Neo Nazi 'Golden Dawn' Party Garners Seats in Greek Parliament

Pages

Neo Nazi ‘Golden Dawn’ Party Garners Seats in Greek Parliament

The relationship between depression, unemployment, and Nazis repeats again

By Charles Johnson

World News • May 2012 • Views: 11,212

businessinsider.com

Greek election polls are trickling in and one disturbing result is this: The Neo-Nazi ‘Golden Dawn’ party, whose logo is practically a swastika, is likely going to get enough votes to win a few seats in parliament. Nothing is quite confirmed yet, but that’s what exit polls show now.

They’ll be tiny, but it’s still a shock.

And furthermore, the relationship between depression, unemployment, and Nazis repeats again, as this famous chart from SocGen’s Dylan Grice confirms.

Recent Pages by Charles (Charles Johnson):
The Conservative Plan to Take Over the Country (You Need to Know About This) Techdirt: Hey Elon: The ADL Convincing Advertisers to Run Away From Your Site Is Part of the Free Speech You Pretend to Support Elon Musk Commandeers '@Music' Handle From User With Half a Million Followers ChatGPT Is a Data Privacy Nightmare, and We Ought to Be Concerned Ex-Lawmaker Who Served Time for Jan. 6 Riot Seeks House Seat

Jump to bottom

45 comments

ProGunLiberal Sun, May 6, 2012 3:13:12pm

What did you expect? This is a nation that endorsed and aided a genocide within my lifetime.

Bob Levin Sun, May 6, 2012 3:33:08pm

What's with that graph? The line for 1924 30% unemployment becomes 37% across the page? Shouldn't there be a higher Nazi vote in 1926?

Other factors contributing to the rise of the Nazis, their penchant for intimidation, and most important--if you watch the film footage, they were very well financed. I'm still curious about identities of the big backers of Nazis.

ProGunLiberal Sun, May 6, 2012 3:39:18pm

re: #2 Bob Levin

Wait, we don't the records for that?

Bob Levin Sun, May 6, 2012 5:39:24pm

re: #3 ProGunLiberal

After they took power, sure. They stole gold from the Jews, invaded a country, stole their gold, put that up as collateral to get loans from the banks in Switzerland, and viola!, economic miracle. We know that they bought equipment from Ford and IBM--but all of the regalia when they were clearly just a bunch of wackos, in the middle of a depression, I don't know.

I'll bet Sergey, or whatever his name of the day is, would know, or at least have a clue.

EiMitch Sun, May 6, 2012 11:11:15pm

At least the scumbags have given their party a dubiously apropos name. It sounds like a watersport fetish porno version of Red Dawn. Care to guess the party's theory of economics?

...

What? After the grim history lesson, the only remaining fodder for commentary was the low hanging fruit. **rimshot on drums**

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Mon, May 7, 2012 2:40:25am

re: #2 Bob Levin

What's with that graph? The line for 1924 30% unemployment becomes 37% across the page? Shouldn't there be a higher Nazi vote in 1926?

That graph seems to only chronicle national parliamentary election results. Between December 1924 and May 1928, there were none. For comprehensive election results, see [Link: gonschior.de...]

I'm still curious about identities of the big backers of Nazis.

According to state-of-research provided by Henry Ashby Turner, until 1933 the Nazis mostly financed themselves through fees for party membership and fees for attending party events.

Bob Levin Mon, May 7, 2012 3:44:58am

re: #6 Unlike Some People

Although the economies of the world were doing well in the twenties, was that the case with Germany, which had to pay reparations for WWI? There had to be an unexpressed resentment by the German people of both their government and the rest of Europe--since the Nazis exploited this resentment. The distance between 1924 and 1932 is not a long time.

Did Turner prove that the Nazis were self-financed or did he simply disprove Abraham's book? There is a difference. The claim is that Turner used unpublished records of German corporations and the Nazi Party as evidence. But how much can we trust such evidence, since the Nazis were the criminal class? Would Turner argue that Al Capone was only in the milk business?

Capone's conviction came about because his observable assets far outweighed his reported income. The Nazi demonstrations, their youth camps, show a level of financing that required major donations. If corporations were not officially giving money--private benefactors certainly were, and their identities are still unknown, I believe.

