| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary German |
 |
|
Some 10 years ago, the dissertation of a young professor in New
England produced a considerable amount of reactions from his peers in
German history and to a lesser degree from the left: Daniel
Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust", published 1996 in English and in German under the slightly
different title "Hitlers willige Vollstrecker". (If I "quote"
Goldhagen, then I give my rough translations of his German text
version, as I don't have the English original at hand, I therefore
don't give pages as they differ in both versions anyway.)
Goldhagen starting point is the understanding, that the prevailing
explanations of his colleagues, who had dealt with the question why
the Nazis found so many executioners in the normal German population
for their program of extermination of the jews all were based on a
series of questionable assumptions. He realized that the patterns of
interpretation (the perpretators had been forced, did it from fear of
punishments, or did it out of blind obedience, were under pressure
from their comrades, were simple careerists had not realized what they
were doing as they were only cogs in a big transmission) that all
these explanations were based on the assumptions
"that the perpretators were at least neutral if not negative regarding
their actions. The traditional historians then asked themselves how
you can bring people to act in a way / to commit crimes whom they
objected to and did not see as necessary or justified. In doing so
these interpreations ignore, deny or minimize the ideology of the
National Socialists or other ideologies they may had, the importance
of their moral values or their ideas about their victims that the
perpretator as a source of their willingness to kill."
Goldhagen thinks that the starting point of the established Holocaust
research is wrong, which takes that universal moral condemnation that
was established after the lost war had been true in Nazi-Germany too.
Therefore, based on this assumption, they had to ask themselves why
something could happen that nobody really wanted. For them the
murderous actions of Nazi Germany were a violation of the moral
conception of those times. Goldhagen now objects to the plausibility
of the reasons that were put forward to make this violation
understandable. For him it is not convincing that for "normal people"
that got an order to participate in murder and manslaughter the
execution of such orders was unproblematic. He also debunks the
arguments, that they were only interested in their personal career or
took part in order not to disappoint their fellow soldiers or whatever
they were.
Explanations of this kind "misjudge the extraordinarity of the deed of
mass killing men and women or at least they do not recognize this
sufficiently. Their starting point is that it is basically the same
whether you bring people to kill other people or whether you make them
do any other unwanted or unpleasant task".
Goldhagen points to the fact that humans have to know a personally
absolutely valid justification in order to participate in the
bloodbaths their nation ordered them. This is especially true if you
take into account the extraordinarity of the deeds which by all means
of bourgeois everyday life were seen as condemnable. Goldhagen
therefore asks to look onto this society with the "critical eye of an
anthropologist", to take account of the valid moral of these times
instead of claiming the same moral attitudes that nowadays every
school child is able to cite if it is the task to condemn the
concentration camps and gas chambers.
Goldhagens central point is that for him "those participating saw the
mass murdering of Jews as justified" and did not see this as a crime.
They "did not want to say No to this" but thought instead to have good
reasons for saying "Yes": "Everything Jewish was seen as dangerous
even life endangering for everything German", For Goldhagen this world
view was not confined to Hitler and some "advancing anti-Semitic
politicians" and also not only the view of the "executioners" but this
was more or less the "whole German Society".
Of course Goldhagen is counterposed to the traditional research on
fascism. But he does not reveal hidden secrets with this: His proof
with over hundreds of pages for his thesis that anti-Semitism was
omnipresent in Germany at that time is an absurd undertaking as
obvious as it is.
Goldhagen's simple theses could only produce such an excitement in the
sciences and public opinion because he had killed the holy cow which
had not only nourished the research on fascism but is also the basis
of the public "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" and the antifascist
education in Germany after the war. Even if Germans blame themselves
for what has happened, they never mean that Germans under fascism have
followed Hitler in their majority based on a political decision, with
will and consciousness and agreed to his anti-semitism. These
confession statements were so easy for the Germans after 1945 because
everybody was convinced that they themselves were not to blame for
their guilt. As Germans they had to take responsibility for the deeds
of Germans. The mass murdering of Jews and others were not done by
Germans but only in the German name.
In order to prove that Germans did not intend to do what has been done
either with their direct participation or at least with their
acquiescence, scientist have invented a lot of wrong theories. Why on
earth is was unacceptable for German scientists, teachers and
politicians that the same has been true for the Germans of the Third
Reich what the same people took as self evident when dealing with all
those past and present slaughters round the globe, namely that those
perpretators have had their reasons for doing what they did? Nobody
who declares the holocaust for unexplainable or as an result of
psychic drives or simply unfavourable times wants to doubt that with
"ethnic cleansing" perpretrated by Serbs and Croats or Bosnian Muslims
exactly that was intended, namely to come to etnically pure
territories on which an ethnically pure state power can be established
and can govern over a ethically cleansed population, which took over
the ideas that from now on they cannot live together with those from a
"foreign" people, forgetting that it were exactly those foreign
peoples together which whom they had built Yugoslavia under Tito.
But for ones own team, the Germans and their deeds in exactly only
twelve years of their history, this may not be applied. The Germans -
always with the exemption of the inner leading circle - have to be
seen regarding anti-Semitism not as "people consciously doing what
they do, which for all intents and purposes could decide and in this
view have to bee seen as responsible for their actions." They were
described as mere participants without any own will or more so against
their will.
This was seen as a damning verdict on the German nation, not as the
explanation of the holocaust. But the German nationalists, publishers,
historians, politicians and a lot of simple persons concerned only
asked themselves the question: What kind of picture gives this of the
German Nation? If Goldhagen had presented his theses in the 50ies or
60ies, the Germans would have reacted conscience-stricken. They would
have known what was appropriate for them and nevertheless would have
been convinced that Goldhagen is wrong. But to say this aloud was not
political correct then. The Germans take the position of Germany in
the innerimperialist rivalries as their benchmark for the answer to
the question whether they have to accept a defamation (and they see
only this in Goldhagen's book) or not. And as they think "Wir sind
wieder wer!" ("We are back again") their conclusion is, we do not have
to accept this anymore. It is only the political opportunity that was
the reason for the old declaration of beeing guilty, the expression of
personal shame and the declaration to take up responsibility for the
Nazi-crimes. Germans are willing to accept quite a lot, but they
definitively object the diagnosis, that big parts of the nation had
followed Hitler for their own reasons and deliberately.
