Just when you think you'd heard the worst of it ...

[Stand By]

I just tell deniers, if it didn't happen, then why didn't any of the men tried at Nuremberg bring that up as their defense?

Ha!Ha! Checkmate in one move! Love it.

 

[Stand By]

And by coincidence, I see that the story of the guard has a new update in today's press:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-Auschwitz-means-s-jailed-war-crimes-93.html

Some interesting background on him - and it mentions the BBC documentary I mentioned where, when he's asked about taking the possessions of the prisoners home, he laughed spontaneously and admitted that he did and saw no great wrong in it.
Interestingly, it seems that he's upset a lot of neo-nazis on his way since he broke his silence - and that could mean a tough time for him if he's in general population in prison! (I won't lose sleep over that. I imagine he will, though. Oh, the irony).

And just as before, look at the readers' comments and you'll see - once again - the very same result on the public mood ! Surreal. Sometimes I just feel like I'm living in a parallel universe.

PS. I coincidentally, I have just found this article as well in the same paper.
So no justice again for these evil witches, due to age and ill-health.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-Hitler-s-Holocaust-never-face-justice.html
I just have to have faith that their true judgment is still pending … and there'll be no avoiding that one.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Then there was his unapologetic apology in court where he declared himself "morally guilty" but then, in essence, suggested that finding him criminally guilty might be another story altogether.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The real horror there is not that the man himself was some kind of monstrous fiend. It's that he was an ordinary man, born and raised in a "respectable family," somebody's son/husband/father/grandfather, who allowed blind nationalism to convince him that he was Doing His Patriotic Duty. "The banality of evil" indeed.

 

[Stand By]

I thought it funny that he only decided to break his silence when he was offered that book on holocaust denial by a neo-nazi - and it clearly seemed to offend his sense of duty, patriotism and professionalism !

 

[LizzieMaine]

His Wikipedia page is very interesting.

Gröning was born in Lower Saxony in 1921,[2] as the son of a strict conservative and skilled textile worker.[3]:139 His mother died when he was four.[4] His father, a proud nationalist, joined the Stahlhelm after Germany's defeat in the First World War, and his anger at how Germany had been treated following the Treaty of Versailles increased as his textile business went bankrupt in 1929 due to insufficient capital.[3]:139

Gröning states that his childhood was one of "discipline, obedience and authority".[4] Gröning was fascinated by military uniforms, and one of his earliest memories is of looking at photos of his grandfather, who served in an elite regiment of the Duchy of Brunswick, on his horse and playing his trumpet.[3]:139 He joined the Scharnhorst, the Stahlhelm's youth organisation as a small boy in the 1930s, and later the Hitler Youth when the Nazis came to power in 1933.[3]:139-140 Influenced by his family's values, he felt that Nazism was advantageous to Germany and believed that the Nazis "were the people who wanted the best for Germany and who did something about it."[3]:140 He participated in the burning of books written by Jews and other authors that the Nazis considered degenerate in the belief that he was helping Germany free itself from an alien culture, and considered that National Socialism was having a positive effect on the economy, pointing to lower unemployment.[3]:140

Given a lot of the views about the need for "discipline, obedience, and authority" that we constantly hear from many people here, how many Loungers, had they had been born in Germany in 1921, would have agreed with him?

 

[AmateisGal]

The real horror there is not that the man himself was some kind of monstrous fiend. It's that he was an ordinary man, born and raised in a "respectable family," somebody's son/husband/father/grandfather, who allowed blind nationalism to convince him that he was Doing His Patriotic Duty. "The banality of evil" indeed.

This is the root of it all right here, and I think that's why the study of the Third Reich will continue for a long, long time. We are still trying to understand how this could happen. Because let's face it - if it could happen in Germany, a place of high culture and refinement, it could happen anywhere.

 

[AmateisGal]

His Wikipedia page is very interesting.



Given a lot of the views about the need for "discipline, obedience, and authority" that we constantly hear from many people here, how many Loungers, had they had been born in Germany in 1921, would have agreed with him?

I think there were many people in America who *did* agree with him during that time, thus the rise of the German American Bund and other fascist sympathizers. Of course, that all fizzled quite a bit when Hitler went into Poland.

I wish people in this country would stop looking at our politicians as anything other than our employers. But that is wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Stand By]

This is the root of it all right here, and I think that's why the study of the Third Reich will continue for a long, long time. We are still trying to understand how this could happen. Because let's face it - if it could happen in Germany, a place of high culture and refinement, it could happen anywhere.

Indeed!
And the fault-lines are already appearing for it to happen again … but none of the world's leaders seem to know their history, nor the associated lessons that were hard-learned.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think there were many people in America who *did* agree with him during that time, thus the rise of the German American Bund and other fascist sympathizers. Of course, that all fizzled quite a bit when Hitler went into Poland.