After further examination, I don't believe I would consider Turner's work on the Nazis to be definitive. For instance, his emphasis on a created mythology over what was a steamroller of industry prior to WWI is suspect. The merger of science and university research powered the German economy prior to WWI. And such engines are what move history.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Mon, May 7, 2012 4:17:07am

re: #7 Bob Levin

Although the economies of the world were doing well in the twenties, was that the case with Germany, which had to pay reparations for WWI? There had to be an unexpressed resentment by the German people of both their government and the rest of Europe--since the Nazis exploited this resentment. The distance between 1924 and 1932 is not a long time.

WW1 reparations were indeed massive, and Germany only paid them off finally in October 2010. The resentment against that by the people was not unexpressed – why would you think that? In fact, the German referendum of 1929 on the Young plan, an ultimatively unsuccessful expression of popular resentment against reparations, was one of the earliest examples of the traditional, civil far-right (DNVP) going together with the extremist and radical far-right (NSDAP). Also consider the popularity of civil resistance and sometimes even terrorist resistance against the French occupation of the Ruhr (think Schlageter).

1924 to 1932 might not be long by the absolute measure of time passed. But is a long distance if you consider economic differences.

Did Turner prove that the Nazis were self-financed or did he simply disprove Abraham's book? There is a difference. The claim is that Turner used unpublished records of German corporations and the Nazi Party as evidence. But how much can we trust such evidence, since the Nazis were the criminal class? Would Turner argue that Al Capone was only in the milk business?

As far as I know, most of the main financial records of the NSDAP were destroyed on the orders of main party treasurer Franz Xaver Schwarz near the end of the war, so it's rather impossible to ever absolutely know the truth. I am convinced, though, that all of the arguments of Turner's opponents are a) proven to be running contrary to historical facts, and/or b) require a conspiracy theory. Capone was one guy. The NSDAP was a mass organization. They couldn't hide the holocaust – what makes you think they could hide the existence and identity of major donators?

Capone's conviction came about because his observable assets far outweighed his reported income. The Nazi demonstrations, their youth camps, show a level of financing that required major donations. If corporations were not officially giving money--private benefactors certainly were, and their identities are still unknown, I believe.

Why do you assume that major donations were required? Why do you assume that massive popular support and/or membership could not have been enough?

Bob Levin Mon, May 7, 2012 12:00:17pm

WW1 reparations were indeed massive, and Germany only paid them off finally in October 2010. The resentment against that by the people was not unexpressed – why would you think that? In fact, the German referendum of 1929 on the Young plan, an ultimatively unsuccessful expression of popular resentment against reparations, was one of the earliest examples of the traditional, civil far-right (DNVP) going together with the extremist and radical far-right (NSDAP). Also consider the popularity of civil resistance and sometimes even terrorist resistance against the French occupation of the Ruhr (think Schlageter).

I was saying--if the theory is that as the economy worsened the popularity of the Nazis grew, the German economy was troubled since the end of WWI. If there was resentment among the German people, why didn't they express it through the Nazi party earlier on? Yet the graph shows an almost non-existent Nazi party until 1930 when it grew to either 15 or 18.5 percent of the vote, depending upon whether you read from right to left or left to right. We know that there was resentment, and the resentment was constant. I never meant otherwise.

I am convinced, though, that all of the arguments of Turner's opponents are a) proven to be running contrary to historical facts, and/or b) require a conspiracy theory.

It's time to name names.

Capone was one guy. The NSDAP was a mass organization. They couldn't hide the holocaust – what makes you think they could hide the existence and identity of major donators?

My point was that no one was trying to hide anything. Capone was like a peacock when it came to flashing his wealth, and the Nazis were quite proud of their ability to commit mass murder. And the fledgling Nazi party was quite proud of it ability to throw a rally and parade. Since the currency was practically without value, somehow they were able to put on Busby Berkeley shows. It just doesn't add up.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Mon, May 7, 2012 3:16:21pm

re: #9 Bob Levin

I was saying--if the theory is that as the economy worsened the popularity of the Nazis grew, the German economy was troubled since the end of WWI. If there was resentment among the German people, why didn't they express it through the Nazi party earlier on? Yet the graph shows an almost non-existent Nazi party until 1930 when it grew to either 15 or 18.5 percent of the vote, depending upon whether you read from right to left or left to right. We know that there was resentment, and the resentment was constant. I never meant otherwise.

