Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[tsubaki]

you linked a speech which was internal among top brass nazis. we're talking about the wider non-nazi civilian populatiom.

Read the first two lines again, specifically the bit where he says "every party member says.....", and then makes a joke that relies on that being true to work.

There were around 8 million party members when he said that.

 

[dholliday]

Read the first two lines again, specifically the bit where he says "every party member says.....", and then makes a joke that relies on that being true to work.

There were around 8 million party members when he said that.

the key line at the beginning is this one:

Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the same we will never speak about it in public.

That was a meeting of less than a dozen top brass nazis.

I appreciate the nazi warcrime perps numbered in many thousands. But again we're talking about civilian knowledge.

We're talking about one of the most evil sustained acts in human history...let's keep things accurate.

I'll wait for proper evidence of your earlier statement:

there is ample evidence that the wider German public was aware of the holocaust whilst it was happening.

"ample" implies you have something more convincing to show us.

 

[dholliday]

There were around 8 million party members when he said that.

That was a meeting of less than a dozen top brass nazis.

for accuracy's sake i should've written a few dozen top brass as records tell us the speech was made to 92 officers. i was thinking of another Himmler speech behind closed doors.

the main point obviously still stands:

the Nazis were evil filth who were responsible for one of the worst sustained crimes against humanity in human history. The German Folk knew of hate campaigns which included deportations and cultural/free-speech clampdowns against jews but did not know of any mass murder programs until the allies took over the comms.

The huge shame, and the fact that the world didn't blame the German Folk, drove the nation to betterment and is today much envied for its tolerance and pleasantness.

And that is the link to Critical Race Theory, which seeks to blame whiteness for historical, and current, griefs. That way isn't the way to betterment, as Germany have shown.


Any counter to this is welcome, tho' evidence would be appreciated.

 

[tsubaki]

the key line at the beginning is this one:

Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the same we will never speak about it in public.

That was a meeting of less than a dozen top brass nazis.

I appreciate the nazi warcrime perps numbered in many thousands. But again we're talking about civilian knowledge.

We're talking about one of the most evil sustained acts in human history...let's keep things accurate.

I'll wait for proper evidence of your earlier statement:

"ample" implies you have something more convincing to show us.

No, it isn't the key line.

What Himmler was referring to there (and its completely obvious, which is why this probably is a waste of time) is the reality of what extermination meant - the sights and sounds (and effects on the participants) of murdering thousands of people, of organizing those murders. of creating and ruling the camps in the way that they did and for the purposes they did. He was not saying we should cover up the existence of that crime; indeed to say that and then say 8 million people were saying it was happening would make zero sense.

You can tell that by just reading the next sentence, which parallels it to the Night of the Long Knives and says they never talked about what they did then either - even though what they did to Rohm et al was publicly acknowledged by the Nazis at the time.

As for the evidence, here is a wiki page on the subject with loads of links and examples, knock yourself out.

 

[dholliday]

No, it isn't the key line.

What Himmler was referring to there (and its completely obvious, which is why this probably is a waste of time) is the reality of what extermination meant - the sights and sounds (and effects on the participants) of murdering thousands of people, of organizing those murders. of creating and ruling the camps in the way that they did and for the purposes they did. He was not saying we should cover up the existence of that crime; indeed to say that and then say 8 million people were saying it was happening would make zero sense.

You can tell that by just reading the next sentence, which parallels it to the Night of the Long Knives and says they never talked about what they did then either - even though what they did to Rohm et al was publicly acknowledged by the Nazis at the time.

As for the evidence, here is a wiki page on the subject with loads of links and examples, knock yourself out.

from your wikipedia link:

The question of how much Germans and other Europeans knew about the Holocaust while it was ongoing continues to be debated by historians. With regards to Nazi Germany, some historians argue that it was an open secret amongst the population whilst others highlight a possibility that the German population were genuinely unaware of the Final Solution.

If historians are still debating it, that means there is no clear evidence of it.

In that entire wikipedia article there is no mention of hard evidence ('ample' or otherwise) that the wider German Folk knew of these crimes against humanity before the allies invaded Berlin.

I'll remind you of your own claim:

there is ample evidence that the wider German public was aware of the holocaust whilst it was happening.

You still haven't provided even one single example of this evidence.

 

[verreauxi]

TBF there is ample evidence that the wider German public was aware of the holocaust whilst it was happening - maybe not the exact details of how it happened (as in the location of the camps and nature of the gas chambers), but certainly what was happening (that the Jews were being destroyed).