Except of course for Herr von Lindbergh and his colleagues at "America First," who had a field day during 1940-41. Lindy's Des Moines speech in 1941 was right out of the Goebbels playbook.

 

[Big J]

This is the root of it all right here, and I think that's why the study of the Third Reich will continue for a long, long time. We are still trying to understand how this could happen. Because let's face it - if it could happen in Germany, a place of high culture and refinement, it could happen anywhere.

I agree with you, the concern was that if it could happen in Germany, it could happen anywhere, which is why they researched how it happened already.
The main factor IMHO was that people are so averse to taking personal responsibility, averse going against the group, averse to rocking the boat, and ultimately happy to give up responsibility in the face of authority (hence the frequently cited 'I was only following orders' defense).

This phenomena has been well studied by psychologists. See the Milgram Experimant, that showed that when instructed to do so by a perceived authority figure, people will knowingly inflict pain on others to the point of death even though they know it to be immoral;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Proof that this 'willingness' to subvert personal ethics to perceived authority is alive and well in US (and therefore, as a psychological phenomena, in all societies) can be found in the true life story that inspired the film Compliance;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_(film)

The sad fact is that most people are just weak. Not only weak of mind, but also of moral fiber, and will do disgusting things if they think that they don't have to be responsible for them, by diverting responsibility to a 'social authority figure'.

And that's how you get six million jews into gas chambers, or turn 200,000 Koreans into sex-slaves.

It's disgusting.

 

[AmateisGal]

Except of course for Herr von Lindbergh and his colleagues at "America First," who had a field day during 1940-41. Lindy's Des Moines speech in 1941 was right out of the Goebbels playbook.

Very true. And of course, we don't talk about that part of Lindbergh's past...

 

[AmateisGal]

I agree with you, the concern was that if it could happen in Germany, it could happen anywhere, which is why they researched how it happened already.
The main factor IMHO was that people are so averse to taking personal responsibility, averse going against the group, averse to rocking the boat, and ultimately happy to give up responsibility in the face of authority (hence the frequently cited 'I was only following orders' defense).

This phenomena has been well studied by psychologists. See the Milgram Experimant, that showed that when instructed to do so by a perceived authority figure, people will knowingly inflict pain on others to the point of death even though they know it to be immoral;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Proof that this 'willingness' to subvert personal ethics to perceived authority is alive and well in US (and therefore, as a psychological phenomena, in all societies) can be found in the true life story that inspired the film Compliance;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_(film)

The sad fact is that most people are just weak. Not only weak of mind, but also of moral fiber, and will do disgusting things if they think that they don't have to be responsible for them, by diverting responsibility to a 'social authority figure'.

And that's how you get six million jews into gas chambers, or turn 200,000 Koreans into sex-slaves.

It's disgusting.

I've read some of those studies, too, and yes, it is absolutely frightening.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Very true. And of course, we don't talk about that part of Lindbergh's past...

Anne's hands were not clean, either. In 1940 she wrote a book called "The Wave of the Future," in which she argued that European-style fascism was the inevitable future for America, and that, in so many words, we should just lie back and accept it. Strange how nobody ever brings that one up.

 

[Big J]

I've read some of those studies, too, and yes, it is absolutely frightening.

TBH though, I think that the important detail is in the scale of difference in this phenomena between wartime Germany and Japan, and the postwar experiments in the US, and the crime behind the Compliance story.

What I mean is that wartime Germany and Japan, being totalitarian fascist states engendered this psychological subversion of morals to authority on an industrial scale in the real world, whereas the Milgram experiment was contrived to subvert a small test group by clever psychologists in a lab environment, and the Compliance criminal in real life was highly skilled at the psychology of manipulating weak people.

I believe that this difference between the Axis fascist totalitarianism, and the US shows a fundamental difference in our ideologies at that time. Sure, in the UK and the USA there were many who sympathized and agreed with the Nazi's, and yet, our democratic institutions, and our social beliefs ensured that Nazi ideology was given fair coverage in our countries, and then (and quite deservedly so) dismissed by the general public. In the totalitarian Axis states, a function of fascism was to remove the publics faculty for debating these ideas.
For example, whilst Hollywood was notably slow in the uptake in attacking Hitler, they did make The Great Dictator. And there was a level of discussion about the perceived benefits of Nazi ideology in America's civil society. The fact that those pro-nazi voices were drowned out is a testament to the widespread understanding that nazi ideas were incompatible with American values. Meanwhile, in 30's Germany, the state controlled the media and social discourse, crushing all civil debate. As the British comedian peter Cook once said; 'Those Berlin cabaret artists really showed Hitler, didn't they?'

As I have to remind some people I know frequently, were didn't win the war because our technology was better (e.g. the A-bomb), we won the war because our ideology was better.