Goldhagen's explanation is tautologic: The Germans supported/commited
anti-Semitic Nazi murders because they were antisemitic. The same
researchers that don't find an answer to the question why Germans were
willing to kill Jews do not ask themselves the questions when it is
about modern democratic Germany: Why for instance now Germans hunt
illegal foreigners in the border regions or do not have any problems
with theie forceful deportation when finally having being caught..
Goldhagen stands in the tradition of a disconnectedness of political
aims and political deeds: He splits the will for action away from its
content, the anti-Semitism, and constructs a will that is not
possible: a will without content. And only therefore he is interested
more in the circumstances of willingly doing these things - all the
sections of force and freedom within fascism - then in the concrete
conten or substance of those commiting those crimes. When he deals
with concrete antisemitic actions he is not interested in the reasons
those doing it had for their actions. He rather asks the question
whether they could have objected. Sometimes it feels macabre when he
tries to find out whether people could have objected that obviously
had no intention to object. Unfortunately Goldhagen did not focus his
research on the question what seemed reasonable for the Germans then
what convinced them into their support and motivated them to
participate, why they were commited to the aims of
Nationalsozialismus.
Goldhagen is very short on the political content of the German
anti-Semitism, which as even he knows is a tradition from the past.
The racism of the Nazis comes from a declaration as enemies that is
based on nationalsm. And it was aimed not only against the Jew but at
"jewish Bolshewism" and finance capital. He did not realize that one
can find the reason for the fascist antisemitsm without any reference
to the history and the tradtions of anti-Semitism. You will find not
much in Goldhagens's writings about Hitler seeing in the Jews an
essential danger for Germany as a national state for the German nation
and the imperial German claims on the world. He does not see that this
view made sense to a majority of the Germans. He does not see that
Hitlers's hatred on Jews did not come from historic anti-Semitism but
from a racist modern nationalism.
Goldhagen therefore shares with his German critics the established
reduction of fascism to anti-Semitism. He says: In fascism "the most
determined most poisoneous antisemites of human history took power and
decided to make a murderous phantasy the center of state politics". In
this Goldhagen is wrong: "only" for the execution of a program of
extermination based on the hatred against Jews Hitler would not have
been elected. And elected he was. The fight against the "dishonour of
Versailles" and the repulsion of the "jewish-bolshevik dangers for
Germany", national aims the Weimar governments had not accomplished,
brought him millions of votes. For Goldhagen fascism basically only is
a programm of mass exterminations, that this has something to do with
a nation state program cannot be seen by him. He completely forgets
that fascism starts from a bourgeois society, with a bourgeois state,
its legal system, a capitalist foreign policy and so on. That fascism
gives other reasons for his foreign polica than democracy, that he has
a very instrumental attitude against capitalism, that he knows other
enemies than communists alone, whom he wants to exstinguish all this
does not change the verdict that fascism is just another variant of
nation based imperialism.
Antisemitism has always been at the center of historical research on
the Nazi-years but it has not been the center of the politics of the
Nazis. They postulated the total unity of nation and state and
executed this, deriving from this the "right" to conquering the world.
They saw in this unity their means for a military victory. They saw
the Jews and Bolshewism (a "jewish fabrication" in Hitlers eyes) as
standing in the way for a resurrection of the German nation to its
true designation and purpose. The "Endlösung" then was seen as getting
rid of those obstacles that hindered the aims of the Nazis
Karl |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
stephen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
| Quote: | In this context, it is understandable that Finkelstein's praise of German
scholarship on the Nazi era, combined with his contemptuous dismissal of "the
Holocaust Studies Industry," and his defense of Palestinian rights, should
have rubbed Jewish community nerves raw. Nonetheless, Jewish community efforts
to censor Finkelstein and Birn's valuable and useful work, though perhaps
understandable, remain inexcusable.
|
This is supposed to be principled! Zionist censorship is
"understandable" (by which Holmes clearly doesn't mean intelligible),
and Finkelstein is "contemptuous" in his dismissal of the Holocaust
Studies Industry.
The above represents John Holmes's concept of intellectual honesty. He
is soooooo careful that when the above is read in the most narrowly
literal fashion, he can be taken to speak the truth. But even from a
narrow legalistic standpoint, the intent behind what is communicated
decides. Here, Holmes counterposes to the "inexcusable" censorship
efforts (to which he attaches the willfully ambiguous modifier
"understandable")the (legitimate)Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's
defense of Palestinian rights. Holmes makes sure that his approval of
Zionist irritation is conveyed not by words of approval but by
counterposition. The Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's anti-
Zionism is represented as qualitatively different from what is
"nonetheless" true. In other words despite his being an asshole who
deserves the contempt of the "Jewish Community" (equated with the
Zionists), Finkelstein shouldn't be censored, only because his work is
useful.
Is vngelis correct or not that Holmes is a left-Zionist or at the
least is willing to adapt to the Zionists so unctuously that he could
be confused for one? David Walters would never write garbage like this
himself. But he will defend Holmes, if David says anything. Watch.
srd
srd |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 19:19:27 -0800, John Holmes
<jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: |
Goldhagen is somebody I know something about, below are relevant
excerpts from a paper I wrote about a decade ago comparing his ideas
with those of a much superior analyst of the Holocaust, Arno Mayer.