I don't think it was constant. The Golden Twenties were a time of actual growth, even if taking reparations into account. You have to realize, too, that the Nazi Party had to start somewhere. You could argue that it was completely fringe until the beer hall putsch of 1923, and then only after the ban on it was lifted and it reconstituted itself in 1924/25 it had an actual possibility to grow. Another factor that has to be taken into account, I think, is the final decline of the völkisch movement, especially in form of the DVFP, which happened around 1928 (see the short-lived history of the joint-venture NSFP).

It's time to name names.

Is it?

My point was that no one was trying to hide anything. Capone was like a peacock when it came to flashing his wealth, and the Nazis were quite proud of their ability to commit mass murder.

Uh, the nazis actually did try to hide major parts of the holocaust. That's part of the reason for the employment of a lot of euphemistic terms that refer to the killings, or for operations like the Sonderaktion 1005.

And the fledgling Nazi party was quite proud of it ability to throw a rally and parade. Since the currency was practically without value, somehow they were able to put on Busby Berkeley shows. It just doesn't add up.

I am not sure what you are talking about. German hyperinflation ended in 1923.

Bob Levin Mon, May 7, 2012 3:35:32pm

re: #10 Unlike Some People

Uh, the nazis actually did try to hide major parts of the holocaust. That's part of the reason for the employment of a lot of euphemistic terms that refer to the killings, or for operations like the Sonderaktion 1005.

I guess it depends upon which speech of Goebbels you listen to, or which part of Mein Kampf you read. Or, if you think the term 'open secret' is applicable, which of the two words get emphasis. Eugenics doesn't lead to a whole lot of options for the inferior breeds. Millions of people go missing, rounded up in the most cruel and degrading manner--and this is hidden? Are you sure it was euphemism or was it poetry? I'm sure many thought they were engaged in beautiful actions, like eradicating plague, plague being synonymous with inferior races breeding.

German hyperinflation ended in 1923.

How?

Is it?

Why not? If theories of what--culture, economics that are different than Turner's are either lies or unbelievable conspiracies, then I guess it would time to talk about who is doing such things. Maybe we would find them true and plausible. Name names and plug in the microscope.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Tue, May 8, 2012 12:06:50am

re: #11 Bob Levin

I guess it depends upon which speech of Goebbels you listen to, or which part of Mein Kampf you read. Or, if you think the term 'open secret' is applicable, which of the two words get emphasis. Eugenics doesn't lead to a whole lot of options for the inferior breeds. Millions of people go missing, rounded up in the most cruel and degrading manner--and this is hidden? Are you sure it was euphemism or was it poetry? I'm sure many thought they were engaged in beautiful actions, like eradicating plague, plague being synonymous with inferior races breeding.

Oh, the ideology was out and open. But the consequences and actual policies were rarely openly discussed or admitted (such as in Himmler's Posener speeches) and there were lots of attempts to hide the real details of exterminatory pracitices from the general public and/or the Allies (a testimony to the fact, btw, that the Nazis deep down knew that what they were doing was wrong–today you find that seemingly paradoxical trait in holocaust deniers who readily admit that genocide is a bad thing but just insist it didn't happen). Of course, you could argue that the ideology and the general policy outlines of Nazism from a very early point pointed towards what eventually happened (and I would agree with that), but you would also have to agree that Nazism never appealed to the kind of analytical and critical thinking that would expose itself but rather to the distress of people who readily identified their own emotions with results of the supposed failure of national politics.

How?

Currency reform (introduction of the Rentenmark, soon to be followed by the Reichsmark).

Why not? If theories of what--culture, economics that are different than Turner's are either lies or unbelievable conspiracies, then I guess it would time to talk about who is doing such things. Maybe we would find them true and plausible. Name names and plug in the microscope.

I named names when I named Turner. Time for you to name someone else, methinks.

Bob Levin Tue, May 8, 2012 2:36:17pm

re: #12 Unlike Some People

Regarding your first paragraph: This is one of our points of disagreement, that we need a foundation of psychology to really get deeply into this topic. My view of psychology is multi-layered, so when I say that people knew, I actually mean, at some level they knew. Nazism, as Einstein observed, was a type of mass psychosis. To use the jargon of psychology, more of a mass personality disorder would be more accurate--complete with all of the defense mechanisms that one would see accompanying such deeply disturbed individuals.

but you would also have to agree that Nazism never appealed to the kind of analytical and critical thinking that would expose itself but rather to the distress of people who readily identified their own emotions with results of the supposed failure of national politics.