Things like jokes circulating about chimneys, contact with witnesses (from the Army and other organizations) who had personally witnessed atrocities, and foreign broadcasts were all available to the majority of the population and the internal reports of Nazi intelligence show that an understanding existed of something terminal happening. The physical structure of the holocaust - the camps, transportation, the support networks (like the census) weren't easily hidden either.

Finally there is the speeches of the leadership, which pretty directly allude (or in one case directly state) that the destruction of the Jews was happening - Himmler's "decent Jew" point makes no sense if the people did not know what was going on, for example.

There are reasonably common instances of civilians finding out about it as well, and doing something about it (of which the White Rose are the most famous). We've also got to remember that the crime didn't exist in a vacuum - the Nazi state was openly occupying most of Europe and regularly carrying out atrocities that it publicized - killing dozens for civilians for every German killed in attacks for example, or going after German "traitors", or the millions of foreign labourers forced to work in the Reich, as well as the earlier actions (against the mentally ill as well as the attacks on Jews).

The enormous guilt that most Germans of those generations felt was because they knew about it but at best did nothing and at worst actively went along with it, not that they were ignorant or duped (though it certainly benefited everyone involved to pretend the latter was the case after the war).

Also in 1942 on the front page of the NYT they referred to Hitler’s plan to “exterminate the Jewish people” …the Anthony Eden statement.

 

[tsubaki]

from your wikipedia link:

If historians are still debating it, that means there is no clear evidence of it.

In that entire wikipedia article there is no mention of hard evidence ('ample' or otherwise) that the wider German Folk knew of these crimes against humanity before the allies invaded Berlin.

I'll remind you of your own claim:

You still haven't provided even one single example of this evidence.

"If historians are still debating it, that means there is no clear evidence of it" is just a completely absurd statement. It is so absurd that making it, together with your deliberate misrepresentation of quotes provided (and ignoring everything else such as the Nazi leadership in public speeches making it clear what would happen to the Jews if war happened) makes it increasingly obvious what you are up to here.

As for "you haven't provided even one single example of this evidence" - well I think anyone who can read would see what a lie that is.

 

[dholliday]

completely absurd statement. It is so absurd that making it, together with your deliberate misrepresentation of quotes provided (and ignoring everything else such as the Nazi leadership in public speeches making it clear what would happen to the Jews if war happened) makes it increasingly obvious what you are up to here.

As for "you haven't provided even one single example of this evidence" - well I think anyone who can read would see what a lie that is.

really horrible post this. plus you're now bringing poison into what should be a serious respectful debate...i'm done.

 

[tsubaki]

really horrible post this. plus you're now bringing poison into what should be a serious respectful debate...i'm done.

Good - how you've behaved here is almost beyond belief.

 

[dholliday]

"If historians are still debating it, that means there is no clear evidence of it" is just a completely absurd statement.

and this one is for any curious readers, as tsu here is not interested in learned debate.

The Holocaust has clear hard evidence for it, ergo there is no serious debate as to whether it happened or not. It definitely happened.

That the wider majority German public had common knowledge of the mass murder of jewish folk has no clear evidence for it, hence the matter is still debated within historian circles. Ergo, it's a matter of opinion based only on soft evidence.

This is how serious historians have been recording history for ever.

Hard evidence = accepted fact, not under debate.

Soft evidence = not an accepted fact, a matter of differing opinions/interpretations.

Even the single piece (not 'ample') of soft evidence that tsu provided - extracts of an internal speech to a handful of nazi chiefs - merely contradicted his claim with the clear line that: "we will never speak about it in public."


It's a shame some blues on here get so confrontational when their arguments are shown lacking. There's no extra understanding gained that way, not for me, him or anyone reading.


It's a grim subject...so full of darkness...but there was proven light at the end: the German and Jewish folk recovered...prospered...largely because debate around the whole thing was proper. A debate-quality i hope we can find for the big influential divisive issues of US politics: like Critical Race Theory, Donald Trump etc.

How the world handled Germany, and how the German folk responded, has shown us the right way forward, a way with less conflict, more respect. History can teach us much. The virtually conflict-addicted US/UK society would do well to heed this valuable lesson, lest yous make things worse. And they can get so much worse...


Let's make debate proper again x

 

[dholliday]

Also in 1942 on the front page of the NYT they referred to Hitler’s plan to “exterminate the Jewish people” …the Anthony Eden statement.

Should go without saying, but the wider German public of wartime Nazi Germany didn't tend to read New York Times...any Germans who were aware of Allied claims of the Holocaust pre-1945 (which would be a relatively small number of well-read or well-connected Germans) may have either put this down to propaganda, or indeed believed it and held their tongue. Or much better they resolved to help jewish folk (many examples of this). I've already said it's almost certain a minority of the German public knew about it.