There are flaws in his work which have discredited and marginalized
his Holocaust book, "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?" This is
unfortunate, as his basic thesis, that the Holocaust was caused not by
alleged German "eliminationist anti-Semitism," but by the
identification of Jews with Bolshevism, is absolutely correct.
|
Goldhagen has not been marginalized and discredited because of his
"flaws". It is the other way round: Especially here in Germany the
deeply entrenched pro imperialist German nationalist media, academia
and politics saw his simple and very basic understanding, that those
Germans who did what they did, did it for their good reasons. "Will"
is the central category in this regard. It does not help to minimitze
this mass will by saying, "eliminationist anti-Semitism," can only be
called "alleged".
| Quote: |
There is one important point I missed in this paper, which has
occurred to me since. Goldhagen's evidence is based on the deeds of a
military police batallion, whom he considers to be typical
representatives of "ordinary Germans." They were recruited from German
policemen. The problem with this should be self-evident to any
socialist. When there were demonstrations against police murders in
New York a decade ago, a favorite and very appropriate sign carried
was "Giuliani's Willing Executioners."
|
As you refer to Browning in the next paragraph and as it was
originally published in English I see this also as an argument about
Browning. If you have read it you actually should know that the Title
"Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in
Poland" already gives an idea about the fact, that this battalion was
indeed composed more or less from ordinary men from Hamburg, probably
quite a lot of the recruited had been communists. Hamburg had been a
stronghold of the KPD.
| Quote: |
Also there is the mandarin-academic criticism, that in fact Goldhagen
*was not* the first scholar to write a "history from below" of the
Holocaust using the materials Goldhagen employed, in fact that honor
belongs to Christopher Browning, whose essentially competing account
of mass murder by German military police is greatly preferred by
professional historians, and rightly so.
|
Browning is not "competing" as Godhagen does not dispute the acribic
findings of him.
| Quote: | Karl Burg's argumentation strikes me as a "left" reflection of the
changes in German bourgeois attitudes to the Holocaust over the last
generation. In the '50s and the '60s, the German ruling class wanted
to pretend it never happened, not least because of the strong personal
continuity of the West German state with the Third Reich. Now pretty
much all the old Nazis are dead or at least retired, so instead they
are flagellating themselves, or rather Germans as a whole, not the
German ruling class, for their sins.
|
Your perception of the Goldhagen hype on the one side and the enormous
wave of critic against him here in Germany totally misses the point:
Exactly because modern public Germany upholds the faith in the
continuity of the German nation and therefore its eternal "goodness",
it could not accept Goldhagens descripions of its ugly past, as this
was seen as an attack on current Germany too, They need the continuity
of German history for their nationalist propaganda.
| Quote: | This has had some ugly reflections among radicals. There is a trend
who call themselves "anti-Germans" on the college campuses, who go
around saying that the terror-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was a
good thing, because that is what Germany deserved. But these alleged
"anti" Nazis commit fascist-style terrorist violence against
Palestinians and leftists who disagree with them. I hope Karl Burg is
not headed in this direction.
|
I have only contempt for your never ending defamations: Now I am even
an anti-German! I can assure you, that I rather beat them up than
joining hands with them.
You are only correct in describing the "ugly refelctions": It is a sad
fact of political live these days in Germany that especially in the
broad antifa movement (and not only at the universities) anti-German
thinking has a very strong influence. I remember times a fes years ago
when the SpAD could hold meetings in the biggest university in Berlin
only under heavy protection against anti-German goon squads.
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
A typical statement of the ICL on the topic is this introductory
paragraph from its article
"Zionisten amnestieren Bourgeoisie von Auschwitz
Holocaust, "Kollektivschuld" und deutscher Imperialismus
Die Rote Armee zerschlug das Naziregime!"
(Spartacist (deutsche Ausgabe) Nr. 20, Sommer 1998 [I could not find
it online unfortunately]):
"Durch die kürzliche Veröffentlichung des Buches Eine Nation auf dem
Prüfstand - Die Goldhagen-These und die historische Wahrheit (Claassen
Verlag, 1998) von Norman G. Finkelstein und Ruth Bettina Birn lebt die
Kontroverse wieder auf, die Daniel Jonah Goldhagen durch Hitlers
willige Vollstrecker - Ganz gewöhnliche Deutsche und der Holocaust
(Siedler Verlag, 1996) vor zwei Jahren ausgelöst hatte. Goldhagens
aufgewärmte Version des 50 Jahre alten "Kollektivschuld"-Arguments,
daß die deutsche Bevölkerung in ihrer Gesamtheit für die Schrecken des
Nazi-Holocaust verantwortlich sei, wurde durch bürgerliche
Kommentatoren in den USA frenetisch verherrlicht und löste in
Deutschland anfangs einen abscheulichen chauvinistischen Aufruhr aus.
Die Polemik von Finkelstein und Birn gegen Goldhagen wiederum führte
zu einem üblen Aufschrei von Sprechern der Zionisten in den USA, bis
hin zu Versuchen, das Buch verbieten zu lassen."
It is a minor point (that Goldhagen itself has emphazied once and
again) that he is no proponent of the "collective guilt" argument.
But what can be seen from this lenghty article is the typical
avoidance not to deal with Goldhagens central tenet that those Germans
who participated in the mass murder of the Jews or supported it,
thought this to be justified. Goldhagen and others acribicly seek for
facts that could lead to an undisputed court justice posthumously
against those whom he identified as murders. As if bourgeois
puniushment is neccessary insted of a real understanding and
explanation in order to break workers from this bullshit at least in
the future.
And for this it is simply ridiculous to ignore the simple fact, that
German nationalist thinking brought literally millions to support the
state program of mass exctinction. As the German nationalist need to
"whitewash" the national past, unfortunately even leftists need to
defend those German workers who took up that murdrous national program
as theirs against the aknowlegement of this mere fact. Workers cannot
have thought like that!
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
dusty
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Nov 7, 3:44 pm, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In this context, it is understandable that Finkelstein's praise of German
scholarship on the Nazi era, combined with his contemptuous dismissal of "the
Holocaust Studies Industry," and his defense of Palestinian rights, should
have rubbed Jewish community nerves raw. Nonetheless, Jewish community efforts
to censor Finkelstein and Birn's valuable and useful work, though perhaps
understandable, remain inexcusable.
This is supposed to be principled! Zionist censorship is
"understandable" (by which Holmes clearly doesn't mean intelligible),
and Finkelstein is "contemptuous" in his dismissal of the Holocaust
Studies Industry.