So I would not agree with that. I would say that these thinkers simply needed a reason to express their disorder--and Goebbels was very accommodating to this need. This is where the science of Eugenics came in--it was just a reason for the intellectual class to come to the party, no pun intended.

Currency reform (introduction of the Rentenmark, soon to be followed by the Reichsmark).

It was more complicated than that. A new currency does not automatically engender trust, since it was issued by the same government that let the previous currency get out of control. In this way, the question of what currency to accept was actually at the forefront of people's minds. Think what America would be like if no one trusted the dollar. Such mistrust is quickly followed by thoughts of homelessness and starvation. In fact, Germany had to enact a law deferring mortgage payments. Therefore, the Dawes plan, followed by the Young plan were crucial--effectively changing the economy to one that actually functioned through the American dollar. America ended up having quite a high stake in a possible German recovery. The heads of America's 400 families would have been very receptive to listen to any plans guaranteeing that what was ultimately their loan would be repaid.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they contributed to this little nothing political party. However, I wouldn't be surprised if that little nothing party tried to court some more dollars. But there is no way to prove this.

I would believe this theory--that the Nazis resorted to crime to raise money. Not just dues and proceeds from a bake sale. I would believe that they broke into homes, stole jewels, paintings, and precious metals, then sold them in Switzerland for more trustworthy currency to finance their growth. And the reason I would believe this--is because they didn't stop, even when they took power.

I named names when I named Turner. Time for you to name someone else, methinks.

Sure. First, I think the task of historians is to not only research facts about a period of time, but rather choose facts which allow the reader to get into that period with some understanding of how it felt, what people thought, how they thought. I believe this is one of the criticisms of Turner's book. Obviously, after the war was over just about every field was somehow engaged in trying to understand what was incomprehensible. The upshot for many such endeavors was to make sure this could not happen again.

Bob Levin Tue, May 8, 2012 2:36:28pm

The researchers and thinkers I'm about to name concluded that it didn't stop--but rather began to morph. The intensity of the pathology changed to a low temperature, initially, but the pathology was still there, and it was there in WWI as well.

I'm talking about the Milgram experiment, Erich Fromm's Escape from Freedom, Marcuse's One Dimensional Man, and Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of the Enlightenment.

Given the fact that we can now see that the pathology did not go away, it is gaining in intensity, perhaps examining these very under-appreciated and misunderstood books could help.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Tue, May 8, 2012 11:29:58pm

re: #13 Bob Levin

Regarding your first paragraph: This is one of our points of disagreement, that we need a foundation of psychology to really get deeply into this topic. My view of psychology is multi-layered, so when I say that people knew, I actually mean, at some level they knew. Nazism, as Einstein observed, was a type of mass psychosis. To use the jargon of psychology, more of a mass personality disorder would be more accurate--complete with all of the defense mechanisms that one would see accompanying such deeply disturbed individuals.

How is this a point of disagreement?

So I would not agree with that. I would say that these thinkers simply needed a reason to express their disorder--and Goebbels was very accommodating to this need. This is where the science of Eugenics came in--it was just a reason for the intellectual class to come to the party, no pun intended.

Except Eugenics was never a science. No, Nazism didn't become intellectual on some level because it appealed to some disturbed intellectuals, just as it did not become socialist by appealing to some disturbed socialists.

It was more complicated than that. A new currency does not automatically engender trust, since it was issued by the same government that let the previous currency get out of control. In this way, the question of what currency to accept was actually at the forefront of people's minds. Think what America would be like if no one trusted the dollar. Such mistrust is quickly followed by thoughts of homelessness and starvation. In fact, Germany had to enact a law deferring mortgage payments. Therefore, the Dawes plan, followed by the Young plan were crucial--effectively changing the economy to one that actually functioned through the American dollar. America ended up having quite a high stake in a possible German recovery. The heads of America's 400 families would have been very receptive to listen to any plans guaranteeing that what was ultimately their loan would be repaid.

The Dawes plan was only possible after currency reform had ended hyperinflation, so I don't really know what you are talking about. And the Young plan of 1929 had nothing to do with hyperinflation.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they contributed to this little nothing political party. However, I wouldn't be surprised if that little nothing party tried to court some more dollars. But there is no way to prove this.

So I don't know why you are bringing this up.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Tue, May 8, 2012 11:31:39pm

re: #13 Bob Levin

I would believe this theory--that the Nazis resorted to crime to raise money. Not just dues and proceeds from a bake sale. I would believe that they broke into homes, stole jewels, paintings, and precious metals, then sold them in Switzerland for more trustworthy currency to finance their growth. And the reason I would believe this--is because they didn't stop, even when they took power.