But this isn't a convincing claim that the majority of Germans knew.

So another example of soft evidence: requiring a few interpretive steps to get to a specific conclusion. it's ok to use that to bolster your opinion, but the 1940's weren't like today with our globalised communications, so the counter to that is at least equally valid.

 

[Moomin]

really horrible post this. plus you're now bringing poison into what should be a serious respectful debate...i'm done.

I think you should leave.

And never come back.

To prove your point

 

[tsubaki]

and this one is for any curious readers, as tsu here is not interested in learned debate.

The Holocaust has clear hard evidence for it, ergo there is no serious debate as to whether it happened or not. It definitely happened.

That the wider majority German public had common knowledge of the mass murder of jewish folk has no clear evidence for it, hence the matter is still debated within historian circles. Ergo, it's a matter of opinion based only on soft evidence.

This is how serious historians have been recording history for ever.

Hard evidence = accepted fact, not under debate.

Soft evidence = not an accepted fact, a matter of differing opinions/interpretations.

Even the single piece (not 'ample') of soft evidence that tsu provided - extracts of an internal speech to a handful of nazi chiefs - merely contradicted his claim with the clear line that: "we will never speak about it in public."


It's a shame some blues on here get so confrontational when their arguments are shown lacking. There's no extra understanding gained that way, not for me, him or anyone reading.


It's a grim subject...so full of darkness...but there was proven light at the end: the German and Jewish folk recovered...prospered...largely because debate around the whole thing was proper. A debate-quality i hope we can find for the big influential divisive issues of US politics: like Critical Race Theory, Donald Trump etc.

How the world handled Germany, and how the German folk responded, has shown us the right way forward, a way with less conflict, more respect. History can teach us much. The virtually conflict-addicted US/UK society would do well to heed this valuable lesson, lest yous make things worse. And they can get so much worse...


Let's make debate proper again x

"Hard" and "soft" evidence now?

This is what I meant by "what you are up to here" by the way - how you completely ignore anything that contradicts you, either making up stuff or taking things out of context and then making up stuff based off that.

That speech for instance - you've ignored what it said about the Night of the Long Knives, ignored what Himmler said about every party member knowing about the (edit) planned elimination of the Jews and just focused in on one line out of context as if the rest doesn't matter. You've ignored the open statements by the German leadership of the time, ignored everything on that wikipedia page. I bet if I posted every one of the SD intelligence reports that mention rumours among the populace of Jews being murdered you'd ignore that as well. You've now topped that by claiming you know how "serious historians" work, which is almost beyond parody.

What makes it even more absurd is that even your own argument proves how absolutely wrong you are. I mean if there is no evidence that the German population knew about crimes against humanity, then what exactly have historians spent the past seventy years debating over? Why did the German population worry about the men fighting at the front of wars of aggression (crimes against humanity, remember) that they apparently didn't know were happening?

You seem determined to get as many people as possible to put you on ignore. It is really weird.

 

[dholliday]

"Hard" and "soft" evidence now?

This is what I meant by "what you are up to here" by the way - how you completely ignore anything that contradicts you, either making up stuff or taking things out of context and then making up stuff based off that.

That speech for instance - you've ignored what it said about the Night of the Long Knives, ignored what Himmler said about every party member knowing about the (edit) planned elimination of the Jews and just focused in on one line out of context as if the rest doesn't matter. You've ignored the open statements by the German leadership of the time, ignored everything on that wikipedia page. I bet if I posted every one of the SD intelligence reports that mention rumours among the populace of Jews being murdered you'd ignore that as well. You've now topped that by claiming you know how "serious historians" work, which is almost beyond parody.

What makes it even more absurd is that even your own argument proves how absolutely wrong you are. I mean if there is no evidence that the German population knew about crimes against humanity, then what exactly have historians spent the past seventy years debating over? Why did the German population worry about the men fighting at the front of wars of aggression (crimes against humanity, remember) that they apparently didn't know were happening?

You seem determined to get as many people as possible to put you on ignore. It is really weird.

you still provide no evidence, soft or otherwise. despite your "ample" claims.

remember i subliminally changed your mind on something else a few days ago? if i do so again on this, being put on ignore will have been worth it, for you have already read the important stuff.

we've rinsed this one...reached the end of the debate.

see you (or not) in another thread

 

[DLJ]

you still provide no evidence, soft or otherwise. despite your "ample" claims.

remember i subliminally changed your mind on something else a few days ago? if i do so again on this, being put on ignore will have been worth it, for you have already read the important stuff.

we've rinsed this one...reached the end of the debate.

see you (or not) in another thread

Get help mate. If you don't think you need to for you, at least do it for the people round you.