The above represents John Holmes's concept of intellectual honesty. He
is soooooo careful that when the above is read in the most narrowly
literal fashion, he can be taken to speak the truth. But even from a
narrow legalistic standpoint, the intent behind what is communicated
decides. Here, Holmes counterposes to the "inexcusable" censorship
efforts (to which he attaches the willfully ambiguous modifier
"understandable")the (legitimate)Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's
defense of Palestinian rights. Holmes makes sure that his approval of
Zionist irritation is conveyed not by words of approval but by
counterposition. The Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's anti-
Zionism is represented as qualitatively different from what is
"nonetheless" true. In other words despite his being an asshole who
deserves the contempt of the "Jewish Community" (equated with the
Zionists), Finkelstein shouldn't be censored, only because his work is
useful.
Is vngelis correct or not that Holmes is a left-Zionist or at the
least is willing to adapt to the Zionists so unctuously that he could
be confused for one? David Walters would never write garbage like this
himself. But he will defend Holmes, if David says anything. Watch.
srd
|
Extreme unction: result: the brave and truthful Finkelstein has his
career killed by the black list. The Holmes's of academia get the
jobs. Shades of the fiftees.
What an eye opener is Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry - my copy
has been passed around to nine people already. That's it - now they
have to buy their own; cheap at twice the price. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Vngelis
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Nov 7, 10:14 am, dusty <trackdu...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 7, 3:44 pm, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
In this context, it is understandable that Finkelstein's praise of German
scholarship on the Nazi era, combined with his contemptuous dismissal of "the
Holocaust Studies Industry," and his defense of Palestinian rights, should
have rubbed Jewish community nerves raw. Nonetheless, Jewish community efforts
to censor Finkelstein and Birn's valuable and useful work, though perhaps
understandable, remain inexcusable.
This is supposed to be principled! Zionist censorship is
"understandable" (by which Holmes clearly doesn't mean intelligible),
and Finkelstein is "contemptuous" in his dismissal of the Holocaust
Studies Industry.
The above represents John Holmes's concept of intellectual honesty. He
is soooooo careful that when the above is read in the most narrowly
literal fashion, he can be taken to speak the truth. But even from a
narrow legalistic standpoint, the intent behind what is communicated
decides. Here, Holmes counterposes to the "inexcusable" censorship
efforts (to which he attaches the willfully ambiguous modifier
"understandable")the (legitimate)Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's
defense of Palestinian rights. Holmes makes sure that his approval of
Zionist irritation is conveyed not by words of approval but by
counterposition. The Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's anti-
Zionism is represented as qualitatively different from what is
"nonetheless" true. In other words despite his being an asshole who
deserves the contempt of the "Jewish Community" (equated with the
Zionists), Finkelstein shouldn't be censored, only because his work is
useful.
Is vngelis correct or not that Holmes is a left-Zionist or at the
least is willing to adapt to the Zionists so unctuously that he could
be confused for one? David Walters would never write garbage like this
himself. But he will defend Holmes, if David says anything. Watch.
srd
Extreme unction: result: the brave and truthful Finkelstein has his
career killed by the black list. The Holmes's of academia get the
jobs. Shades of the fiftees.
What an eye opener is Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry - my copy
has been passed around to nine people already. That's it - now they
have to buy their own; cheap at twice the price.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
The theory of 'interpenetrated peoples' originated as a reaction to
the 1973 Six Day wars and the oil crisis.
Catastrophism at the time affected most of the jews in the trotskyist
movement. They ended up indirectly
rallying round ...Israel. Savvas inside the Greek organisation started
to remember his ...jewish roots.
Not that that stopped him bending over backwards and praising Homeini
in Iran a few years later.
But with every catastrophe perceive or not the ...Holocaust is
mentioned.
If you say anything about immigration, Holmes reminds you Jews were
banned in entering the USA in 1925.
This is a warning shot in the debate. Watch what you are going to say
next or else...
Maybe that is why they sold Obama as a ...black man. I dont live in
the USA so cant obviously ever work
out what is going on precisely, I can only make assumptions. The only
consistent opposition to mass immigration
has been from the US Blacks. Its no coincidence that gangbox
(construction site news) is run by a Black.
They need a neo-Brezinskite to sell a watered down version of Israel
and contain opposition to mass immigration.
Will they be able to pull it off? I doubt it as millions turned out
for the Obama rallies and many of them were black.
I see it very difficult for the establishment to pull it off.
vngelis |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
nada
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
dusty wrote:
| Quote: | On Nov 7, 3:44 pm, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
In this context, it is understandable that Finkelstein's praise of German
scholarship on the Nazi era, combined with his contemptuous dismissal of "the
Holocaust Studies Industry," and his defense of Palestinian rights, should
have rubbed Jewish community nerves raw. Nonetheless, Jewish community efforts
to censor Finkelstein and Birn's valuable and useful work, though perhaps
understandable, remain inexcusable.
This is supposed to be principled! Zionist censorship is
"understandable" (by which Holmes clearly doesn't mean intelligible),
and Finkelstein is "contemptuous" in his dismissal of the Holocaust
Studies Industry.
The above represents John Holmes's concept of intellectual honesty. He
is soooooo careful that when the above is read in the most narrowly
literal fashion, he can be taken to speak the truth. But even from a
narrow legalistic standpoint, the intent behind what is communicated
decides. Here, Holmes counterposes to the "inexcusable" censorship
efforts (to which he attaches the willfully ambiguous modifier
"understandable")the (legitimate)Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's
defense of Palestinian rights. Holmes makes sure that his approval of
Zionist irritation is conveyed not by words of approval but by
counterposition. The Zionist irritation with Finkelstein's anti-
Zionism is represented as qualitatively different from what is
"nonetheless" true. In other words despite his being an asshole who
deserves the contempt of the "Jewish Community" (equated with the
Zionists), Finkelstein shouldn't be censored, only because his work is
useful.
Is vngelis correct or not that Holmes is a left-Zionist or at the
least is willing to adapt to the Zionists so unctuously that he could
be confused for one? David Walters would never write garbage like this
himself. But he will defend Holmes, if David says anything. Watch.
srd
Extreme unction: result: the brave and truthful Finkelstein has his
career killed by the black list. The Holmes's of academia get the
jobs. Shades of the fiftees.
What an eye opener is Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry - my copy
has been passed around to nine people already. That's it - now they
have to buy their own; cheap at twice the price.
It's an excellent book. It's predicated on the fact that the Holocaust |
DID happen.