 

[AmateisGal]

TBH though, I think that the important detail is in the scale of difference in this phenomena between wartime Germany and Japan, and the postwar experiments in the US, and the crime behind the Compliance story.

What I mean is that wartime Germany and Japan, being totalitarian fascist states engendered this psychological subversion of morals to authority on an industrial scale in the real world, whereas the Milgram experiment was contrived to subvert a small test group by clever psychologists in a lab environment, and the Compliance criminal in real life was highly skilled at the psychology of manipulating weak people.

I believe that this difference between the Axis fascist totalitarianism, and the US shows a fundamental difference in our ideologies at that time. Sure, in the UK and the USA there were many who sympathized and agreed with the Nazi's, and yet, our democratic institutions, and our social beliefs ensured that Nazi ideology was given fair coverage in our countries, and then (and quite deservedly so) dismissed by the general public. In the totalitarian Axis states, a function of fascism was to remove the publics faculty for debating these ideas.
For example, whilst Hollywood was notably slow in the uptake in attacking Hitler, they did make The Great Dictator. And there was a level of discussion about the perceived benefits of Nazi ideology in America's civil society. The fact that those pro-nazi voices were drowned out is a testament to the widespread understanding that nazi ideas were incompatible with American values. Meanwhile, in 30's Germany, the state controlled the media and social discourse, crushing all civil debate. As the British comedian peter Cook once said; 'Those Berlin cabaret artists really showed Hitler, didn't they?'

As I have to remind some people I know frequently, were didn't win the war because our technology was better (e.g. the A-bomb), we won the war because our ideology was better.

Well said. I agree with you.

 

[Big J]

Anne's hands were not clean, either. In 1940 she wrote a book called "The Wave of the Future," in which she argued that European-style fascism was the inevitable future for America, and that, in so many words, we should just lie back and accept it. Strange how nobody ever brings that one up.

You know what Lizzie, I had exactly the same kind of feeling when saw the movie 'The King's Speech'.
The movie revolves around the king's speech impediment treatment, which is successful just in time for him to deliver a rousing anti-Hitler speech to the British masses on the eve of the war. The sad truth is that throughout the period of time covered by the film, the king was in discussions with Germany as to how he (and British Lords) might keep their land and entitlements under Nazi rule, and the king worked furiously to assist some British politicians to prevent a Pro-Churchill clique from calling Germany's bluff right up to the declaration of war by the UK.

This is not the way people want to remember history. In all fairness, Churchill did prevail, he did give Hitler an ultimatum, he did enjoy the support of the British public, and the UK stood up to the Nazis alone for some time, and was ultimately victorious. So all said and done, it's kind of academic- the British government, public, and their institutions made the right choice, and were vindicated, as was America in it's turn.

 

[Big J]

Well said. I agree with you.

Thanks very much!
And this brings me back to why I detest revisionism like Irving's.
Our culture created social institutions that functioned absolutely as designed, which is why our nation made the choices it did, and as a result of those choices was victorious in the war.
On the other hand, the Axis powers subverted their social institutions due to a culture that prevented their protection and correct functioning, allowing those societies to make incorrect choices, that were doomed to failure from inception. Revisionism is dangerous because it seeks to conceal that fact by presenting a false understanding of what actually happened. The revisionist lies in themselves are detestable, but what those lies seek to obfuscate represents a dangerous attack on reality.

 

[LizzieMaine]

For example, whilst Hollywood was notably slow in the uptake in attacking Hitler, they did make The Great Dictator.

A minor, but significant point here -- mainstream Hollywood didn't make "The Great Dictator," Charlie Chaplin -- an independent producer with strong left-wing political views -- did so. The major studios, after "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" was attacked as "war propaganda" in the right-wing Hearst press, wanted nothing to do with such "controversial subject matter." Chaplin, for his part, was roundly attacked by the Hearst papers for making "Dictator," and isolationist groups urged a boycott of the film.

It's easy to underestimate just how deeply and closely many Americans in 1940-41 were flirting with fascism. Some were openly sympathetic to Nazism, some were doing so in the belief that the US should ally with Germany against Russia, some were doing so out of bitter anti-British views, some were relics of the midwestern anti-semitic, nativist-populist movement of the 1920s, and some were just so desperately opposed to going to war again that they were willing to ignore everything Hitler did for the sake of being "left alone." But whatever their rationale, their voices were loud and powerful for a very long time -- in some cases continuing right into the middle of US involvement in the war itself. Colonel Robert McCormick's Chicago Tribune -- the most influential paper in the Midwest -- consistently published anti-war-effort, Nazi-leaning editorials all thru the war years.

 

[AmateisGal]

Colonel Robert McCormick's Chicago Tribune -- the most influential paper in the Midwest -- consistently published anti-war-effort, Nazi-leaning editorials all thru the war years.

I did not know this. Now I'm going to go look them up! (Hoping that ProQuest will have them...)