Japanese treated pretty much everyone badly? My position is that the Japanese committed genocide against the Chinese by murdering or starving to death 20-30 million Chinese. This is genocide on an even greater scale than the Germans perpetrated in Europe. You may, or may not agree with my numbers (they are from government documents), but do you agree that the Japanese committed genocide in China?

And thereby implied that Bix wasn't to be trusted; that is called attacking the source. You say you didn't take a side; does that mean you have no opinion on Hirohito's role and subsequent guilt in WW II? You certainly seemed to be of he opinion that Hirohito wasn't responsible for the Japanese atrocities committed in his name when you stated that knowing of such atrocities "means very little".

I know of none. I was merely quoting Bix's achievements and scholarship, which can easily be checked out on the internet, to establish his outstanding credentials as a Japan scholar

Well, I read something about Frank being criticized for inaccuracy in his books, in his book "Downfall". It was an absurd accusation and he pretty well demolished it. Bix, to the best of my knowledge, has never been attacked for inaccuracy in his data' he is just too careful not to open himself to that charge. He does acknowledge that not everyone agrees with his conclusions. To be honest however, I think that is because no one else is as knowledgeable about Japanese history as he is.

Because you make a statement challenging something I have asserted and then when I call you on it, you claim you never said it, or that I misunderstood what you were asserting. I keep having to ask exactly what your position or opinion is. You never seem to want to defend anything you write and we keep going around on what you meant, until it's so confused that the point is lost.

So I ask again, if you are not trying to justify or apologize for Japanese atrocities in Asia in WW II, what is your point? I have asserted that Hirohito was involved and aware of the atrocities committed by his forces and held the power to stop them if he wanted. Moreover, the Japanese people were able to read, in newspapers, and in letters from soldiers overseas details of war crimes committed against the Chinese, and made no protest against such things. To me that makes them complicit in the crimes if only after the fact.

If you don't think those positions are correct, state what you believe. Just to be clear, it doesn't make any difference to me if Bushido was involved or, in fact, what the motive was.

Twenty to thirty million dead Chinese men, women and children, isn't clear cut, black and white? What is ambiguous about genocide? So if you aren't trying to justify or excuse the Japanese for such behavior, what are you trying to do? What is your point? What is there to "explore" about war crimes? Do you wish to assert that genocide in China didn't happen? Please try to be clear, it's exasperating to have you make statements and when challenged on them, back off claiming you didn't say that.

 

Wrong about your assumption about my stance on this issue, I referred to myself in the first person immediately follow that along with referencing your postings about my stance.

The statistics were/are that roughly 15-25% of the German civillian population had some knowledge of the death camps to with varying degrees of accuracy. The US army alone had conducted various investigations, questioning, interrogating, etc, for years after the war ended they conducted various surveys about antisemitism, some by themselves and other independent sources. They didn't randomly pick 5 people out of a crowd and call it a day like some people assume.

You assume way to much, "oh this probably didn't bother them", "they probably didn't mind", etc. I can't argue with normative statements. If similar events were happening in previous years it isn't exactly out of the question that such a thing could have happened. Note how since the beginning I have never claimed this was the primary reason, just something one might need to consider.

I never said they were furious because they cared for Jews, I said from the very beginning that they were furious because of the political ramifications it could impose on the nation of Germany.

Canada keeps more of a peacekeeping role than the United States, the United States did intervene in a few African conflicts only to withdraw after the public outcry over things such as Black Hawk Down.

Not everyone thinks like that, many people have no reason to second guess police officers, soldiers, not so much politicians in this day and age, etc.

If only we all had your powers to second guess, perhaps then the world would be a much better place...

The Nazi's put pressure on von Hindenburg to limit the powers of the press, this was of course before Hindenburg had died. This bill was passed very early in 1933 if I recall correctly. The "Nights of" happened in mid 1934 a few weeks before von Hindenburg's death. This alone severly restricted what could safely be reported on, it was only the beginning.