David |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
John Holmes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Karl Burg wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 19:19:27 -0800, John Holmes
jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
Goldhagen is somebody I know something about, below are relevant
excerpts from a paper I wrote about a decade ago comparing his ideas
with those of a much superior analyst of the Holocaust, Arno Mayer.
There are flaws in his work which have discredited and marginalized
his Holocaust book, "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?" This is
unfortunate, as his basic thesis, that the Holocaust was caused not by
alleged German "eliminationist anti-Semitism," but by the
identification of Jews with Bolshevism, is absolutely correct.
Goldhagen has not been marginalized and discredited because of his
"flaws". It is the other way round: Especially here in Germany the
deeply entrenched pro imperialist German nationalist media, academia
and politics saw his simple and very basic understanding, that those
Germans who did what they did, did it for their good reasons. "Will"
is the central category in this regard. It does not help to minimitze
this mass will by saying, "eliminationist anti-Semitism," can only be
called "alleged".
|
It is not unfortunately Goldhagen marginalized and discredited, but
Arno Mayer. Mayer is still very well-respected among the professional
historians, except for "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken" which is
quietly ignored, and Goldhagen is not, but that does not really matter
to anyone except the professional historians.
| Quote: | There is one important point I missed in this paper, which has
occurred to me since. Goldhagen's evidence is based on the deeds of a
military police batallion, whom he considers to be typical
representatives of "ordinary Germans." They were recruited from German
policemen. The problem with this should be self-evident to any
socialist. When there were demonstrations against police murders in
New York a decade ago, a favorite and very appropriate sign carried
was "Giuliani's Willing Executioners."
As you refer to Browning in the next paragraph and as it was
originally published in English I see this also as an argument about
Browning. If you have read it you actually should know that the Title
"Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in
Poland" already gives an idea about the fact, that this battalion was
indeed composed more or less from ordinary men from Hamburg, probably
quite a lot of the recruited had been communists. Hamburg had been a
stronghold of the KPD.
|
Yes, I have it, it is a good book, much better than Goldhagen's.
Browning's analysis is that the Holocaust was the result of racism
and imperialism, not different than say white racism in the American
South or imperialist atrocities in the Third World, just more extreme.
This is an error, but is less far from the truth than Goldhagen.
These more or less ordinary men were almost all policemen. That is how
the military police were recruited, from the regular police. Some of
whom had been KPD members at one point in their lives, but a cop is a
cop. It was actually after reading Browning that this occurred to me,
not because Browning makes the point, he doesn't, but because he makes
even clearer than Goldhagen that the military police in Battalion 101
were virtually all former regular police.
The SPD, like many contemporary leftists, believed that police were
workers like any other. Indeed in many parts of Germany where the SPD
controlled the local governments, such as Hamburg, it was almost a job
requirement to be an SPD member to become a policeman.
When the Nazis took over, they almost always burned their SPD party
cards and became Nazis. (Except for their role model Gustav Noske,
oddly enough.)
A policeman enforces law and order. Therefore, regardless of his
personal biography, a Nazi policeman would be much more committed to
Nazism than an SS man. Many SS members joined to "defend the
fatherland" or even were drafted. A policeman joins the police to
defend, not "the fatherland," but the regime, in this case the
Nazi regime.
Indeed many of them joined the police because they were draft dodgers
and were too scared of dying on the Eastern Front to not seize on the
draft exemption for military policemen. They took their personal guilt
over their cowardice out on innocent victims, which is I think a major
part of the explanation for the extreme sadism they manifested.
| Quote: |
Also there is the mandarin-academic criticism, that in fact Goldhagen
*was not* the first scholar to write a "history from below" of the
Holocaust using the materials Goldhagen employed, in fact that honor
belongs to Christopher Browning, whose essentially competing account
of mass murder by German military police is greatly preferred by
professional historians, and rightly so.
Browning is not "competing" as Godhagen does not dispute the acribic
findings of him.
|
From the mandarin-academic point of view they are certainly
competitors, both books are on the same subject using the exact same
database for evidence. The historians consider that Browning's book is
good and Goldhagen's bad, the media are aware of Goldhagen and unaware
of Browning, one of the harsher critics of Goldhagen in academia,
naturally.
By the way, I am not sure what you mean by "acribic," I do not think
that is an English word.
| Quote: |
Karl Burg's argumentation strikes me as a "left" reflection of the
changes in German bourgeois attitudes to the Holocaust over the last
generation. In the '50s and the '60s, the German ruling class wanted
to pretend it never happened, not least because of the strong personal
continuity of the West German state with the Third Reich. Now pretty
much all the old Nazis are dead or at least retired, so instead they
are flagellating themselves, or rather Germans as a whole, not the
German ruling class, for their sins.
Your perception of the Goldhagen hype on the one side and the enormous
wave of critic against him here in Germany totally misses the point:
Exactly because modern public Germany upholds the faith in the
continuity of the German nation and therefore its eternal "goodness",
it could not accept Goldhagens descripions of its ugly past, as this
was seen as an attack on current Germany too, They need the continuity
of German history for their nationalist propaganda.
|
Do they? You are behind the times. Now public breastbeating in classic
orthodox Jewish fashion, with guilt for the Holocaust deflected from
the real culprit, the German ruling class, to "all Germans," has
replaced the previous attempt to ignore and cover up the Holocaust.
| Quote: |
This has had some ugly reflections among radicals. There is a trend
who call themselves "anti-Germans" on the college campuses, who go
around saying that the terror-bombing of Dresden and Hamburg was a
good thing, because that is what Germany deserved. But these alleged
"anti" Nazis commit fascist-style terrorist violence against
Palestinians and leftists who disagree with them. I hope Karl Burg is
not headed in this direction.
I have only contempt for your never ending defamations: Now I am even
an anti-German! I can assure you, that I rather beat them up than
joining hands with them.
|
That was a question not a defamation. I am pleased to hear that you
have the proper attitude to these people. I do think your line of
argumentation does have the danger of leading in the direction of
their way of thinking, and I urge you to ponder this. Certainly it is
precisely the "anti-Germans" who are the great admirers of Goldhagen.