Uh. Okay. Only that the power structure was a completely different one after they took over the government. And whom did they steal from during Weimar times? Why aren't these break-ins into wealthy homes known? Why weren't they reported?

There are known Nazi money crimes during Weimar times, btw (see the alchemist Franz Tausend) but I don't believe that to amount to a hell of a lot. I really find it bizarre how much you resists the fact that the Nazis really were a mass movement, and that this "mass" means there will be a multitude of very small sums of money, in the aggregate being a lot of money.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Tue, May 8, 2012 11:37:01pm

I am kind of done with this conversation, btw. I don't really have the time to indulge in conspiracy theories and unfalsifiable speculation.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 12:30:04am

re: #17 Unlike Some People

You've been done with this conversation since the beginning, since you really didn't listen, and seem to know facts, but have little grasp of meaning. To say that the Germans did not adopt Eugenics as a science is a ridiculous. If you reply that Eugenics is not a science from the standpoint of our present day perspective, instead of acknowledging the prevailing worldview at the time, then this is just not responsible historical method. The German intellectuals, the scientists and doctors, the lawyers and academics were all on board.

The Dawes plan was only possible after currency reform had ended hyperinflation, so I don't really know what you are talking about. And the Young plan of 1929 had nothing to do with hyperinflation.

All of this pointed to a fundamentally unstable economy, a situation that doesn't fit with the Nazi party's ability to fund its own growth, which was the original issue.

And whom did they steal from during Weimar times? Why aren't these break-ins into wealthy homes known? Why weren't they reported?

Who said that they weren't reported? The incidents would have been mixed in with all crime reports. Why do you find it so difficult to deduce past behavior from later behavior patterns?

I really find it bizarre how much you resists the fact that the Nazis really were a mass movement, and that this "mass" means there will be a multitude of very small sums of money, in the aggregate being a lot of money.

The question was how they grew from a very small, lunatic fringe group into a mass movement. One look Triumph of the Will shows quite clearly that they were a mass movement. But they didn't start that way. Ten guys contributing a Mark each, when the value of the Mark is so tenuous not even shopkeepers trust it--not a lot of buying power. Not only that, no one else in the world trusted their currency, making foreign trade, acquisition of raw materials, imports, virtually impossible.

Your explanation is not a plausible explanation for their growth.

It seems as though Turner's state-of-research book may have been little more than a petty academic squabble. And you seem to have taken this book as a reason to absolve many people of their more than willing participation in Nazi society.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, May 9, 2012 1:10:21am

re: #18 Bob Levin

To say that the Germans did not adopt Eugenics as a science is a ridiculous.

But I didn't say that. Done with your lies.

If you reply that Eugenics is not a science from the standpoint of our present day perspective, instead of acknowledging the prevailing worldview at the time, then this is just not responsible historical method.

Worldview shmorldview. It was never a science. You really should look up that word, and find out whether it was "prevailing" within the circles of actual scientists. It wasn't.

The German intellectuals, the scientists and doctors, the lawyers and academics were all on board.

Bullshit.

All of this pointed to a fundamentally unstable economy, a situation that doesn't fit with the Nazi party's ability to fund its own growth, which was the original issue.

Uh, no. The issue was your claim that the Dawes plan was a cause for the ending of hyperinflation. It was not.

Who said that they weren't reported? The incidents would have been mixed in with all crime reports. Why do you find it so difficult to deduce past behavior from later behavior patterns?

Then show the reports already instead of blathering on about unsubstantiated stuff like a fool!

The question was how they grew from a very small, lunatic fringe group into a mass movement.

No, your original question was who funded them because for some bizarre reason you refused to believe that they could have funded them themselves.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Wed, May 9, 2012 1:17:34am

Your explanation is not a plausible explanation for their growth.

My explanation is not only the most plausible, it is also the accepted state of research in historiography. While your "explanation" is nothing but debunked conspiracy theories and idle speculation.

you seem to have taken this book as a reason to absolve many people of their more than willing participation in Nazi society.

I have done no such thing. Fuck you, you asshole. I am done with you.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 1:56:22am

re: #20 Unlike Some People

Promise?

Obdicut Wed, May 9, 2012 2:05:34am

re: #18 Bob Levin

And you seem to have taken this book as a reason to absolve many people of their more than willing participation in Nazi society.

