Why So Few Resisted Hitler
wsj.com
wsj.com
"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
Albert Einstein
The actual history, though, is very interesting. Here's the Wikipedia article on the agreement between Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
As a leader of an organisation, would you be willing to organize crimes against the government if it did things you believe unjust ? Would you be willing and able to have an organisation continue those crimes when it's people were being executed ?
I don't think any of us can imagine what running organisations like the Catholic church, or any other resistance on the mainland, must have been like.
Here's a more complete summary: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pi...
It is very easy to sit in 2016 and say that everyone saw it coming and anyone who didn't respond, did so out of cowardice or outright malice. This isn't true. Self-preservation was by far the main driver of most people's actions.
Why did "so few resist Hitler". Here's a video from yesterday : http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/programmas/journ... (seems to be censored on youtube, or at least, I can't seem to find videos with the massive crowds cheering his "I killed those dumb criminals" statements. The -many- videos showing Duterte's people arriving on motorcycles to people's homes dragging men and women out of their homes, sometimes leaving behind crying children, are disappearing fast. Here's a video with some -shocking- imagery about what's happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atuqx5Ubr5o watch it, because all these videos become "not available" within a few days)
The socialist international celebrated the membership of the Nazis to their organisation in 1938 and were unwilling to kick them out until 1940.
Or should we point out that members of American academia were publishing articles in New York in support of the Nazis in ... april 1941 (a time when rumours of the holocaust would have known far and wide, even if the scale and cruelty was still hidden, the article in fact mentions and dismisses the rumours as not something leftists would do). The exact authors were leftist, but let's not kid ourselves, it doesn't matter, because both left and right on the American side were mostly in favor of leaving Europe be at the time.
Or perhaps we should point out that the leader of islam, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, at the time organised a few extra Jew-hunting SS divisions manned by muslims for the Nazis (21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLvP2jTVq8&bpctr=1482035683 ) ? Islam, the organisation, recruited for the SS ! They recruited Jew-hunters knowingly. They did this, incidentally, when they already knew about the holocaust (even if of course it wasn't officially confirmed at the time). This [1] is an islamic SS division logo.
I feel also obliged to point out that the leader of islam did this partly to protect muslims in Yugoslavia, partly to gain political control of Albania and parts of Yugoslavia, and ... partly to eliminate Jews.
A lot of things happened because of alliances with the Nazis. At least 4 Northwest European universities (most, but not all, of the atheist ones) have their existence to thank from an alliance between them and the Nazis. At least one university has it's existence to thank to vehement disagreement with the nazis (a set of professors so unwilling to even talk to the nazis that they left their university when the Dean did talk to the nazis and worked for free for years to create a new university - and yes, they were French Catholics (and beggars, for the last 2 of those years). And no, that was not their only motivation, just the main one).
The dutch state, including several parties currently in power, were allied with the Nazis. I believe it's 3 current ministers were mentored by people who personally allied with the Nazis. For decades, several Kapo (let's just say that means particularly bad collaborators) held high offices in the Netherlands. More telling is that this is not of any real concern to the population. Similar things can be said about the Austrian, Swiss, Italian and even Greek states, and ...
About the US government, IBM, with explicit permission from the US government (they asked), provided the system that did the bookkeeping for the holocaust. They even programmed the rules for deciding if someone was sufficiently Jewish to be sent to the gas chambers. Yes, seriously, IBM was the organisation that made, for millions of people, the decision if they were to be ethnically purified for being "too Jewish" or not. They didn't make the rules, but they executed them.
You are trying to push an absolutist moral view upon a situation where people needed to compromise with adversaries with an army that were willing to commit mass-murder to push their point. You'll find that there are people and organisations you work with today that owe their social/financial position to the Nazis directly and indirectly.
Furthermore, you are demanding a moral standard that just isn't reasonable. Some of the people mentioned above did what they did because the alternative was death. Yes, after the war anyone that wasn't willing to sacrifice their own life to sabotage the Nazis was persecuted because of that. This is not a reasonable standard, and let's not pretend it is.
But frankly, the Catholic church behaved incredibly better than anything else in Europe in the runup and during the war. They put themselves above religious differences. Were they perfect ? No. Wasn't possible. But they helped far more than anyone could expect of them and they paid an extreme price for providing that help. Tens of thousands of catholics, priests, monks, and volunteers were executed because they participated in resistance organised from within the catholic church. Most of those would have been aware of the risk of being executed, and can therefore be said to have willingly sacrificed their lives. Hundreds of thousands of members of the Catholic church resisted the Nazis, at risk of their lives, and did not get caught. The Vatican saved more lives than all other organisations put together, by between one and two orders of magnitude.
And, as illustrated above, the same can NOT be said of either states, other religions, political parties, including many that still exist today.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_...
Wait, what? All I did was point out that the quote was fake, and link to some relevant history. I'm not trying to push anything.
"The Catholic Church", on the other hand, attempted to compromise with Hitler.
I know this is kind off-topic, given that the article is about this guys new book, but I've been diving more into modern history after studying mostly ancient and world history. Perhaps some other knowledgeable people can point to good resources on WW2 history? On WW1, I found "The Fall of the Ottomans", "The Sleepwalkers", and "The Guns of August" very insightful, but there are just so many resources for WW2.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_Novem...
ps: experimental printfriendly.com pdf sharing http://pdf.printfriendly.com/pdfs/1482008632_de749b/download
pps: reminds me of that article shared on HN not long ago http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/09/23/the-milo-criterion/
limits of system evolution
Sites will display the article when coming directly from google if you don't have certain cookies from prior visits. Private/incognito ensures the cookies "dont exist".
Here's an excerpt from Sartre's Anti-semite and Jew [1]. I think it's illuminating:
The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at
the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons.
How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and
frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to
him. He has placed himself on other ground from the
beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to
defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give
himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty
onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some
remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews
because they make servants insubordinate, because a
Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐
Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their
replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open
to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is
their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly,
since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right
to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving
ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their
interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they
seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate
and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will
abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that
the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid
of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or
to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning
over some third person to their side.
In order to resist fascism one has to have the conviction to fight for something that fascism seeks to destroy.[1] https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Semite-Jew-Exploration-Etiology-...
This is likely why you find so much of business embracing fascism, as they to appeal to those same instincts to drive the consumer economy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...
And Hitler, along with a second industrial war, was inevitable. I'll even go as far as saying that we were lucky that Hitler happened, because one can argue that he made a lot of tactical mistakes and in other circumstances the Axis might have won.
And I hope we learned something from it, though judging by 2016 I have my doubts.
> there are among even the most terrifying of targeted massacres such as during the regime of pol pot or the misery of rwanda nothing comparable to the holocaust. Jewish children were being hanged from windows in the neighborhoods of germans whose neighbors knew the families. the german people eagerly and happily enjoyed herr hitler and his band of sick psychopaths and perverts and lest we forget to mention it, drug addicts. those who stood against these crimes were murdered along with the Jews. beyond everything, it was the automation and the mechanization of killing innocent Jewish german citizens and gassing and hanging 1.5 million little Jewish children with great purposefulness that gives the german inquisition its special ignoble bloodstamp on history. we have the evidence of the smiling laughing hitler saluting audiences crammed together because there were hardly spaces large enough to hold them all. don't use the word comparable. just don't.
The only occurrence of the string 'compar' in the article:
"Mr. Fritzsche [the author of the book described] does not labor this point by comparing the situation with those that came after..."