-jh-
| Quote: |
You are only correct in describing the "ugly refelctions": It is a sad
fact of political live these days in Germany that especially in the
broad antifa movement (and not only at the universities) anti-German
thinking has a very strong influence. I remember times a fes years ago
when the SpAD could hold meetings in the biggest university in Berlin
only under heavy protection against anti-German goon squads.
Karl
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:52:06 -0800, John Holmes
<jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: | It is not unfortunately Goldhagen marginalized and discredited, but
Arno Mayer. Mayer is still very well-respected among the professional
historians, except for "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken" which is
quietly ignored, and Goldhagen is not, but that does not really matter
to anyone except the professional historians.
|
Of course it does matter what the bourgeois "public" sees as
respecteble and what it tries to marginalize. And in dubio I would
always assume that a "well respected" "scientist" is an idiot if he
works in history, sociology, economics or philosophy.
| Quote: | There is one important point I missed in this paper, which has
occurred to me since. Goldhagen's evidence is based on the deeds of a
military police batallion, whom he considers to be typical
representatives of "ordinary Germans." They were recruited from German
policemen.
|
I am not that familiar with the organisational schemes of the German
Ordnungspolizei in those days. But already Brownings Title: "Ganz
normale Männer" and the description of the sociological composition of
the rank and file members of Reserve-Polizeibatallion 101 indicates
for me, that is was a biased average of the Hamburg working
population. Two thirds came from workers families, practically no
skilled workers, the rest were mostly sales people.
| Quote: | The problem with this should be self-evident to any
socialist. When there were demonstrations against police murders in
New York a decade ago, a favorite and very appropriate sign carried
was "Giuliani's Willing Executioners."
These more or less ordinary men were almost all policemen. That is how
the military police were recruited, from the regular police. Some of
whom had been KPD members at one point in their lives, but a cop is a
cop.
|
Even on a sociological level I have my doubts that those men depicted
by Browning are in the same social situation as in the NYPD.
But anyway this sociological background does not play the esenstial
role often attributed to it. You hint to this youselves:
| Quote: | When the Nazis took over, they almost always burned their SPD party
cards and became Nazis. (Except for their role model Gustav Noske,
oddly enough.)
|
It sounds very wrong to me, if you say:
| Quote: | A policeman enforces law and order. Therefore, regardless of his
personal biography, a Nazi policeman would be much more committed to
Nazism than an SS man. Many SS members joined to "defend the
fatherland" or even were drafted. A policeman joins the police to
defend, not "the fatherland," but the regime, in this case the
Nazi regime.
|
From all I have read about the poltical fluidity of police men (and by
the way, also in the so called deformed workers states as Hungary for
instance) it was the other way round. And as Browning describes, even
in this batallion.
| Quote: | Indeed many of them joined the police because they were draft dodgers
and were too scared of dying on the Eastern Front to not seize on the
draft exemption for military policemen. They took their personal guilt
over their cowardice out on innocent victims, which is I think a major
part of the explanation for the extreme sadism they manifested.
|
For me this a very typical pseudo explanation with psychological
"insights" that totally ignores the political considerations of those
who were active then. As I said earlier on, the nazi murderers did not
have "personal guilt" because they had the law, historical justice and
moral superiority on their side. The victims therefore were not
"innocent" but deserved what happened to them. In the Spiegel article
on Himmler this can be seen from a little story: Himmler oversees some
usual atrocity. A man begs pardon from him. Himmler asks, whether he
is jewish. Yes. He asks, whether his parents both were jewish too.
Yes. Then Himmler anwsers, I can do nothing for you. He was killed of
course.
| Quote: | Your perception of the Goldhagen hype on the one side and the enormous
wave of critic against him here in Germany totally misses the point:
Exactly because modern public Germany upholds the faith in the
continuity of the German nation and therefore its eternal "goodness",
it could not accept Goldhagens descripions of its ugly past, as this
was seen as an attack on current Germany too, They need the continuity
of German history for their nationalist propaganda.
Do they? You are behind the times. Now public breastbeating in classic
orthodox Jewish fashion, with guilt for the Holocaust deflected from
the real culprit, the German ruling class, to "all Germans," has
replaced the previous attempt to ignore and cover up the Holocaust.
|
You are considerably behin the times in Germany. Selfflagalatting is
out for years these days. The aggressive perusing the holocaust for
the new imperialist appetites of Germany is the present leading
ideology. Foreign minister Joschka Fischer fromm the Greens defended
the attacks on Yugoslavia with Auschwitz. That was Chutzpe!
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 13:16:46 -0800, John Holmes
<jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
I quoted this starting point of the ICL article in order to show the
basic misunderstanding they show:
They only care for respondability. I ask another question: What made
them tick the way they thought. What did they find convincing in
hitlers "Mein Kampf" to put it more generally. What mede them flockk
the nazi organisation and vote for the NSDAP in the late Weimar years
and what made them follow Hitler into WWII?
For me it is not about accusations and punishment, I leave this to the
stupid antifas and antideutschen but about explanation and
dismanteling of this very wrong ideas beliefs and convictions.
You easily dismiss this approach with your slighthanded admission:
| Quote: | Did those who participated in the mass murder think it to be
justified? Probably. That is human nature. If one commits a crime, one
must beforehand or at least afterwards persuade oneself that it was
justified, otherwise you get very neurotic. And human beings have
frequently committed crimes on other human beings throughout human
history, indeed even chimpanzees fight wars with each other and engage
in murder, including killings of entire chimpanzee family groups by
others.
|
If you will not give the picture of a political idiot that thinks
crimes are unavoidable, shit happens in short, then I have to ask the
serious question why you basically do not care waht concretely was
wrong i nthe thinking of these murderous nationalists?
And for this it is really not neccessary "to engage in collective
mindreading." One only has to take in earnest what the convinving
arguments of the nazis were and what was wrong with them. Why the
special solution the nazis suggested for the "problem" of the
endangered nation was picked up so easily by people already won over
to nationalism beforehand.
For you this is either no problem or a mystery. You therefore come to
the wrong summary regarding Goldhagen:
" His attitude is that the helpless Germans were brainwashed by their
evil leaders to commit horrible crimes, but now fortunately are nice
people because they have been rebrainwashed to think good thoughts and
not evil thoughts by allwise and benevolent Allied brainwashers."
