afmvdp said:
one of the most ignorant things I've read on this board since the "ultimate colossus is gay" thread. Congrats! Thanks for being the context al qaeda
I'm ignorant? Yet you respond to a post with a flippant, self-relative remark that does nothing more than offer pedantic sarcasm attempting to be guised as something of a self-evident retort. Please...try again.
There are certains terms that can be used. Nazism was an extreme right-wing movement that PREDATED Hitler. If I am ignorant for stating a historical fact, then I am ignorant for stating a historical fact. The Worker's Party, which arose prior to Hitler's introduction, and made great gains as a legitmate right-wing party within the government WITHOUT Hitler's assitance, represented an extreme right-wing view of German society. They were hallmarked by a unique stubborness and extremism. They were, for lack of a better comparison, the Evangelical Right Wing movement of America today in terms of fervor, not substance.
After Hitler was sent into the organization by the German gov't to investigate them (some believed the infant Nazi party had Communist tendancies ironically), Hitler blended in. Yet, he, like many Germans at the time desperate and feeling burdened by what is a historically regarded unfair Treaty of Versailles, was drawn to the nationalist (extreme) message of the Worker's Party. He quickly grew friends, moving his way up and then painted HIS horrible anti-semetic views (which were gotten by such men as Karl Lueger, Austrian Mayor I blieve who was a raging anti-semetic, amongst others). Hitler, within the Nazi Party, NOT THE NAZI PARTY, utlized their message and redirected it against the Jews and lower class, speaking to the large middle class that was struggling in the depression. A prime tool was the use of the fear of Communists (the poor would plunder the middle and high class in a revolution) to gain votes. And they did.
Now, don't act like being anti-semetic's a crime back then. We are kind and leinent to our own forefather's patent racism against Indians and Blacks. I see no reason why we should be tolerant of German anti-semintism, since it was racist trend shared in both France, England, and EVEN AMERICA at the time. Yes, America had a large anti-semetic population. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying, brandishing the term Nazi in this respect would be the equivelant to throwing the term Democrat out of the book and call it un-PC jsut because they were part of the Confederates during hte Civil War. It must be judged in the context of the times -- anti-semitism was rampant back then.
Even still, the NAZI part as a whole outside of Hitler instituted programs that, despite whatever sentimenal value you wish to block it with, did produce changes inside the country. Recreational programs, mandatory educational programs were all cornerstones of the Nazi platform -- devised by Nazi leaders who could care less about hating Jews. Did you know Nazis were one of the first to institute warnings against smoking? Anyways, so, overall, Nazi's introduced legislation that would buffer the birth rate (Victorian idealism saw a nations population a sign of virility) clean up a war impoverished Germany. It succeeded for the most part, was HAILED in the United STates for doing so. Being that these "lower Nazi" officials worked hard to do this, Hitler, now firmly in place as the Nazi figurehead, was able to take all the credit.
It was Hitler's goals that later polluted the image of Nazism. What he did...was it wrong? Of course, no one argues about that. Just as it was wrong for Stalin to exterminate millions of his own countrymen to save his nation. Just as it was wrong of America to nearly exterminate, on a plan that Hitler could only dream of (of course, we had more time) an entire race of indigenous people over the course of two centuries. Yep, just as wrong. However, does that mean the term Nazi, Communist, and American should forever be stained bythose extreme, misguided individuals who so happened to pervert the platform of said groups into something that would allow their own agendas to be realized?
I would say no. For the sake of comfortable and American-centric history, Germany in WWII and WWI have been painted in a less nuanced picture than is really due. There are nuances, their are gray areas, and just becaues they make people uncomfortable, doesn't mean history doesn't acknowledge them as existing. How many NAZIS tried to kill Hitler? Many, some actually tried, like Schrofenberg (horrid spelling, I forget) a one handed (and even that hand was deformed) war veteran who planted a bomb in Hitler's country villa. It exploded, HItler lived by the grace of a large table leg. Hitler than promptly executed these men for their "crimes". Now, did these men and others throw in their Nazi badges. No, they felt the ideas of Nazism (right-wing socialism I guess you could say) were right for Germany. But they felt that Hitler was becoming immoral (many Germans and Nazis alike were disgusted by the concentration camps). Also, one cannot underestimate the impact of psychology in how such horrible crimes could have happened in the first place against Jews.
Very litle of what happened in concentration camps between 1939-1945 had to do with Nazism. It had to do with Hitler, his gang of thugs, and the influence of "groupthink" on scared, desperate, penniless masses.
It has really become time for WWII to join the rest of those historical events that we review objectively with the littlest traces of sentimentality possible, and the highest amounts of devotion to truth present. If the latter is followed, you'd find yourself much more conflicted on what actually happened in WII, instead of indignantly comfortable of the fact that you live in a former allied nation that is so above those things done in Germany. If you honestly think you do, you are the one who is igonrant.