Bob, it kind of seems like the opposite. He's insisting that it was a mass movement, thus blaming far more people in their willing participation, whereas you're making up a conspiracy story that the Nazis financed themselves by breaking into places and looting them.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 2:56:37am

re: #22 Obdicut

It struck me that this person was saying two things at the same time. So, yes, mass movement, many involved. But I also got the feeling that the intellectuals and scientists were being left out--mostly from this quote

but you would also have to agree that Nazism never appealed to the kind of analytical and critical thinking that would expose itself but rather to the distress of people who readily identified their own emotions with results of the supposed failure of national politics.

There's an exhibit in Yad Vashem, which was pretty crowded when I went. I only say this because I caught the back end of another tour guide's presentation. I've been trying to locate information on this exhibit to no avail.

The exhibit consisted of pictures of high ups in either Hitler's inner circle, or the circle outside of his inner circle--and the among these people, there were quite a few doctors. I don't know if they were Ph.Ds or MDs, but the tour guide asked the question, what do you notice about these people--and someone said, 'lot of doctors'. Yes, she said. And that's all I was able to catch.

In my reading about the Holocaust (and you can find this on Wiki), I found that enlightened, critical, analytic thinking did not inoculate anyone from the poison, and the university class went along, and even embraced it, doing studies to give Nazism some scientific underpinnings. They were going to find the truth of Eugenics. The rest of the world didn't matter.

Regarding financing, I'm not making up a conspiracy theory. I felt I was floating a plausible theory for the rise of a small criminal organization into a mass movement. From film footage, and I watch quite a bit of this footage, just about everything in Germany was in economic decay, except for this group. The economy was not stable, the currency was not trusted--and yet the Nazis had new uniforms, flags, kitsch, camps, literature, movies, weapons, training--this costs money. What better way for a criminal movement to raise money than through crime? Is this so preposterous?

It seems like a more plausible theory than the nickels and dimes of the little Nazi masses, who didn't exist until the shows and parades attracted them.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, May 9, 2012 2:58:32am

re: #11 Bob Levin

I guess it depends upon which speech of Goebbels you listen to, or which part of Mein Kampf you read. Or, if you think the term 'open secret' is applicable, which of the two words get emphasis. Eugenics doesn't lead to a whole lot of options for the inferior breeds. Millions of people go missing, rounded up in the most cruel and degrading manner--and this is hidden? Are you sure it was euphemism or was it poetry? I'm sure many thought they were engaged in beautiful actions, like eradicating plague, plague being synonymous with inferior races breeding.

Bob, I won't be chiming in on the finances, but the Nazis were very concerned with the secrecy of mass murder from the start. They partially closed and slowed down the "euthanasia" murder program when people living near the "euthanasia" institutions got a whiff of it. They made people serving in the camps sign special oaths that everything happening there is a state secret and there will be severe punishment if they babble. When rumors of artifacts made from human bodies appeared, Himmler forbade any such possible "misuse" of bodies, ordering to burn or bury them. Later on Sonderkommando 1005 was instituted whose sole aim was roaming the occupied territory in search of graves to destroy so as not to give the Soviets any evidence of murder. The body disposal in the camps is also well-known and cannot be explained by purely hygienic measures (who would care e.g. about several spots of land somewhere in Poland that could be abandoned without a second thought?). The denial went on until the end - Norbert Masur interviewed Himmler in 1945 and the latter still denied everything, even when asked about the crematoria.

The Nazi mass murder was an open secret only because it was impossible to keep such a large scale operation a de facto secret. But it was a de jure secret, and the Nazis were trying to hide it to the best of their abilities, they were the first Holocaust deniers, so to say.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, May 9, 2012 3:02:06am

re: #23 Bob Levin

There were a lot of PhDs among Einsatzgruppen commanders, one was even a double PhD ("Dr. Dr."), probably that's what that guide meant.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 3:11:55am

re: #24 May Day! May Day!

The Nazi mass murder was an open secret only because it was impossible to keep such a large scale operation a de facto secret. But it was a de jure secret, and the Nazis were trying to hide it to the best of their abilities, they were the first Holocaust deniers, so to say.

I've been needing your expertise on this for a few days. Thanks. Let's look at this paragraph in slow motion--and I believe what you've written.