You simply cannot accept, that Germans (or anybody else in this
regard) deliberately in their own free will, after serious thinking
decide to belief in ideas that are harmful to the victims of this
policies as in the case of antisemitism is obvious or is harmful to
themselves as in the case of convinced and dyed in the woll democratic
workers these days.
A very stupid version of this ignorant theory on the success of Hitler
was the very successful film "Die Welle" based on the novel from
Morton Rhue.
"Ausgezeichnet mit dem Prädikat "besonders wertvoll", lief dieser Film
monatelang in deutschen Kinos. Lehrer gingen mit ihren Schulklassen
ins Kino, um ihnen vorzuführen, wie leicht aus Demokraten Faschisten
werden können. Ihr Anliegen: Sie wollten die Schüler "immun" gegen die
"Verführung rechter Rattenfänger" machen. Seine Überzeugungskraft als
Lehrfilm bezieht dieser Streifen daraus, dass er ein angeblich echt
stattgefundenes Experiment verfilmt, in dem ein Lehrer seiner Klasse
"bewiesen" haben soll, wie schnell sie Faschisten wurden, ohne dass
sie es überhaupt so richtig bemerkten. Dabei kommt der Plot ohne einen
einzigen Versuch des Lehrers aus, seinen Schülern, mit denen er in
einer Projektwoche die politisch völlig inhaltsleere Bewegung "Die
Welle" aufzieht, die Inhalte faschistischer Gedanken über Staat und
Volk, Bildung und Arbeit, Sitte und Moral mit Argumenten nahe zu
bringen. Dass geistige Gefolgschaft nur möglich ist, wenn man die
Urteile, denen man sich dabei anschließt, zur Kenntnis nimmt und für
richtig hält, unterschlägt der Film. Er stellt die Mitglieder der
Bewegung so dar, als müssten sie den Gedanken ihres Führers bewusstlos
folgen, weil sie nicht mehr anders könnten: Sie seien verführt von
angeblich unwiderstehlichen "Mechanismen der Macht".
Der Film erklärt daher weder, wie aus Demokraten Faschisten werden,
noch kritisiert er die Fehler faschistischen Denkens. Daher ist er
auch kein Beitrag dazu, junge (und alte) Nazis davon zu überzeugen,
dass sie sich mit ihren faschistischen Gedanken ihre mehr oder minder
schlechten Erfahrungen in der Schule und im Arbeitsleben falsch
erklären und daraus politische Konsequenzen ziehen, die für ihre
Interessen schädlich sind.
Der Film macht daher auch niemanden "immun gegen Rechts". Nicht
zuletzt deshalb, weil faschistische Auffassungen keine Art psychische
Verirrungen sind, zu denen man "verführt" und gegen die man
"immunisiert" werden könnte, sondern falsche Gedanken, die
offensichtlich gar nicht so weit vom demokratischen Bewusstsein
abweichen, wie Demokraten es gerne glauben.
Es fragt sich allerdings, warum kaum jemand darüber stutzig geworden
sind, dass die Mitglieder der "Welle" so bruchlos von Demokraten zu
Faschisten mutieren, warum sie ohne jede argumentative Bemühung ihres
Lehrers dessen nationalistische Gedanken mit einem Schlag teilen und
ihn hochleben lassen. Den Filmemachern fiel bei der Konstruktion ihrer
"besonders wertvollen" Geschichte offenbar ebenso wenig dieser
Widerspruch auf wie ihrem Millionenpublikum, soweit es dem Film die
gewünschte Lehre betroffen abnahm, dass "eine Diktatur "heute bei uns
sehr wohl möglich wäre" und wie leicht das ginge. Dafür gibt es einen
Grund, der jedem Demokraten geläufig ist, wenn er Faschisten
Rechtsextremisten nennt und wenn er bei einer Fußballwelt- oder
-europameisterschaft enthusiastisch die Nationalfahne schwenkt und
sich zugleich meilenweit von Deutschnationalisten entfernt vorkommt.
Wer meint, Nationalisten unterschieden sich von Patrioten dadurch,
dass sie es mit der Parteinahme für die eigene Nation übertreiben, der
sieht im Nationalisten einen, der die gute Sache der Nation feindselig
gegen andere Nationen übersteigert. Und der übersieht dabei, wie viel
er damit mit dem Nationalisten gemeinsam hat: die Sorge darum, dass
die eigene Nation in der Konkurrenz der Nationen, sei es auf dem
Sportplatz, sei es in der ernsten Konkurrenz um Wachstumszahlen und
Exporterfolge , besser abschneidet als andere Nationen. Von da ist es
nur ein kleiner Schritt, einem Redner Beifall zu klatschen, der
glaubhaft macht, dass andere Nationen den Erfolg der eigenen bedrohen,
wie es Lehrer Wenger in seiner nationalistischen Rede ausmalt." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
nada
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
Just ad my two duestchmarks here, I think the severe anti-Semitism of
the Nazis and the ultimate solution they ended up with toward the end of
their war against Europe and Russia did not have to happen. I think
there was a "serious of unfortunate events" that lead to this that at
any point in the early NDSAP could of resulted in a "different kind" of
German fascism, one in which the logic of anti-semitism, while still
overwhelming, wouldn't of ended in genocide.
I don't think German fascism could of been anything BUT anti-Semitic.
Not given the history of German nationalism and ALL the nationalist
movements, especially in western Germany. But the Holocuast was, IMO, a
specifically Hitler-envisioned event that I doubt would of happened had
Hitler been purged from the Nazis at any point even up through 1937, 1938.
