Hacker News Reader

Comment by lafar6502 | Hacker News Reader

Its remarkable how you can apply engineering / industrial methods to a mass killing facility so almost nobody feels guilty. Certainly the construction workers can't be blamed that they built the crematoria, railways can't be blamed for transporting people to death camp, chemists for inventing the Zyklon-B gas or guards for making sure nobody escapes. Everyone just did their job pretending that it's OK if you don't hurt anybody personally. I dont want to judge them, evil sometimes happens just because it's allowed to happen.

View on HN

Thing is it all happened in steps:

Germany invades Yugoslavia, he is drafted, he's picked for Waffen-SS, he is sent to guard a concentration camp. At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself.

I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended?

>At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself.

Millions of people have "sacrificed themselves", in the sense that they died fighting to get rid of the nazi regime, and tens or hundrends of thousands also sacrificed themselves by going into the resistance, aiding jews and other fugitives, sabotaging german camps in occupied cities, etc. There are lots of recorded examples of people who faced the firing squad singing or shouting for freedom. So he always had that option too.

>I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended?

Hitler had broad mass appeal for over a decade. He wasn't some crazy dictator who suddenly imposed himself upon the German people. What he preached was actually a general sentiment, repeated by lots of intellectuals, politicians and pundits in one form of another, as was the "historical role" of Germany etc (come to think of it, not that unlike "Manifest Destiny" or the idea of "exceptionalism").

He had detailed his plans, including racial hatred and even extermination, and he had given several bloody examples. He not only was voted for in '33, but he continued to have great popular support even after the war started. It was not just silent forced compliance. Millions applauded those actions, even going out of their way to enable them.

He was never voted to be Chancellor (or CEO by any other name). The Nazi party didn't achieve higher than 33% or so in national elections. That number still qualifies IMO as "mass appeal" so I'm not disagreeing with your point, just clarifying.

I must correct you: The NSDAP did reach 43% at the 1933 (March) election. You could argue, that at this point the NS-regime had already taken over the power. But the NSDAP did also reach 1932 (first election) more than 37% and was the biggest single party in the Reichstag. Also you must count in the other right-wing parties that supported Hitler. With this in mind, you could rightfully say that the right-wing movement (together with Hitler) was popular in big parts of the German population of this time.

Of course, Hitler only could seize power, because the other parties where in controversy and the whole country political unstable. But you also have to keep in mind, that huge parts of the population where no friends of Democracy and wanted to have the Kaiser back.

Also: As much I know, even in those time, it was not possible for the population to directly elect the chancellor. The chancellor was "appointed" by the president. The precondition was, that he had a sufficient support in the Reichstag. That was the case in 1933, because other parties allied with the NSDAP. That is rather similar, how today the government is formed. In Germany, seldom one party can rule the country alone, even today when we have very much less parties in the Bundestag.

"33% or so" -> 37% is about right, but unless my history is wrong here, I think you've fused a couple different events... In 1932 Hitler ran for President, and it was his name directly on the ballot not the National Socialists. He actually pulled just 30% of the vote, which increased to 37% in a runoff with Hindenberg.

The point I was making is that he wasn't voted by popular support. And when he did ascend, Hitler wasn't appointed Chancellor because Hindenberg thought he had the support of the reichstag. He was appointed because Papen thought he could outsmart Hitler and that he as vice chancellor and Hindenberg as President could control Hitler. They were fools, Hidenberg was old and tired, Papen was delusional.

Anyway, no question it was a fascinating and intriguing time in european history.

I don't want to ride on numbers here and I admit that "33 or so " can be counted as 37%.

But: I only looked on "Reichstag" elections -- not Presidential elections. I might be wrong here, but Reichstag should be Reichstag. The numbers where from the German wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstagswahlen_in_Deutschland...

What we here are discussing is really depending on focus. Fact is, that the NSDAP had more seats in the Reichstag than any other single party in 1932 and 1933 (3 elections -- they had many, because of the instabilities of the governments). In the US, there are only 2 major parties -- so the party with the absolute majority wins. But in Germany (also today) it is very rare, that one single party reaches 50% or more of the votes. It is really very often, that the biggest single party has 33% or less of the votes. What is done, a coalition is made with an other party -- or even two other parties to reach a majority.

Same thing was done 1933. So it was totally normal, totally legal how Hitler reached power (at least by the letter). And: 33% of the people are a big part of the nation. So, the NSDAP had big support even 1932 in the country. That is fact, as sad it is.

The biggest single party in today's Germany had 2009 also only ~33% of the votes, and where building a government with an other party. In 1949 it had even only 31% of the votes and formed the government together with two other parties.

You are right with Papen of course. He was from the Centre (Zentrum) party. The big parties rejected to form a government with the NSDAP, because it was no democratic party. But Papen changed that and formed an evil coalition, where the Zentrum literally supported the devil.

Hitler didn't have, and didn't need, broad mass appeal because his gangs, first the SA and then the SS, terrorized the people into supporting him; the SA in particular operated when Germany was very fragile and looked like it might fall in line with Stalin, who would have been terrible for Germany as well. Hitler was effectively supported by the German establishment as being someone better than Stalin, someone who would actively fight the extreme Leftist forces.

There is a Moral Lesson to be learned from Hitler, but it isn't that functional democracies can just collapse due to a single election going the wrong way. It's that marginal democracies with severe internal problems can collapse if one gang gets more support from the establishment than the others, and if the establishment doesn't check the gang's powers quickly enough.

