View Single Post
Old 11-05-10, 01:10 PM   #103
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 42,729
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


Default

In Wikipedia's entry on Denazification, I found an interesting passage that may highlight why simplifying things the way Dimitrius and Tater are doing it, most likely is no adequate description of the true realities back then.
Even those believing in Nazism, most likely did so for a variety of motives and believes, motivated by different understandings of what it was and what was done in the name of it. That'S why I differenciate - like I also do in case of Islam - between the real content of the fixed-on-paper ideology, and the huge variety of different understandings of what the term means, sometimes in conformity, sometimes in violation, sometimes in reduction or misunderstanding of the conception that is behind the term identifying the ideology.

Again, all this is not in excuse of true Nazis and war criminals, of course. Again, Nazism is an evil, inhumane ideology, and the more a person fully submits to it in full knowledge and awareness of it's facts, the more guilty this person becomes.

Quote:
Surveys





The U.S. conducted opinion surveys in occupied Germany. Tony Judt in his book Postwar : a History of Europe since 1945 extracted and used some of them.[34]
  • A majority in the years 1945-49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea, badly applied.
  • In 1946, 6% of Germans said the Nuremberg trials had been unfair.
  • In 1946, 37% in the U.S. occupation zone said about the Holocaust that "the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans."
  • In 1946, 1 in 3 in the U.S. occupation zone said that Jews should not have the same rights as those belonging to the Aryan race.
  • In 1950, 1 in 3 said the Nuremberg trials had been unfair.
  • In 1952, 37% said Germany was better off without the Jews.
  • In 1952, 25% had a good opinion of Hitler.
However, in Hitler, Germans, and the 'Jewish Question,' Sarah Ann Gordon notes the difficulty of drawing conclusions from the surveys. For example, respondents were given three alternatives from which to choose, as in question 1:
StatementPercentage agreeingHitler was right in his treatment of the Jews:0%Hitler went too far in his treatment of the Jews, but something had to be done to keep them in bounds:19%The actions against the Jews were in no way justified:77%
To the question of whether an Aryan who marries a Jew should be condemned, 91% responded "No". To the question of whether "All those who ordered the murder of civilians or participated in the murdering should be made to stand trial," 94% responded "Yes".[35] Gordon singles out the question "Extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was not necessary for the security of the Germans", which included an implicit double negative to which the response was either yes or no. She concludes that this question was confusingly phrased:
Some interviewees may have responded "no" they did not agree with the statement, when they actually did agree that the extermination was not necessary.[36]
She further highlights the discrepancy between the antisemitic implications of the survey results (such as those later identified by Judt) with the 77% percent of interviewees who responded that actions against Jews were in no way justified.[36].

Gordon states that if the 77 percent result is to be believed then an "overwhelming majority" of Germans disapproved of extermination, and if the 37 percent result is believed to be correct then over one third of Germans were willing to exterminate Poles and Jews and others for German security[36]. She concludes that the phrasing of the question on German security lowers the confidence in the later interpretation.[36].
Gordon follows this with another survey where interviewees were asked if Nazism was good or bad (53% chose bad) and reasons for their answer. Among the nine possible choices on why it was bad, 21% chose the effects on the German people before the war, while 3-4 percent chose the answer "race policy, atrocities, pogroms"[36] However, Gordon highlight the issue that it is difficult to pin-down at which point in time respondents became aware of the exterminations, before or after they were interviewed. e.g. questionaire reports indicate that a sinificant minority had no knowledge until the Nuremberg trials. She also notes that when confronted with the exterminations there was an element of denial, disbelief, and confusion. Asked about concentration camps, very few Germans associated them with the jews, leading to the conclusion that they did not understand how they had been used against the Jews during the war and instead continued to think of them as they were before the war, the place where political opponents to the Nazis were kept. "This naivete is only understandable if large numbers of Germans were truly ignorant of the existance of these camps".[37] A British study on the same attitudes concluded that
"Those who said National Socialism was a good idea pointed to social welfare plans, the lack of unemployment, the great construction plans of the Nazis....Nearly all those who thought it a good idea nevertheless rejected Nazi racial theories and disagreed with the inhumanity of the concentration camps and the 'SS'.[37]
Sarah Gordon writes that a majority of Germans appeared to approve of nonviolent removal of Jews from civil service and professions and German life.[36]. The German public also accepted the Nuremberg laws because they thought they would act as stabilizers and end violence against Jews.[37] The German public had as a result of the Nazi antisemitic propaganda hardened their attitudes between 1935 and 1938 from the originally fairly favorable. By 1938 the propaganda had had effect and antisemitic policies were accepted, provided no violence was involved.[37] The Kristallnacht caused German opposition to antisemitism to peak, with the vast majority of Germans rejecting the violence and destruction, and many Germans aiding the jews.[37] The Nazis responded by intimidation in order to discourage oposition, those aiding jews were victims of large scale arrests and intimidation.[37] With the start of the war the anti semitic minority that approved of restrictions on Jewish domestic activities was growing, but there is no evidence that the general public had any acceptance for labor camps or extermination.[37] And as the number of antisemites grew, so too did the number of Germans opposed to racial persecution, and rumors of deportations and shootings in the east led to snowballing critizism of the Nazis. Gordon states that "one can probably conclude that labor camps, concentration camps, and extermination were opposed by a majority of Germans."[37]
Gordon concludes her analysis on German public opinion based German SD-reports during the war and the Allied questionnaires during the occupation, with:
..it would appear that a majority of Germans supported elimination of Jews from the civil service; quotas on Jews in professions, academic institutions, and commercial fields; restrictions on intermarriage; and voluntary emigration of Jews. However, the rabid antisemites' demands for violent boycotts, illegal expropriation, destruction of Jewish property, pogroms, deportation, and extermination were probably rejected by a majority of Germans. They apparently wanted to restrict Jewish rights substantially, but not to annihilate Jews.[37]
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
Skybird is offline