Among counter-factual historian, "alternative history" there has been a
lot of exploration of this. The key thing that some political types
forget is that it wasn't just Hitler, of course, but the 'team' he
assembled in the early 1920s, after the Kapp Putch, that set up the
dynamic toward genocide even if it wasn't totally envisioned at that
time. I think the actual genocide was brought to fruition...the "Final
solution" between the beginning of the occupation of Poland in 1939 and
the start of Operation of Barbarossa. Until then it was not even
enslavement via work camp but more oppression via segregation and
ghettoization. The actual massacres of Jews as *filmed* by Nazi
propagandists in Ukraine (the emptying of and massacre of the 30,000
Jews from the Kiev Ghetto and fully witnessed by Ukrainian civilians)
occurred *before* events in Poland and during the initial stages of
German consolidation there. Interestingly the FIRST massacres in Poland
were neither Jews nor Communists (often the same thing, of course) but
of all government officials and university/academic elites...mostly of
Polish nationality.
At any rate, I think it was the dynamic of Hitler's assemblage of
pliant, yet strong willed Nazi supporters around him that set up the
genocide to be carried out later, much later, buy these scum. But I
think actually that had Hitler been removed one way or another, it
wouldn't have happened in this manner or at all.
Just my thoughts on this.
David |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:11:57 -0800, John Holmes
<jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: | In general it is not enough to draw conclusions from a book to read a
title, you should read the whole book, at least the introduction,
before drawing conclusions.
|
In general it is not enough to draw conclusions like you, if you don't
know anything about what I read or not and you don't!
And obviously you do not even read what I write about my reading. The
continuation of your insults against me even after I gave citations
from the book you either ignorantly or lyingly say I have not read,
leads me to the conclusion, you really don't care, it seem to be deep
seated. I give up. Not only with policemen its is difficult to break
them away from what they are doing and thinking, there are
"communists" that cannot be cracked either. For good or for bad.
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:58:40 -0800, John Holmes
<jholmes@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
| Quote: | In practice, it is only to a small group of those who have special
ability and more time on their hands than most people (certainly APST
participants at least fall in the latter category, thouugh not
necessarily the former) where "ruthless criticism" of false ideas can
be helpful. For the masses, learning happens through action, or will
not happen.
|
For somebody like you who supports an organization that basically has
done nothing else than arguing in person, in speeches, in print for
decades now (not that this is what htey wanted) is is only laughable
to debunk even this kind of small scale debates happening here on APST
(special ability needed??) and counterposing to it the nonsense "For
the masses, learning happens through action, or will not happen."
It is the other way round: If they have not learned something
beforehand, basically from communists, there will be no "action" and
definitively no actions in the direction of workers rule. To be a
worker for 30 years does not count a yota for communist consciousness.
Haven organized a handful of trade union struggles as a union rep
rather shows how distant this person is to communism and not how near.
But comrades like you will never give up this mantra whatever their
experiences may have been and still will be.
As I said before: that you (and most of the APSTlers here) now are
decades older then when you started as a communist has not made you
wiser in any meaningful way. Anybody must only read what you and the
rest say "now".
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Burg
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:13:27 -0800, nada <dwaltersMIA@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Just ad my two duestchmarks here, I think the severe anti-Semitism of
the Nazis and the ultimate solution they ended up with toward the end of
their war against Europe and Russia did not have to happen. I think
there was a "serious of unfortunate events" that lead to this that at
any point in the early NDSAP could of resulted in a "different kind" of
German fascism, one in which the logic of anti-semitism, while still
overwhelming, wouldn't of ended in genocide.
I don't think German fascism could of been anything BUT anti-Semitic.
Not given the history of German nationalism and ALL the nationalist
movements, especially in western Germany. But the Holocuast was, IMO, a
specifically Hitler-envisioned event that I doubt would of happened had
Hitler been purged from the Nazis at any point even up through 1937, 1938.
|
My first reaction was: O my, this is another left version of the old
phrase, only Hitler personally wanted and did it. We (the
participating and supporting Germans of those days) neither wanted it
nor did we support it. It is fitting into this tradition that "Der
Spiegel" gave its lead article ofthis week on Himmler the title
"Hitlers Vollstrecker". As if even this chief architect of the mass
murderings of the Nazis was "only" an executioner.
Secondly, I think, as crazy as it was to identify the Jews as the
reason for the state of the nation it then was indeed a "logic"
conclusion to get rid of this arch enemy of a German resurrection. As
deep as Germany had sunk in the eyes of these deeply disappointed
nationalists as radical in their eyes one had to envision the
"solution".
Karl |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
nada
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: On Goldhagen: Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Ge |
|
|
Karl Burg wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:13:27 -0800, nada <dwaltersMIA@gmail.com
wrote:
Just ad my two duestchmarks here, I think the severe anti-Semitism of
the Nazis and the ultimate solution they ended up with toward the end of
their war against Europe and Russia did not have to happen. I think
there was a "serious of unfortunate events" that lead to this that at
any point in the early NDSAP could of resulted in a "different kind" of
German fascism, one in which the logic of anti-semitism, while still
overwhelming, wouldn't of ended in genocide.
I don't think German fascism could of been anything BUT anti-Semitic.
Not given the history of German nationalism and ALL the nationalist
movements, especially in western Germany. But the Holocuast was, IMO, a
specifically Hitler-envisioned event that I doubt would of happened had
Hitler been purged from the Nazis at any point even up through 1937, 1938.
My first reaction was: O my, this is another left version of the old
phrase, only Hitler personally wanted and did it. We (the
participating and supporting Germans of those days) neither wanted it
nor did we support it. It is fitting into this tradition that "Der
Spiegel" gave its lead article ofthis week on Himmler the title
"Hitlers Vollstrecker". As if even this chief architect of the mass
murderings of the Nazis was "only" an executioner.
Secondly, I think, as crazy as it was to identify the Jews as the
reason for the state of the nation it then was indeed a "logic"
conclusion to get rid of this arch enemy of a German resurrection. As
deep as Germany had sunk in the eyes of these deeply disappointed
nationalists as radical in their eyes one had to envision the
"solution".
Karl
|
it's simplistic but for a reason (given the nature of the APST). Of
course I'm not the 'great individual' advocate. I didn't even *mention*
the war...The War...what I'm talking about was a secondary, albeit
profound, aspect of the war caused by reason my Marxists understand:
decay of capitalism counter-revolutionary overthrow of the USSR. I'm
talking about the specifics of anti-semitism and how it manifested
itself as gov't policy. In this regards Hitler's role was *critical*
and, unique IMO.
David |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