Ok...

Stop reading between the lines, it was pretty clear that the bridge thing was a joke, I even made mention of it immediately following. Rohm was targeted by the party because he was seen as a threat to many members include the higher ups like Hitler. Rohm wasn't the only man killed during the Night of the Long Knives, other political opponents were also killed for various reasons. Over 200 had lost their lives and nearly 1000 were imprisoned.

Everyone knew? Is that your conclusion or a fact? Why the hell did the Nazi's spend all this money on the propaganda arm of the party when people were already ok with what they had to say? I guess Goring could have used that cash to buy a few more guns... seriously? If the latter is the case, please link me to a source, I would like to know more about this.

There is a memorial in Berlin, I think near the Reichstag, cooper discs on the ground with the names of politicians killed during the purge. I remember seeing a picture of it a few days ago but forgot what the memorial was called.

You are basically implying Germany was a closed economy which it was not. The Germans following World War 1 had a relation with the Chinese government which ended shortly after Japan signed the Axis agreement. A agreement was also drafted with the Soviet Union in 1939 albeit after the war started. Although if a embargo was in place, the Soviet Union could have risked not receiving supplies from the United States.

You said the Japanese were harsh to the Asian inhabitants solely because of race, I argued that they had done similar things to prisoners of war and even to other Japanese citizens in the past. I wasn't implying racism wasn't a factor and if that vibe was given out I apologize as it was not what I was implying.

You are claiming it was solely the Chinese who suffered, I'm arguing their were more than just the Chinese who did although I do agree that the Chinese received some of the worst.

I implied nothing, I simply point out a neutral fact, anything that you "gained" from it is simply through personal bias. Knowing of atrocities means very little, I referenced the current day examples above. More concrete evidence would be signing papers allowing such things to happen for instance like what Hitler had done on the Eastern Front. (basically relaxing rules on what one was able to get away with)

The emperor's role in the war is a controversial subject, in Japan people were killed in the past for speaking out even mildly against the emperor. This was not in the 40s mind you but in the 90s shortly after his death.

Oh? So because it is something you asserted having a different opinion is denialism now? I have made myself perfectly clear on a variety of subjects since this debate had started, you have assumed too much from my words forcing me to correct you. This is not a oral conversation, all of this is recorded, you just need to scroll up to re-read it. The only thing I wasn't clear on was the Japanese thing which I had since clarified yet you still aren't clear on it.

Why would I need to apologize on behalf of the Japanese for? To my knowledge, I don't have any Japanese blood in me hence little to no connection to the people or the land. I have asked you to provide proof in regards to your statements that the Japanese people were fully aware of the atrocities committed in Asia and were fully supportive of them.

I have stated on multiple occasions my feelings on the matter, I don't know why you always attempt to infer that I am somehow attempting to say none of this had happened, do such things amuse you? Nothing is clear cut in this world but you being someone who preaches generalizations may not realize that. People often claim the Japanese did these things because of Bushido, but what is Bushido? Where did it develop? How heavily was it practiced? (surprisingly, not has widespread as many will lead you to believe) These are all questions one should look into when attempting to research such topics. Same thing applies to other topics, be it why the US is in Iraq, why Michael Moore's version of public healthcare is not the one I experience, etc. It helps to look at both sides of the coin to get a more accurate picture. If you merely want to look at one side and nothing more you might as well watch propaganda videos.

 

Ok, it's obvious you have your own opinions and neither logic nor data will shake them. You refuse to state what you position is, or if you do, when challenged simply back down by claiming you never said any such thing. Discussing this issue with you is pointless because you keep changing your position. It's like trying to get a politician to state what he believes in....a pointless exercise in futility.

 

It is you who keep changing your opinion but what ever, I've grown tired of this. I don't know why you are such a fan of denialism, in almost every post you have tried to paint that picture about me. I really don't know how I can make the "look at both sides" philosophy more clearer but if you don't want to talk about this further that is fine.