If it was an open secret, it was so because it was hard to ignore the disappearing people, but also because people talk. However, the only people who could talk, I mean make statements about what was happening (as opposed to the false curiosity of the public) were those wearing a uniform--and we know what the uniform did for the psyche of those wearing it. It was the cloth version of Viagra. And so, as these uniformed gentlemen were talking, please try to picture this, do you see them puffing up their chests? I do.

Do you think the de jure rulings stemmed from conscience, that Himmler, for instance, knew he was doing something wrong? I don't think that was the motivation. And Goebbels was certainly proud of the Final Solution. Remember, they thought they were creating a new world history.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 3:13:11am

re: #25 May Day! May Day!

I'll bet that's it. Thanks. I will look this up right away.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 3:15:34am

re: #25 May Day! May Day!

Holy shit. Ph.Ds.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, May 9, 2012 3:32:17am

re: #26 Bob Levin

From what I gather from their writings/speeches (e.g. Himmler's 1943 Posen speech or Goebbels's March 1942 diary entry) they were thinking of it as a necessary, yet barbaric, yet glorious, yet forever-to-be-kept-secret page of history.

They weren't ashamed of it, but they knew that "their people" won't appreciate the truth. So, not true that they didn't try to hide it. Hence all the facts above, plus a notable use of euphemisms even in a lot of secret internal correspondence. With some notable exceptions they were loathe to call killing killing even among themselves. You won't find the word even in the Wannsee protocol, though from the logic of the text the goals are quite clear.

To this it needs to be added that certainly, hints of mass murder from time to time appeared in the public sphere, e.g. in Streicher's Der Stuermer, which, however, was thought of as a vulgar low-brow tabloid with more leeway.

Letters home from various Nazi little cogs are sometimes also very stark in their descriptions, as well as justifications (to the effect of "either we kill these Jewish babies or they will grow up to be GPU executioners", cf. Walter Mattner's letters).

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Wed, May 9, 2012 3:33:33am

re: #28 Bob Levin

Dr. Dr. Otto Rasch.

Obdicut Wed, May 9, 2012 3:48:09am

re: #23 Bob Levin

The Nazis definitely persecuted and were opposed by a large amount of the intellectual class. Some others went along with them, or were even leaders. However, that's got little to do with the quote you're talking about, because even if someone is a scientist or an intellectual, they can still be appealed to outside that role. So your entire tirade seems really pointless to me.

Regarding financing, I'm not making up a conspiracy theory. I felt I was floating a plausible theory for the rise of a small criminal organization into a mass movement.

It's not very plausible, no. I have no idea why you think it is. I mean, think about it for half a fucking second: If the entire economy is in the shit, then robbing people doesn't actually produce much money, because you can't sell what you rob, and if you do, it's for very small amounts of money.

The Nazis didn't get all their spiffy stuff until they seized control of the state. Until then, I think you're vastly overstating the cost of fabric and beer.

Obdicut Wed, May 9, 2012 3:50:46am

re: #23 Bob Levin

And accusing someone of trying to "absolve many people of their more than willing participation in Nazi society" is a really horrendously shitty thing to do, and you ought to apologize for doing so.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 4:51:59am

re: #29 May Day! May Day!

From what I gather from their writings/speeches (e.g. Himmler's 1943 Posen speech or Goebbels's March 1942 diary entry) they were thinking of it as a necessary, yet barbaric, yet glorious, yet forever-to-be-kept-secret page of history.

Thank goodness we can talk about this from the standpoint of Germany losing. But, the Germans weren't thinking about losing in 1938. So, if there were no Jews left in the world, would the victors be throwing their hands in the air, saying they have no idea what happened to the Jews, or do you think they would have been handing out awards?

And there would have been really long acceptance speeches.

Part of their collective, individual pathology is the belief that they can have two opposing things at once. So it's a secret that everyone quietly brags about. They were thinking of their poses for their statues as the 1000 year Reich progressed. They would rewrite history, and it would be filled with the noble and courageous acts. I'm just saying, think of their pathology.

Bob Levin Wed, May 9, 2012 5:16:16am

re: #31 Obdicut

You're coming into this without reading the entire thread, not that I blame you. But that's not my entire explanation of their fundraising spree. I'm not going to repeat the whole thing again. Besides, it doesn't matter if you accept it or not, I was just floating a plausible explanation of how they got their money. I think it's more plausible than bake sales, but you can go with bake sales if you wish.