>Hitler didn't have, and didn't need, broad mass appeal because his gangs, first the SA and then the SS, terrorized the people into supporting him

Not really. Germans were mostly thoroughly enthusiastic, and this has been shown in several historical studies of the era.

Hitlers SA actions were about terrorizing communist and liberal dissent, not about terrorizing the large masses.

E.g:"Few twentieth-century political leaders enjoyed greated popularity among their own people than Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s. This remarkable study of the myth that sustained one of the most notorious dictators, and delves into Hitler's extraordinarily powerful hold over the German people"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Hitler-Myth-Image-Reality/dp/019...

"Daniel Goldhagen re-visits a question which history has treated as settled, and his research leads him to the inescapble conclusion that none of the answers holds true. That question is: How could the Holocaust happen? His response is an exploration of German society and its ingrained anti-semitism that demands a fundamental revision of our thinking about the years 1933-1945. The author marshals fresh, primary evidence - including extensive testimony from the actual perpetrators - to show that the killers were ordinary Germans who were not compelled to act as they did (they knew they could refuse without retribution) yet they killed willingly..."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitlers-Willing-Executioners-Ordinar...

"From the Nuremberg Laws to the Olympic Games, Kristallnacht to the Hitler Youth, this gripping account shows how a whole population became enmeshed in a dictatorship that was consumed by hatred and driven by war."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Third-Reich-Power-1933/dp/014100...

> Not really. Germans were mostly thoroughly enthusiastic, and this has been shown in several historical studies of the era.

What do you mean Germans ? Austrians were pretty damn enthusiastic. New Yorkers were pretty enthusiastic (until the Poland invasion). Europeans were pretty enthusiastic (again, until Poland).

You might even say that the world was pretty enthusiastic. Well, only half of the rightist nut-cases, and only half of communists (Hitler managed to simultaneously introduce a crap-load of leftist advancements like pensions, right to a job, invalidity benefits ...) and fix the economic situation of the Weimar republic by threatening other leaders, although most was accomplished technically through "negotiation". This made him pretty fucking popular on the left, who saw it as vindication of their ideology (spend your way on social projects out of recessions) and on the right, who saw that he fixed the economy).

I realize this may be hard to believe, but Hitler had 75% of aisle firmly behind him right up till the day he invaded Poland, and after that it only dropped to 40-50% or so until the USSR declared war on him. Of course it varied from place to place and time to time, but if he wanted, he could probably have had himself elected major of Washington. Or Paris, for that matter.

It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders. Some guards in camp were even Jewish. Nobody pretended anything, they just wanted to live a bit longer.

Just compare it with US prisons or Gaza, everyone is fine with those today.

>It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders.

If only it was that clear cut.

Actually higher personel, as well as guards and soldiers were known to be extremely sadistic, from using women as sex slaves (the "joy divisions"), to cruel games with killing, maiming prisoners for fun, and everything in between.

It wasn't just "following orders". There was sadistic enjoyment, and sense of a higher race getting rid of unwanted parasites in lots of these people.

That some prisones built crematoria and operated infrastructure (under threat of death) is just a technical detail.

Also, the camps themselves were built by businessmen. Hitler had strong ties to German business. He gave many handouts to business over the years, including labor conscription.

Another perhaps little known to some fact is that tons of people, especially businessmen and politicians, viewed Hitler favorably in the US, until they entered the war. Including his views on Jews etc.

He was a kind of their mascot against "the reds" and against unruly workers and working classes in the US.

Also, contrary to some belief, before and even during the war, the US mostly could not care less about the plight of Jews at the time, even when it was known what was happening to them. E.g

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_...

I would not call even situation I described 'clear cut', and I think you watched far too many movies.

No, I read far too many historical books. Including from actual labour camp survivors, like Primo Levi.

Not sure were you got this idea that guards mostly involuntarily and under force did what the did, without active (and sadistic) participation...

Yes, there is absolutely a direct line running from systematically murdering over 11 million innocent people to incarcerating people or killing 2,000 people in a war.

Lets cut all roads to Manhattan and destroy infrastructure every now and than. I am sure everyone will be just fine after 70 years :-)

The Nazis didn't cut roads or destroy infrastructure in the Holocaust, they methodically murdered a lot of people. I really don't see the comparison to the US prison system or to recent events in Gaza.

Just follow the thread.

My point is that nobody can really blame individuals, who are protecting their ass, for participating on evil.

We probably both agree there is something wrong with overblown prison system. But we would hardly blame prison guard for participating. Also we would probably agree to punish prison guard who helps prisoner to escape.

Also some innocent civilians died in last Intifada, but nobody is demanding head of soldiers who killed those civilians.

You do realize that Hamas uses the infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc...) for their attacks? It's safer for the IDF to shoot a rocket then perform a land operation.

I'm not fine with them. But, I'll admit that I haven't done anything other than complain about them.

This premise reminds me of the plot of a movie, I think it was The Cube. From what I remember, it dealt with how bureaucracy could be used to perpetuate evil, without those involved thinking that what they're doing is wrong.

Once the machinery is in place, inertia makes it very hard to stop: the cogs don't need to worry about the bigger picture, they can just keep on turning.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/

There's a term for this exact phenomenon - Little Eichmann:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns

This ties into the concept of the "Banality of evil" which plays out pretty much exactly as you described.

It's not the same or of the same scale, but every time a massive scandal comes out I think on this. The thing I have in mind currently is the BBC and its group of molesters and rapists that were protected and covered for. It also appears UK politicians were up to the same stuff, but it has been much more successfully covered up. The average moral compass is pretty damn poor when peer pressure rears its ugly head.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com