The Nazis didn't get all their spiffy stuff until they seized control of the state. Until then, I think you're vastly overstating the cost of fabric and beer.

My reply:

In 1928, the Nazi Party had nearly gone bankrupt as a result of the spending on street parades etc. which had cost the party a great deal. Bankruptcy would have automatically excluded them from politics - they were saved by a right wing businessman called Hugenburg who owned a media firm in Germany. He financially bailed them out.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, May 10, 2012 12:03:20am

re: #31 Obdicut

The Nazis definitely persecuted and were opposed by a large amount of the intellectual class. Some others went along with them, or were even leaders. However, that's got little to do with the quote you're talking about, because even if someone is a scientist or an intellectual, they can still be appealed to outside that role. So your entire tirade seems really pointless to me.

What I was talking about is also very obvious if you just look at the intellectuals who were persecuted and/or emigrated, and compare them with the intellectuals who stayed and collaborated with the regime. The contrast could not be starker, considering critical and analytical thinking.

re: #32 Obdicut

And accusing someone of trying to "absolve many people of their more than willing participation in Nazi society" is a really horrendously shitty thing to do, and you ought to apologize for doing so.

Well, it would have been alright if I had done that, but I very obviously did not, so yes, thank you for pointing this out, it was a shitty thing to do. Not that I want an apology, though. It was clearly a smear borne out of my disagreeing with him and/or him not understanding my point.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, May 10, 2012 12:04:32am

re: #24 May Day! May Day!

Funny. I already mentioned some of that in #10. I guess it wasn't expertise-y enough.

Bob Levin Thu, May 10, 2012 7:18:56am

Oh, so now we're talking like a 60s sitcom. Okay. Beaver, tell the expert that, since the expert doesn't listen, and since the expert has trouble with basic communication and language, that the 'points' made by the expert were obviously not made expertly enough, since they were wrong, if you look at the meaning of events instead of just the facts. Get that Beav?

I wonder how the expert would do as a participant in the Milgram experiment? Larry, go get the Beav so I can tell Beav to tell this to the expert.

One more thing Larry [laugh track], ask Beav to ask the expert if the expert could recognize that comments were refutations of the expert's [cough] Turner's point of view[laugh track]-- which was that someone imbued with critical thinking would be able to keep the ideology from entering one's mind and work.

[final laugh track, roll credits]

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Thu, May 10, 2012 11:41:46am

Pathetic.

Bob Levin Thu, May 10, 2012 12:07:37pm

Pathetic.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Fri, May 11, 2012 2:37:38am

Ye olde "I know what you are but what am I" defense. Brilliant.

Have fun calling people who do not agree with your nonsense and whom you do not understand nazi apologists, loser.

Bob Levin Fri, May 11, 2012 3:05:56am

Do you hire writers for these comebacks? And if so, shouldn't those 8th graders be sleeping because they have school tomorrow?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Fri, May 11, 2012 3:13:36am

Pretty ironic that you think yourself to be the mature one here while you dish out completely unsubstantiated accusations of nazi apologetics, for purely petty reasons. And then when confronted about such outlandish charges you babble on about projection & hurl kindergarten insults. Way to lift the discourse, loser. What else, want to accuse me of holocaust denial and then go "teener neeener"?

Bob Levin Fri, May 11, 2012 3:46:50am

You don't even read and understand your own comments. I find that ironic. How much did that retort cost, two peanut butter sandwiches?

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sat, May 12, 2012 12:49:31am

Your parents must be proud of you for relatizing and trivializing Nazi crimes for your own petty egotistic reasons. And don't think I am the only one seeing how shamelessly you react when backed into a corner rhetorically. Obdicut, who pointed this out in #32, had also once been on the receiving end of this pseudo-argumentative pattern of lashing out of yours.

Grow up, Bob. Your parents will thank you.

Bob Levin Sat, May 12, 2012 5:52:49pm

re: #44 Unlike Some People

And now you are arguing by trying to shame me and use peer pressure. I don't think one can go any lower, but I'm beginning to have faith in your abilities to discover more layers of--what would you call this mud?

I don't really want you to answer that question, which would be a subtextual meaning that you might miss.

If I 'lash out', which is an odd definition since to me lashing out entails curse words, but when I retort in that matter, I don't consider any further dialogue to be possible, since I've already been lashed at. There's some subtext in that sentence too, which you might miss, probably will miss.

By the way, both of my parents have passed away. You want to ridicule that? It's not beneath you.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!